Talk:Vulva/Archive 1

Analogy with Penis
It's strange that photos of Penis are allowed but photos of Vulva have been removed, though both originate from the same site (alt.sex FAQ, http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/) -- 210.214.131.161 18:41, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why can a penus be shown but not a vulva? Perhaps another men think of sex, women don't mindset? please, dont give me that bull.... A photo of a vulva is due here, either that or eliminate the penis photo too. Antonio Vulva Man Martin


 * Excuse me, but there are already 6,315 images of the vulva on this page. The issue isn't that no one wants to allow a vulva to be seen, but that there are already enough photos there.  Now knock it off. Nandesuka 11:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Image already at Clitoris
If whoever uploaded Image:Clitoris.jpg could remove the zoomed box, it would do well for an illustration on (or at least a link from) this entry. Marnanel 03:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's been replaced (by an image whose copyright/license isn't disputed). [[Image:VulvaDiagram-800.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A picture of a human vulva that I find aesthetically more pleasing, but doesn't show the clitoris glans or urethra.]] [[Image:HumanVulva-NoText-PhiloVivero.jpg|thumb|200px|The same picture, without text or copyright information to allow for translations into other languages.]] Here are two images that might be a little more aesthetically pleasing than the current. The only way in which these images are inferior to the one currently on the page is that the clitoris glans is covered by this female's larger clitoral hood. On the other hand, these images are far higher resolution, are in colour, are better lit, and are available for adding text in other languagues. PhiloVivero 14:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have changed it for a clearer and more detailed image. Bobble2 19:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Links to deleted images
Moved from Village pump on Saturday, August 2nd, 02003.

Could someone take a look at vulva? It contains two image-links which point to deleted(?) images. I presume the whole block of stuff surrounding the links should be deleted, but I am hesitant to do so, since I haven't really figured out this whole image-thing. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 14:55 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

New image - from Perineum
I dared to be bold and included the picture of a vulva (quite conveniently already with explanations) that I found at perineum. What do you think of it? - Marcika 18:06, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Dear God, I never thought I could find that kind of ugly picture just browsing by clicking "ramdom Page". To make it short, I don't like it at all and think we should just find a good drawing ... Aurevilly 16:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The image, while generally good, should label the vaginal opening and the approximate location of the urethral opening. Arguably, most men/boys interested in learning about the vulva want to know where the vaginal opening and the clitoris are, for obvious reasons. AxelBoldt 16:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The image from User_talk:PhiloVivero is slightly less ugly and available in a higer resolution... The picture here should be probably changed, once PhiloVivero deletes the copyright notice from the new one. - Marcika 18:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spurious word
80.40.54.184 (Spurious word 'wicked ' replaced by meaningful 'introduced'): "wicked" isn't a spurious word. Obscure, perhaps: "wick, v. To convey or be conveyed by capillary action". That said, "introduced" is clearer. Marnanel 14:41, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Concur. Although I disagreed with the reason for changing my word, I left the edit alone because I concede that "introduced" has less potential to confuse. Matt gies 19:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Homologues

 * The clitoral hood is analogous to the foreskin, not the scrotum, right? The article seems to disagree.

Image and page protection
I'm going to lock this page for a little while due to a revert war that is happening (I locked it a few hours after the last revert). I would appreciate it if we could talk about it on this talk page first. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disturbing images
Graphic and potentially disturbing images: &ldquo;This is a proposal to regulate the policy on graphic images that could be potentially disturbing to Wikipedia users. The policy shall be discussed for a period of two weeks, also giving users a chance to draft their own policy proposals, and the voting will start on December 15 and last for one week.&rdquo; For anyone who is disturbed by penis, clitoris, or any other body parts (including fingernails covered with certain shades of nail polish), that discussion and a subsequent voting seems to be a good place to voice your opinion in a way more reasonable than vandalism and edit wars like the one that is taking place on Clitoris. Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I just looked at clitoris, and I don't see any vandalism there. 12:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And that is because Clitoris has been protected again, unlike Vulva.  Rafa&#322; Pocztarski 03:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The poll above has closed, and there is no clear consensus. Andrew pmk 01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually one of the proposals (reproduced below) gained a strong consensus, with 33 for and 5 opposing.


 * Do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now. Revist this if it ever becomes a widespread problem that can't adequately be handled on a case by case basis on individual article talk pages as it is now. Policy should only ever be developed on an as needed basis, as excessive policy is both wasteful and harmful.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stop adding new vulva images
Please refrain from adding images that just show the vulva when we already have a more informative one. I am referring to [[Media:Vulva.jpg]]. LostAccount 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove the image (Image:Vulva.jpg)until we get some proof that it the uploader either ownes copyright to the photo or permission has been given to use it. --Clawed 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should get some different images...those photos are not the prettiest ones of the female genitalia that I have ever seen. Generally the inner labia are not so visible.JD79 21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What a horrible thing to say. Vulvas come in all types of variations.  Many women's inner labia are quite visible.  JustADuck 21:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

3 diagrams
Do we really need 3 diagrams of the vulva? Kaldari 03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Diagrams? No. But we do need more pictures of vulvas. The penis page comes with numerous photos displaying the variety of coloring, shapes, and sizes penises come in, and this is important to do---I'll explain why in what follows.


 * I feel that in view of the plastic surgery trend where women are having their labia altered in order to better match up to the "ideal" (i.e porn star) pussy, that it is extremely important that Wikipedia's definition show a wide variety of vulvas, and perhaps even include ones which have had operations performed on them (clitorectomies, etc.). As another contributor stated, vulvas come in all shapes and sizes, and the claim by one of contributiors that inner labia are generally minute reveals his/her ignorance about the variety out there.


 * I would like to stress that given that Wikipedia is inadvertantly informing people around the world what a "normal" vulva looks like, the vulvas of women of color need to be included, especially given that there are different phenotypes found more commonly in some ethnic groups than in others. Should a Wikipedia staff member request it, I will send in a picture of my own vulva.


 * The following link displays women whose inner labia are "large":


 * This link describes practies such as labia stretching (large inner labia was considered beautiful in several cultures): —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artofthehidden (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We should strive to find the best picture or pictures we can find, and we should endeavor to write accurate, cited, and neutral articles.  But we should not add content to articles with the goal of persuading or trying to make readers feel better about themselves.  That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.  Nandesuka 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your tone here, Nandesuka. In the light of WP:BITE guidelines, I don't think that Artofthehidden was suggesting any kind of soapbox.    I think she has some good points about modern, popular culture and and the partial ignorance of some.  That is exactly what an encyclopedia is about.  There are obvious copyright problems associated with the images she cites, but there is no reason why her points cannot be made somewhere in the main article here, and maybe one day illustrated by copyright-free and suitable images donated by kind contributors.  And that is exactly what Wikipedia is about.  --Nigelj 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Artofthehidden's objection. The pictures lead to an inherently biased definition. Assumptions based on predominant images in pornography should not influenced the definition of what consitutes a "normal" vulva. Scoo00T 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Extra Links added
I just added a link with a good series of drawings showing the development of the vulva from child to adult.

redirect
i think labia majora and labia minora should redirect to labia, not vulva. Gringo300 20:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"Moose knuckles"
I always thought that moose knuckles was the term for the male version of the cameltoe -- when a man's clothes are so tight that the outline of his testicles and penis are clearly visible. Anybody else? R 21:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Images
I have no objection to images of female genitals. Having said that, no article needs five barely-different pictures of its subject. tregoweth 05:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

how many different images do we need?
i concur with the other complaints about the inordinate number of images on this page depecting the vulva.


 * Well, there is only ONE pic here, and the penis page has 4 pictures. So what does it hurt to have one ugly labeled one, and one nice looking pic to demonstrate the cultural shaving phenom?
 * This page is not about the cultural shaving phenomenon. Perhaps you should place that image on genital cultural shaving phenomenon article. Nandesuka 04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but how about some equality with the male genital pages. Four pics there, one diagram and labeled pic here. Let one more picture go. unsigned edit by User:EaZyZ99
 * First off, there is no "equality" to be had. Each article in an encyclopedia needs to stand on its own merits.  When examining a picture, we need to ask what they add to the article.  To look at the images on the penis page &mdash; without admitting for a moment that we need to maintain "parity" &mdash; I count three images, conceptually:  one biological illustrated diagram, one series of two photos showing the penis in flaccid and erect states, and one series of two photos comparing circumcised and uncircumcised penises.  Each of those images serves to illustrate a specific point raised in the article.  The image that you seem compelled to keep adding to this article does not serve any such purpose, as near as I can tell.  I worked to have the photo of the glans penis removed from the article because it did not serve any useful purpose.  Unless you can explain what useful purpose the photo that you are obsessed with adding serves, I'll do the same here. Nandesuka 04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur with Nandesuka. —Locke Cole 06:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I reverted and removed the shaved image. I agree that is not needed in this article in this general encyclopedia.--FloNight 20:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Warning?
Shouldn't there be some kind of warning on/before this page about the image contained on it? I'm pretty sure some parents wouldn't like their young children looking at a picture of a vulva. -- I  Am   Ri¢h! 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. The question is whether the image is encyclopedic.  On the whole, I think it's fairly representational. Nandesuka 03:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I forgot about that, next time I'll remember. As for whether it's encyclopedic, I think it is. Well thanks anyways. -- I  Am   Ri¢h!  03:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What kind of warning did you have in mind? "The following images may provoke a feeling disgust in small children"? 82.32.60.14 19:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it might provoke a feeling of disgust. Young children don't even have a capacity to feel anything unnatural about nudity.  It's only after you've grown up in a society that shuns and abhors nudity for a few years that you start to get that "nudity is a shameful and disgusting thing" bias.  Remember, before we evolved the brains to make clothing (which was pretty recently), we were nude for millions upon millions of years.  -- Cyde Weys  06:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Honesly, I don't think its the kids that are complaining, its the parents who think that anything sexual should not be shown to the children. the images are not sexual in anyway.  Besides lets say a 13 year old boy looks up vulva and lets say this boy was looking for porn. He would probably read the article and then leave finding out that the pictures are not sexual. Quazywabbit 04:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, if God thought it was disgusting & shameful, he wouldn't of let us be born naked. Your body is beautiful, but keep it to yourself. We should all learn its beauty, but learn selfcontrol over its sexuality. Not to become sexually immoral. 69.67.234.235

It is pathetic to see how many people believe that humans must be born without nipples buttock or genitals in order to be acceptable. GROW UP YOU GYMNOPHOBES!!

vulval vestibule
it's been suggested that the vulval vestibule article be merged into the vulva article.

there are already individual articles for various other parts of the vulva. so why shouldn't there be an individual article for the vulval vestibule? Gringo300 06:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it's not that important or complex? A good guideline is to ask yourself, could this ever be a featured article? If it couldn't possibly be a featured article, it should probably be part of another article. —Keenan Pepper 13:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Kick?

 * This would surprise many females that think a kick to the vulva doesn't hurt.

This statement is rather strongly speculative, and certainly not encyclopedic. I think we can simply make the point that there are similar numbers of pain receptors and leave it at that. -Harmil 21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Go for it. --Cyde Weys 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic image
The vulva image with fingers is unencyclopedic. Do not put this image on the article with out widespread community consensus. -- FloNight  talk  17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I agree with FloNight's statement. The previous and now current picture has the virtue of looking more like what one would actually see "naturally", but the image that she has deleted, by spreading out the folds of tissue, did give us more "encyclopedic" detail, much as a diagram would.  But what amazed me was what you see when you download and blowup the image—my god those fingernails are dirty!  Let's get another picture of the same vulva three or four weeks later, and maybe we'll get an image appropriate for another article dealing with vaginal infections or something of that sort.  Gross!   (Maybe a diagram would be best.)


 * I am rather astonished at the apparently prudish and censorious attitudes being expressed here! Good grief - what century are we in! The photo shows all the relevant anatomy and so is surely encyclopedic, ie descriptive and explanatory. It is not in any way titillating or attempting to be pornographic. Your decision to edit out his picture is based purely on subjective criteria and, surely to most people's opinions, criteria which are outdated and even sexist (ie the female genitals are "shameful" in some way). You would never get this reaction to a picture of a penis!Bobble2 22:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2
 * People debate about which images to use on the Penis page all the time. A lot of this has to do with esthetics, which is of course largely a matter of taste. Nandesuka 22:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bobble2, I was an OB/GYN nurse for over twenty years and I'm very familar with the standard for images of the female anatomy. Problem with your image include, the vulva is distorted making it look different than an actual vulva; and the fingers in the image are very unprofessional. The current image is fine for the average 12 year child who is going to be main person looking at the image. FloNight   talk  22:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * FloNight, Ok, I have no wish to cause a war here, but I do think my image adds something by way of detail (sorry you object to Sarah's fingernails, but she is perhaps a little casual at times!). Could we compromise by using both images and indicating that one is a little more detailed than the other? My problem with the original image is that it does not really show all the relevant structures? Could an image of a perfectly normal vulva actually cause offence? Surely not?Bobble2 23:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2
 * FloNight, or I can edit off the fingers!


 * Bobble2, discussion is good. : ) I think we need one image of the vulva in the "normal" state. I would be open to a second image if it looked more professional. Editing out the fingers would greatly improve it. (I would like to see the final product before I say for sure.) Could you fix it and put it on the talk page for comment? -- FloNight  talk  00:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, the current side-view image isn't all that clear, while the finger-spreading one shows more. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed to zooming and cropping to focus on the vulva, eliminating the fingers and other extraneous areas. Alienus 01:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See Clitoral hood Many of the parts of vulva have their own article with more detail. IMO, the image on Clitoral hood is much better. We need at least one image of the vulva in the normal state. Not distorted. FloNight   talk  01:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by distorted? Alienus 09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input everyone! Most democratic. I have now cropped off as much as I can without losing the labels and I have attempted a slight perspective correction to adjust the slight top (near) to bottom (far) distortion. Is it now acceptable? User Alenius appears to agree, at least, that it is a clearer illustration. Thanks. Bobble2 09:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

I like this image on the Clitoral hood article better. There is less distortion of the vulva and the parts are labeled.

Can I ask what you think is distorted? The colours on my image are better. The clitoral hood image has a peculiar colour tint on it - looks orangey, somehow?


 * Well, now it's so zoomed-in that you have no context, and it's barely recognizable. I think that's what always happens to these images:  a few people want them zoomed, cropped, distorted, tinted, de-saturated, faded out and messed around with until they are barely recognizable, then they're happy.  The trouble is that no-one else is, so someone comes up with a new, clear picture and the "oh, my, what about the children/fingernails/erection/wetness/dryness" brigade get going again until it's ruined too.  Either crop it a little more until we have no idea what we're looking at (so we have to start again) or put it back as it was before, I say. --Nigelj 15:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree with you more, mate. I am still puzzled as to what the problem was with my image. It seems to me to be most "encyclopedic" as it shows the relevant things. Quibbling about the cleanness of my dear wife's fingernails seems somewhat irrelevant! If there are no more comments, I'll probably re-post the original uncropped version. Thanks Nigelj Bobble2 10:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

I think the image you posted a couple of weeks ago was fine. It didn't need to be cropped. It was called Sarah, or something. It was a good image.84.67.212.109 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems that I have with the new image: The most important of those is really the redundancy. This article does not need to have everything, as it stands in unison with the various articles that cover the details. The existing image lists all of the important parts and is well composed.
 * It's redundant with the exception of the exposed clitoris, which could go on the clitoris article (though it should be cropped down to just the clitoris itself for that page), and the entrance to the vagina which already has a far more professional picture (in diagram and photograph formats) at vagina.
 * The photograph is poorly taken. There is substantial washout from what is obviously a cheap fill flash.
 * The model is deforming the area in question, not just parting the vaginal orafice. This is a very serious problem for an encyclopedic picture.
 * The dirty fingernails are a minor point, but distracting from the subject matter at hand, none the less.

There is a minor point of Wikipedia conduct here, as well. This is essentially an autobiographical picture (in so far as the photographer/uploader is the spouse of the model in question), and that really means that others should carry on a debate over the image. If it is strong enough to stand on its own, then it is worthy of Wikipedia, but involving the photographer and spouse of the model means that there is a personal stake in this, and that seems to be a bad idea all around, no? -Harmil 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The new image is superior, precisely from an encyclopedic point of view. It shows things much more clearly than the other picture. I see you point about "having everything" but as this article is about the vulva (which covers all the sub-structures) it's important to have a good image. The vivero-becker one is quite inadequate.84.67.44.82 23:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, whether one agrees or not with the point of the cleanliness of the fingernails (and I submit, when the image is seen at full size is a distraction), it should be simple enough to take care of. He says that it's his wife, let her get a manicure and take the picture again.  Then we can debate about the alleged distortion of the image.


 * The least of my concerns are the fingernails, though that's certainly distracting. The redundancy, deformation and bad lighting are my big concerns. Others have said that they feel the other picture does not work, but I think that's a problem with point of view (not POV in the Wikipedia sense). What this article really needs, IMHO, is a picture to compliment the other pages such as clitoris and vagina, which have more internal detail. This article most needs to give us the whole, vulva as it is typically seen. That's not at all what the new image does. So I ask the obvious question: why did we need this picture to illustrate the vulva? -Harmil 13:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If I won't be egged for a "me too", may I just weigh in on the side of the "Sarah" picture. It is clear, well captioned, not salacious, and appropriate. I think both images should stay. --Slashme 15:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer the Sarah image too. Just keep both. What's the problem with doing that?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.44.82 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 May 2006


 * Here's the thing about debating change on Wikipedia: if you simply ignore the points that someone makes and ask, "what's the problem," then you never move forward. Please, feel free to respond to the issues I raised. Would anyone care to discuss the information at hand, and would the two people edit-warring of the article please join the conversation and leave the article alone for now? -Harmil 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Harmil, I agree with the points you made above. My biggest concern is that the vulva is distorted. Trying to get detail, the anatomy is stretched so it is not an accurate view. We need an image that shows a vulva the way it usually appears. There are other articles that show the clitoris and vagina in detail.

In all honesty, the inclusion of the fingers in the image is unprofessional and unencyclopedic. I've looked at images of vulvas in medical publications for 30 years and I've never seen fingers! FloNight  talk  20:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just looked through this whole debate again in detail. First, Harmil, no-one is edit-warring, so please don't try to escalate the language. The way I read it is that we have two people, Harmil and FloNight saying either that the image should go, or that it should be altered or be re-shot.  Then, the way I read it, about six of us say either it should stay, or make neutral/equivocal comments like, "People debate about which images to use ... all the time".  By this time Bobble2 has been persuaded to crop the image and the debate moves on from the, I believe, rather hopeless cause of whether there should be 'rude' pictures on WP, to whether this one is better cropped or in its original form.


 * It seems to me that the concensus is that it was better before (Nigelj, Bobble2, 84.67.212.109), so I edit the article to show the original image. Then I am surprised to see that Bobble2 reverts me, and Harmil accuses us of edit-warring!  At the same time, Harmil and FloNight re-appear and want to take the whole argument back to the beginning with let's delete it and/or re-shoot it.


 * So, the points you raise: If you have an image that, in your opinion, illustrates the article more clearly, more professionally, with less stretching of skin or better lit, then please put it up for discussion.  If you don't, then you can't really issue instructions to fellow-contributors as to what they should do with their free time to re-shoot it, edit it or whatever.  Many of us feel that the current illustrations are more than adequate and are happy with the contributions.  There is no question that they will be permanently removed just because they are clear, explicit and of vulvas (vulvae?), that is an established policy, considering the page is called vulva.  Finally, this is not a medical publication, but a general-consumption encyclopedia, and it is not 30 years ago either: times have changed.


 * Please don't try to bully Bobble2 into using a picture that he is less happy with ("Couldn't agree with you more, mate. I am still puzzled as to what the problem was with my image"). The concensus seems clear that having images is not just OK but good, these images are good ones, and, of course, one day we may be given even better ones. Let's get on with improving things and not just re-running old arguments. --Nigelj 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear, Hear! Thanks everyone. I genuinely believe we have an image that is more illustrative and informative. That is why I put it there in the first place! Phew! Anyway, I have cropped it, so please let's just have an end to this debate. Leave things as they are and move on. BTW just a minor point about "distortion" and the idea that my pic is somehow not an "accurate view"?! What is the "accurate" state of a vulva? When it is completely closed so you can't see the details being illustrated? It is hardly "unnatural" for a woman to hold her vulva open? Sigh. Bobble2 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Bobble2


 * First, I think thanks are due to you and your wife (she in particular) for submitting the image. I think it's a distinct improvement over what we had before. If you felt like re-shooting the image there's certainly room for improvements, but at the moment I think it's the best image of the vulva and female genitals available.
 * If you were going to re-take it, I think the ideal end-product would be two images, taken with the camera in the same position relative to the model, one with the labia relaxed, and another with them manually retracted (spread using fingers). As of right now, I don't think there are any photos of the same person in both positions; it would be useful if there was. But like I said before, right now I think it's the best depiction out there, and I think the critical comments about aesthetics are totally out of line. --Kadin2048 19:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's your new one? Al 19:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the fingers help give an idea of the relative size of the vulva. Perhaps having the penis style, erect/flacid image but relaxed/spread might be an idea --81.151.4.245 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This really isn't a very good picture. There's smegma around the clitoris and the fingernails are filthy. (Yecch!) We really need a better picture of a vulva being held open, preferably by someone with a basic concept of hygiene. Asarelah 05:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How dare you! Please do not be so rude. My wife has generously allowed this image to be used and I think the least you can do is respect her! Bobble2 09:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC
 * I'm sorry, I didn't know she was your wife. Please accept my humble apologies. Asarelah 17:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good heavens, I didn't even notice the fingernails until I read this discussion. I continue to think the image is an excellent complement to the "closed vulva" image.  Powers T 13:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the dirty-fingernails photo should either be re-shot after the model has an opportunity to clean her nails, or replaced by an equally illustrative photograph that doesn't feature dirty nails. No offense -- I understand that people's nails get dirty.  I just think that the dirty nails distract significantly from the subject of the photo, the vulva.  24.124.124.121 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So picky! I think the dirty nails are entirely irrelevent!CerealBabyMilk 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

People with good hygene and health should model.

Are there any visual signs of female sexual arrousal? If there is why not compare?

Vulva Pictures not representative of wordwide audience
Wikipedia is meant to be for a diverse, worldwide audience, but all we have is two pictures of a white woman's vulva. To provide a diverse POV, pictures of all different race's of women's vulva are needed. We need at least 10 more pics to cover this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.138.71.39 (talk • contribs)


 * No we don't, and I wonder whether you know that already, although I'm going to WP:AGF and take this at face value. There's a link at the bottom that leads to a web site dedicated to showing vulval variations, so we don't need to do this ourselves.  Besides, there's some truth to the saying about seeing one and seeing them all. Al 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Like Ron White says; "Once you've seen one woman nekkid...you wanna see them all" --Pascal666 20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your underestimating. With all the sub-racial categories and taking into account interracial people, we need at least 50 photos to cover all bases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosaf (talk • contribs)


 * Do you belive in races? Cuzandor 03:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the model should shave down there, because the hair is disturbing and gets in the way and distracts people from the subject area - anon


 * Disturbing?? A shaved vulva is disturbing IMO. --Jwwalker 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed de-inlining of pictures containing graphic nudity
I suggest that the vulva photographs be de-inlined, so that they will be displayed on the article page as shown here. We would still preserve access to the photographs for readers who wished to view them, but they would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit photographs of human genitalia. John254 05:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear oh dear! Let's not get ridiculous about this! We should not pander to prudes. What if someone happenes to object to images of the foot? Should we hide those too? The vulva is a part of the human body. There is nothing obscene or depraved about it. For God's sake - we are in the 21st century. If some people are shocked by looking at the human body, then quite frankly, they should get a life! We should certainly not be pandering to their absurd, personal limitations here! Bobble2 10:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Bobble2
 * I think that it is POV to make content decisions on the basis of the perceived reasonableness of our readers' beliefs. Rather, we should recognize, as a factual judgment, that a significant proportion of readers are likely to find images like these to be offensive -- not because they are "anti-sex" or believe in "shame over the human body", but because they feel that human sexuality is properly regarded as an expression of love between two people.  Therefore, they are offended by viewing a photograph that is likely to be sexually provocative of a person with whom they have no relationship.  However, we may also observe that there is another significant portion of readers who believe that images such as these should be included in the article -- not because they wish to offend people who unwittingly stumble upon these images, but because they believe that the images have significant educational value and thus improve the article.  To the extent that such images are sexually provocative, this latter group of readers is likely to see the effect as a liberation of sexuality from the context of human relationships to which it has long been confined.
 * We should recognize both views, but we need not endorse either of them. Instead, we could accommodate both views by retaining images such as these in the article, but only displaying them to readers who express an interest in viewing them.  "Images of the foot" and other images which, based on a factual judgment, are unlikely to be offensive to a significant portion of readers should remain coded for inline display. John254 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But by "censoring" the content you would be effectively endorsing the vailidity of a position (and only one of many possible positions) that sees something wrong with showing a part of the body. Don't you see? Wikipedia is purely an information resource and should not reflect the mores of any particular group. It should merely provide information. Full stop. Only the individual user can decide what to think of that information. We should not presume to do some of that thinking for him/her. Otherwise, we should indeed have to censor images of the foot because there will certainly be some people who find them offensive. We cannot possibly presume to cater for all sensitivities, so we should cater for none. You are proposing that we give "anti-vulva image" people favoured status by "protecting" them from offense. Surely this is clear?Bobble2 18:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Bobble2
 * De-inlining images which photographically depict human genitalia would indeed "give... favored status" to the sensibilities held by significant numbers of readers (not wishing to view pictures of human genital organs) while ignoring extremely uncommon, idiosyncratic sensibilities (the belief that bare human feet are indecent). However, since Wikipedia cannot be all things to all people, its basic structure has, and inevitably must, privilege common beliefs over uncommon beliefs about what sort of material should be included in an encyclopedia and how it should be presented.  For instance, the NPOV and verifiability policies appear to be directly derived from what the vast majority of people believe about how an encyclopedia should be written.  Necessarily, this privileges those who believe in NPOV, verifiable encyclopedias (who can find the information they want in Wikipedia) over those who want encyclopedias full of hearsay and blatant partisanship (who won't find their information in Wikipedia).  Clearly, therefore, we do not (and cannot) "merely provide information": we decide both what information to provide, and the manner in which the information is to be conveyed.  We do not thereby tell readers that they should think that NPOV, verifiable information is good and that biased rumors are bad: we merely recognize what most readers want.  Thus, given that the NPOV and verifiability policies do not constitute bias merely because they favor common beliefs about encyclopedias, neither is it bias for us to provide some deference to common sensibilities about what sort of material is "offensive" while ignoring uncommon and idiosyncratic sensibilities.  Indeed, to some extent, such deference to common sensibilities has already been provided.  For instance, consider the following from Jimbo Wales' log: "23:42, 5 February 2006 Jimbo Wales deleted "Template:User paedophile" (I'm sorry but just, no. I'm sure there's a CSD rule or three which covers this, but I honestly don't care. Just, no.)"  Similarly, it is highly unlikely that the Arabic language Wikipedia includes graphic photographs of human genitalia in any form, because most Muslims would find such material to be extremely offensive.  Since, in the English speaking world, a significant portion of readers would find graphic photographs of human gentitalia to be offensive and prurient while another significant portion of readers would view such photographs as educational and liberating, it is perfectly sensible, not biased, to accommodate both sensibilities by linking to such photographs in the articles but not displaying them inline.  By contrast, since people who find bare human feet to be indecent are extremely uncommon, their sensibilities can be ignored, not out of bias against them but merely resulting efrom an objective recognition that their beliefs are very unusual, and such images can safely be displayed inline.
 * Additionally, some deference to common sensibilities is not "'censoring' the content", because Censorship generally refers to some effort to prevent people from obtaining information. De-inlining the images doesn't obstruct anyone's access to them, it merely avoids inadvertent exposure. John254 21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone coming to vulva is expecting to see vulvas. I don't see any such exposure as inadvertent. Wikipedia is not censored. Al 03:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I repeat, we should not pander to these views. The idea that the vulva is offensive is just absurd. It is plain wrong and should be ignored. The vulva is only a part of the body! It is 100% natural and cannot possibly be offensive to any sensible person. This is fact!Bobble2 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

Oh, no doubt that it offends some people, but we can't avoid offending everyone and we shouldn't try. If we did that, we'd be reduced to a few bland articles about letters of the alphabet. Al 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Steady on! The alphabet? Are you sure? Doesn't the letter "I" symbolize the erect penis and the letter "O" the vagina? Pure filth if you ask me! Ban them all!!Bobble2 11:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

You may be right. We'd have to replace Wikipedia with a blank page, and hope that the color of that blank page doesn't offend someone. I'm told that white is the color for funerals in some parts of Asia; perhaps it would be seen as offensive. Al 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact some people will always find something on Wikipedia to be offensive does not imply that we should never be concerned with whether a significant portion of readers is likely to find some particular visual material to be offensive, and whether, in light of an objective judgment that this is the case, it is best to de-inline the material, and accompany the link with a short, accurate, NPOV description of the material that the reader will view if he or she follows the link. This principle is perhaps best illustrated with a real-life example.  In the United States, even most nudists generally avoid nude sunbathing on beaches used by the general public, and instead sunbath nude on beaches specially designated for the purpose, with other people who share their interest in public nudity.  This situation has arisen because of the offensiveness of public nudity to a significant portion of the general public.  However, when persons of Islamic faith claim that even people wearing bathing suits on beaches are dressed indecently, such complaints are generally ignored, because the belief that people dressed in bathing suits are indecently exposed is extremely uncommon. John254 04:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a "significant portion" of readers are offended is speculation at best. I have seen a fair number of complaints regarding medical photographs in articles like Penis, Breast, etc, but I have seen far more people speak in defense of the photographs than against them. Asarelah 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clear; I don't care one bit if they're offended. Wikipedia is not censored. If someone comes to vulva and is shocked to see a picture of a vulva, then there's no help for them. Al 05:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be another voice backing Al and Bobble2 up, I thought I'd pitch in. If you are offended by a picture of a vulva, then you have some issues to work out. I mean, for starters, you came out of one! Depending on your sex, you may have one yourself; depending on your sexual orientation you may visit one regularly. Vulvas are everywhere, and there's no point in trying to censor them here on Wikipedia. rom a rin [talk ] 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * EXACTLY!! Their easily offended sensibilities are utterly ludicrous and absurd and deserve no place in any civilised conversation. Ignore them. End of story. End of topic. Bobble2 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

So, John254, what makes you think this proposal would gain any more traction than the one you made at Talk:Human feces? If it's not clear to you yet, there is strong resistence to hiding images behind links here on Wikipedia. I'm surprised you found as many supporters as you did at Human feces; you're not likely to find even that many on any of the genitalia articles. I respect and appreciate your desire to keep Wikipedia from offending people, but the truth is, we just don't know how many people will be offended by any given picture. Longstanding Wikipedia tradition is that Wikipedia is not censored; regardless of whether this is actually censoring or not, the basic principle applies. Powers 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * AMEN. Cacetudo 13:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are spoiler tags for summaries on books, movies, TV shows, etc. Why can't there be something like that for certain types of images that a user may not want to view here? What if there are virgins who have never seen a vulva? That would spoil it for them (I'm just joking). Personally, I could look at those pictures and not be offended. I come here to learn and so I would take the time to look at those images if I wanted to know how it looks like up close, but those images caught me by suprise. And do they really need to be so big? Most articles thumbnails are not that large. It's also bothering to my eyes because I can't focus on the text. --Hecktor 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's widely agreed that images are good. Featured articles all have at least one relevant image.  Many encyclopedias contain similar images.  The size of the images may be a little large, but shrinking them is problematic because of the text labels.  Powers 23:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I clicked on 'random article' and found this. I am 12 and I would prefer not to see enormous pictures of female parts, thank you. Wikipedia's ingorance has scarred me for life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.80.139.8 (talk • contribs).
 * Someone point out to me the last 12-year-old you know that writes that well and uses words like 'prefer', 'ignorence', etc. Also, what 12-year-old boy do you know that is going to complain about seeing a pussy on the internet?  "Scarred for life", please - he's likely going to be seeing a lot more of those in not too long.  Lookup where the IP is from - guarenteed all his neighborhood friends are going to be on this article a lot. "Bullshit" called. JonathonReinhart 09:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I doubt you're "scarred for life". Powers 00:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I call bullshit, someone see if that IP matches up with one of our known pro-censorship idealogues and ban them if so. 65.125.133.211 20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just adding my voice - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED - PERIOD. Prudes can go to that imaginary hot place the believe in that is presided over some fallen angel or something and supposedly tortures them for all time (ok, i know exactly what all if it is.. i'm being obtuse) 65.125.133.211 20:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I find censorship offensive. If you're looking up the entry on 'Vulva' what do you expect? Should the text body of the article be de-inlined too? --Huffers 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving pictures around in the article
The article it self seems a clunky - why don't we move the second picture down a bit, so that it breaks it up a little. I'm not sure how to do this, unfortunately, so I won't do this myself, but I think it would look better

Stui 06:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic conversation
I am starting to get seriously offended by John254's preaching and sermons to the editors of Wikipedia on these talk pages. Is there some way I can view my watchlist without being subjected to his lengthy and self-righteous epistles?

I note that it has already been suggested that he "might enjoy making [his] contributions through the Christianity WikiProject", but I'm very worried about children and minors coming across his unfounded and unreferenced claims regarding the feelings and sensibilities of a "significant portion of [Wikipedia] readers", about which he apparently knows so little. --Nigelj 20:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nigelj's statement "about which he apparently knows so little" is a personal attack. Please see No personal attacks.  Additionally, I believe that my comments on article talk pages have been legitimately related to content decisions, and that Nigelj's characterization of such comments as "preaching and sermons" is false.  From Sermon: "A sermon is an oration by a prophet or member of the clergy. Sermons address a Biblical, theological, or religious topic, usually expounding on a type of belief or law."  To my knowledge, nothing I have posted to talk pages is even remotely close to a sermon.  Alternatively, if the words "preaching", "sermons", and "epistles" are used in a metaphoric sense, then Nigelj's selection of these particular words in describing my comments appears to be an implicit personal attack against me, based on the religious beliefs that WCityMike has ascribed to me .  From No personal attacks: "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them."
 * Furthermore, in regards to Nigelj's claim that I have made "unfounded and unreferenced claims regarding the feelings and sensibilities of a 'significant portion of [Wikipedia] readers'" I would observe that article talk pages are often used to debate inherently subjective editorial questions as to which most claims are necessarily unreferenced. Please note that Verifiability only "determine[s] the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace". John254 05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the talk page for the article Vulva. Please take personal disputes elsewhere. Nigelj, if you have a problem with John254, it would be a good idea to contact him on his own talk page. And John254, if you have a problem with Nigelj, you may do the same. If there is a serious issue regarding personal attacks and/or POV that needs to be resolved, a good place to take it would be WP:ANI. Thanks, rom a rin [talk ] 17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Scent
Maybe this can be linked to from some related article http://www.erotica-readers.com/ERA/ITEM/Scent.htm --Easyas12c 16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Filthy Picture Removed
Filthy picture of vulva has been removed. It is simply distasteful as the puss seems diseased. One anotated pic of the organ is enough. Have some decency and class, man. G. Mitterand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.228.58 (talk • contribs).
 * Did you even read the discussion on this topic above? Did you know that picture was of a fellow editor's wife?  Did you intend your message to be insulting to that person?  Powers T 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lt Powers! I am reverting this image as the general consensus was to keep it. Thanks all. Bobble2 10:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a joke, right? --einexile 09:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "the puss seems diseased..." What the -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callmarcus (talk • contribs).

"Cluttered" with images?
There seems to be a number of people now patrolling these articles on sexual matters and removing, or advocating the removal of illustrative images on the basis that they are 'cluttering' up the articles, and that there are simply too many of them: For very recent examples see User:Crossmr, User:Atomaton and User:Nandesuka. Now, I'm trying to assume good faith here. As I'm sure most editors know, we have an ongoing debate on these articles with ultra-conservatives of all descriptions, some of whom would like to see all 'rude' pictures, words and ideas banned from everywhere. Offer up any excuse to delete an illustration and you will instantly have a good few supporters from among their number. So, is there a new WP policy somewhere that we must reduce the number of images in large and popular articles? If so, please post a link to it here. I am familiar with WP:IUP, but that refers to articles with too many pictures for the current amount of text and recommends 'image queuing' on the Talk page until the article gains more text. That isn't the case in these examples.

If there is no current policy to support "uncluttering" WP of it's illustrative images, then it will appear that some of these deletions may be a subtle attempt to censor these articles, by another name. --Nigelj 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you're trying to assume good faith. Based on your comments, though, I urge you to try harder.
 * I agree with you that there is no explicit Wikipedia policy or guideline, that I could find, called something like Don't Have Articles Look Really Ugly By Being Cluttered Up With A Bunch of Redundant Images That May Or May Not Have Anything To Do With The Topic At Hand. However, if you think that this means that we should not be constantly on the lookout for ways to improve the appearance and readability of our articles, then we will have to simply disagree.
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not "patrolling" the sexual articles on this basis specifically. It's simply that the sexual articles seem to be more problematic than most in terms of clutter.  I have yet to encounter an edit war on, say, Intellivision where editors were fighting over whether the picture of an Intellivision would be this guy's or that guy's, but the sexual articles are constantly besieged by editors who &mdash; for whatever reason &mdash; have decided that the most important thing in the entire world is to add a picture of their penis or their vagina into the article.  This ends up sometimes "compromising" by saying "Well, let's just have 6 images of penises in the "penis" article!"  And that is, not to put too fine a point on it, really really stupid.
 * I'm sure there are people who want to eliminate all sexually explicit images from Wikipedia. I'm not one of them.  I have a firm track record of opposing censorship:  articles on sexual topics should have a reasonable number appropriate images.  That is no excuse for not being dedicated and conscientious editors.  Editing is about deciding what to include and what to exclude.   You wouldn't allow an article to contain 5 paragraphs that repeated the same thing over and over, and neither should you allow an article to contain 5 images that repeat the same thing over and over.  Nandesuka 01:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah but every Intellivision looks the same, whereas every vulva is different. There's something to be said for illustrating variety.  Powers T 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. One of the issues I think is relevant here is that high school text books would lead one to beleive that all genitals are the same. Indeed there are wide variation between individuals, not to mention differences based on race, age, and whether they have given birth. More is merrier. Trollderella 01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Critic
You could choose with more a clean neals ! --Wikifriend pt001 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that thoes aren't perfect images... maybe the thumbs could be smaller, so ppl would click if interested, and wouldn't click if they feel its not right to them...--R2cyberpunk 03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

more pictures
the penis page has many more pictures than here. Furthermore, why are there no pictures of brown/yellow/black pussy? Even though they are all the same colour (pink) inside, it simply isn't fair.

also i believe a picture of a elephant cow's pussy is justified to mirror the penis page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.220.183 (talk • contribs).


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Powers T 23:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving the images down
As much as the images have been debated, I would like to ask if they could be moved down on the page, so they don't appear flashing right in your face as you open the page. I'm foreign, from Europe- and I had no idea what the word "Vulva" meant so I looked it up and this is not quite what I was expecting. These pictures sicken me, but I realize they are important so all I ask is that they would be moved down, making them a tad less shocking to viewers than they currently are. - James R. Rock 22:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"These pictures sicken me": I hope you, sir, is not thinking about becoming a gynaecologist. No but seriously, could the world be more open... It makes me think about people that are afraid of insects or arthropods and say "Ewwwwwww" each time they see a spider or an ant. It's just the women physiology, take it easy man. Be more respectful to the vulva, that's where you came from! 74.56.48.155 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite. There are many things that individuals may find distasteful, I, for one, feel sickened by the picture of George Bush on that page. The solution? Don't visit it... Trollderella 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah picture
With appologies to Bobble, as has been stated previously, the Sarah picture should be replaced with "Vulvabigopen2(english).jpg" I have no problem with the content of the current picture, but the picture itself is distorted, amateurish and (dispite the labels) better suited to a porn site than an encyclopedia. The replacement proposed shows the same information, and while perhaps not up to featured picture status, is a vast impovement over the current picture.


 * Well I for one totally disagree with this unsigned comment. The picture suggested has a very strong overall colour-cast, is way over-cropped so as to have no context or scale and is in general less informative. --Nigelj 10:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that picture is rubbish. Mine is much more true to life.Bobble2 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Do we actually need 2 pics in the article? I would think the second one is sufficient as it shows all the salient bits!--Light current 03:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

More pictures = more fapping. -unsigned
 * I think we do, in fact, more would be better - the second shows a more clinical 'spread' of the internal parts, but some more naturalistic shots showing natural variation would be good. Trollderella 01:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally think that having two pictures is redundant, and I consider the one on the right especially unnecessary (and somewhat disturbing). I understand that Wikipedia is not censored for minors, but I personally believe that the second picture contributes nothing new - at most, revise one of them to include all of the anatomic details listed and delete the other one.  --Nevhood 07:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While I do not believe that either picture is "disturbing" (they are both photographs of healthy body parts...), I agree that there seems no need to have two. --Strait 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously
We do not need phots, a diagram would be just fine. If you ever want wiki to be taken seriously as a reference, we can't have images that kids in school would get in trouble for having on the screen. There is no need that a diagram of an illustration cannot be used. --E tac 12:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that if kids in school look up pages such as this, they are likely either to be looking for such an image in order to cause trouble, or to have been told to look it up. I don't see that there is a case to remove images just because children might be watching, and this seems to be Wikipedia policy: WP:CENSORED. Sam Blacketer 12:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at this talk page and the pages of the others I edited before you gave me your little rant about how policy allows it, it looks like I am not the only one who has an issue with the photos. Did you even read WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, and can you honestly tell me that photographic images are essential to the information given in the article? --E tac 15:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The link is to a proposed policy, not to a current one. I was trying to guide you towards a policy change likely to help your cause. I wouldn't classify what I said as a rant. No doubt I could have written it as such but I was only trying to calm things down and avoid a 'revert war' where you might have ended up blocked from editing while you were only trying to help. Sam Blacketer 15:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not going to get into a revert war, it is just sad is all. A few people here are so adament about putting distasteful pics on here when a less offensive just as informative alternative is easily available, and they do it for no apparent reason at all. --E tac 16:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Slang Terms
Can we stop redirecting slang terms, and provide a summary of each? It'd be interesting from a language standpoint, and some of the terms might be worth having their own article (e.g. "Minge", and how it's unique to British slang only)
 * Agreed.