Talk:Vulva/Archive 5

Referenced addition to religion and art
I have included references to the worship at the Black Stone as a female fertility symbol. As requested the references were removed from the lede. Cpsoper (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019
Greetings

i have to bring this to your attention that in this article some one has inserted the Picture of kaaba( The Holy Place for Muslims) in this Wikipedia page. Scroll down and you will find it. Its quite disrespectful for our Muslim community. That a picture from Our holy place has been added into this. Because this picture has no place in this article. its present under the religion and art (5.4) sub heading. Image subtitle (The Black Stone is seen through a portal in the Kaaba).Please remove it from this page as soon as possible. FarooqOmer09 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ . The information and image appear appropriate for the section in the article.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The reasoning for the request holds no merit, however, upon looking at the sources, they're of somewhat questionable quality. I'll reopen this and let someone more familiar with the article decide.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sources are speculative. Apparently no one knows what the Black Stone originally looked like and the silver frame is of more recent origin. The image creates more visual support than the sources seem to warrant, especially for a casual reader who doesn't check the sources. Some oval windows are just windows. I removed the image accordingly. It is still available in the Black Stone article. The ref in the image caption gave no support for the image's use in this article, but I moved that ref to the body text since it is useful and available on line. If anyone disagrees with the image removal we can discuss it here.--agr (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The Black Stone is a revered relic for Muslims. It does not fit into this article. Its like putting any random pic in the midst of your article. That's not a good practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarooqOmer09 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Masum Reza 📞 22:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Vulva collage 12.jpg

Mons pubis vs. mons veneris
Regarding this, this, this and this (followup note here), I felt that I should just go ahead and bring this to the talk page for documentation. For the lead, Pyxis Solitary changed "mons pubis" to "mons veneris," and I understand why. Pyxis Solitary stated, "In females the area is called mons veneris. See George Milbry Gould, An Illustrated Dictionary of Medicine, Biology and Allied Sciences, pp 778-779 ('Mons')." Making a dummy edit, I stated, "Whether we call it the 'mons pubis' or the 'mon veneris,' the term 'mons pubis' is mainly associated with females. This was discussed at Talk:Mons pubis. The term 'mon veneris' is not used as often." Here is a permalink for that discussion. Pyxis Solitary replied (with a dummy edit), "It may not be as pronounced but males have a mons pubis. Since this is the vulva article, it's important in the interest of education to inform readers that the female mons is called mons veneris & info is supported with an authoritative source." But the article already informed readers of this; we can see this in the Mon pubis section that Pyxis Solitary edited. It's just that "mons veneris" was not in the lead. In that section, Pyxis Solitary removed "sometimes" with regard to "sometimes used," but "sometimes used" is more accurate. I replied (with another dummy edit), "I understand why you added it it, but, like I stated, males usually are not described or categorized as having a mons pubis. This is clear from various anatomy sources. It's why there is currently nothing in the Mon pubis article about males. It's why I and other anatomy editors feel no need to state 'mons veneris.' "

When one Googles "mons pubis," they will see that it is discussed almost exclusively in the context of girls and women. For example, what this "Neurology of Sexual and Bladder Disorders, Alessandra Graziottin, Dania Gambini, in Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 2015" book source on ScienceDirect states is what I typically see in sources about or simply discussing the mons pubis. It states, "The mons pubis is an inverted triangular area of fatty tissue, covered by hair-bearing skin lying on top of the pubic bone; it extends from the pubic hairline (the base of the triangle) to the glands of clitoris inferiorly (Standring, 2008)." We can see that all other uses of "mon pubis" on the ScienceDirect entry is in reference to the female genitalia. If we look at the entry about the mons pubis on the Encyclopædia Britannica, it displays a picture of the female genitalia to educate readers on what the mons pubis is. It's because of all of this that I don't see the need to state "mons veneris" in the lead. "Mon pubis" is the far more commonly used term and is usually used in reference to girls and women. If we are to state "mons veneris" in the lead, I feel that we should state "mon pubis (or mons veneris)." But I'm not going to strongly oppose Pyxis Solitary's change. I'll leave a note about this at WP:Anatomy (so that one or more anatomy editors may weigh in here), and leave it at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I get it. I get ya. But the key word in "When one Googles "mons pubis," they will see that it is discussed almost exclusively in the context of girls and women." is almost. I'm a stickler for facts. In regards to medical and scientific information, readers need to know the facts because generalizations and for granted statements are not a quality standard. Heck, I didn't know what a "mons veneris" was until a few days ago (and I've been mons pubising for a very long time). Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  02:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pyxis Solitary, we're both sticklers for facts. I'm also thinking of WP:Due weight in this case. Presenting anatomical text as it's usually presented in anatomical texts -- which, in this case, means simply stating "mons pubis" -- is factual and of quality standard. Using "mons pubis" instead of "mons veneris" is done in various (and most) quality anatomy and biology books, and in other references. We aren't doing anything that anatomical texts don't usually do. And, as we both know, Wikipedia is about following the literature rather than leading the literature. Regarding "almost exclusively," "mons pubis" is usually discussed exclusively with regard to girls and women. For someone to see "both sexes" in this case, they will typically need to search "mon pubis both sexes." Even when looking at the Merriam-Webster source noted in the aforementioned discussion, it states, "a rounded eminence of fatty tissue on the pubic symphysis especially of the human female." One can say that the source implies the inclusion of males, but it certainly doesn't mention them. The term "mons veneris" is not commonly used. Because of all of this, I've gone ahead and changed the lead to "mon pubis (or mons veneris)." Are you okay with that as a compromise? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * F22, the medical dictionary source I provided illustrates the female genital anatomy and describes the area as "mons veneris". I don't have a problem with your lead edit. (The mons sourcing glass is neither half empty, nor half full.) Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  04:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad that you accept the compromise. (We'll have to agree to disagree on "The mons sourcing glass is neither half empty, nor half full.".) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

New lead image taken from German Wiki
Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And reverted and warned. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES does not apply to anatomy, as was recently made clear by Meters, who was one of the editors to vote for the implementation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And to be clearer, MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES states, "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members." That line is specifically about articles about groups or similarly large human populations. This article is not about a group of people or a large human population. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to the reversion of my bold edit, I'll repeat my edit summary: I prefer the new image because it focuses on the anatomy of a single vulva rather than illustrating the diversity of vulvas, in addition to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. The closer S Marshall referenced Regular haircut as an example of an article that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES may apply to,  so I felt it may apply here too.  I am unfamiliar with what User:Meters has stated.  Regardless, I believe a single vulva better illustrates the topic, wouldn't you agree?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede image in this article is not within the scope of the 2016 discussion about ethnic galleries. A Brazilian wax isn't a haircut.—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. But you knew that I wouldn't before popping up to this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed lead image
I think this image better illustrates the topic than a gallery which illustrates the diversity of vulvas. (By diversity I am not necessarily referring to ethnicity.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The original (current) image is good and I think it is a better encyclopedic illustration. I agree with the comments in the previous section that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES does not apply as this article is not "about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations". Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppport Kolya Butternut. The RfC on NOETHNICGALLERIES is clearly intended to be broadly interpreted and sexes fit this category. This page has serious issues with gendered sexual bias and all galleries presented thus far are unrealistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_6 - Hunan201p (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconding Johnuniq. Vulva is not an ethnicity. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The basis for this proposal is not MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES.  While I did cite that guideline, my rationale is that this image better illustrates the topic by showing the anatomy of one vulva, whereas the collage illustrates diversity among women. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconding Johnuniq. Showing various vulvas, instead of one limited example, is comprehensive. Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  09:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That can be done in the body of the article.  Comprehensiveness is not what makes an image most illustrative of the topic.  The topic is "vulva" not "vulva diversity".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the collage one. It has all the info the image of a single vulva has in addition to info on variation. I see no substantial reason to change it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is inconsistent with other anatomy articles, such as Breast, Navel, Foot, Neck. If the collage is to be kept, can we have a proper rationale as to why a collage better illustrates the topic than a single image?  I wouldn't expect to see that as the lead image in an encyclopedia.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know of no rule or guideline saying we need a single image or that it is a standard to follow. That other articles have just one is fine.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I hear that, but that is not a reason why a collage is better than a single image. Why do we want a collage here?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is clearly not applicable. If your rationale for the change is not MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES then don't confuse the issue by mentioning it in your edit summary. As for whether we should use a gallery or a single image, the article has had a gallery for years. You made a bold change to a single image, it was undone, and subsequent discussion has resulted in no other support for a change to a single image. WP:BRD is being followed and consensus so far is to leave it alone. Meters (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, Meters. The general consensus of NOETHNICGALLERIES does apply to this article and the montage should be removed. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, per what is noted in the section immediately above, MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES doesn't apply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * NOETHNICGALLERIES does apply! It's intended to be interpreted broadly and doesn't apply only to ethnic-related galleries. The majority of people supported a broad application of this principle at the RfC, including the person who closed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_6 - Hunan201p (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can assert that as much as you want to, but even the closer was clear on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:APPNOTE I am informing all editors here of discussion on a similar matter at Talk:Labia. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I hear that, what I am asking is why is the gallery preferred?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly because of the generally unseen variation here. And more readily informative in the prominence of the infobox.? --Iztwoz (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * A collage is helpful on this article and Labia because young women in particular seem to think they all must look a certain way, and if they don't, they're abnormal and need cosmetic surgery. A collage shows that there is a wide variation. SarahSV (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We must be living on different planets. In what way do these Eurocentric images, lacking a single female of Black African or south/southeast Asian pigmentation, represent human variation? I assure you colorism is a much more widespread oppression than vulvaism. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I would suggest replacing the existing collage (A) with the very similar collage (B), which reflects a greater variance in shape, symmetry and size of the labia minora. --Buster Baxter (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to remove the piercings photos?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The upper left is the only example of a vulva without visible labia minora in that position. The middle one in the upper row is the only vulva of a woman of color.--Buster Baxter (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see.  I don't have a preference between the two galleries (although I prefer no gallery). Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Buster Baxter, "greater variance in shape"? Eh? Anyway, I prefer to retain the current collage since it shows variety not only in shape, but also grooming and/or pubic hair length or style preferences. Better to have more images showing hair than just one showing an abundance of hair and another with barely any hair. We've gotten complaints about mainly showing shaved vulvas. Also, the piercings are not representative. Having an image with just one piercing, like the current collage does, is fine. But having two or more images of pierced vulvas in the collage? Nah. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I propose the removal of montages from this article, as every one of them shown so far are racially biased and promote colorism/lookism. The pigmentation displayed on the montage(s) represents less than 1/4th of the world's population, and is heavily Eurocentric, with a disproportionate number of images that appear to belong to European females, despite European females being less than 5% of the world's population. Notably, not a single image on the montage is ostensibly black African. How's that for standards? - Hunan201p (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I feel that a gallery creates an expectation of representation which just leads to conflict.  A single example would not need to represent everyone.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * An illustrated image seems like the best solution here. We do not have any vulva montages that reflect racial diversity (the vast majority of women on Earth are nonwhite). But if we created an image with adequate racial diversity, that might also limit vulva diversity, or give the impression of a vulva type being associated with one race. It is unrealistic to portray all the diversity of vulvas with a montage. A generalized illustration for the lead image, preferably with neutral coloring, seems like the best solution. The rest of the images in the article can reflect a balanced variety of actual people and artistic depictions. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Less than 1/4th of the world's population? Are you aware of the world's population usually having a darker pigmentation than the images in the collage? I'm not. All so-called races can have the different pigmentation seen in the lead collage. If we want to get it across that one of the images is of a black woman's vulva, we could choose such an image with very dark pigmentation in mind if there were a good image for it on WP:Commons. We could put together a different collage. But let's not act as though all black women are of the same pigmentation. And either way, we aren't going to remove an image showing different types of vulvas, which is very educational, simply because you don't approve of the presented skin colors. Also, the image at the left-hand, bottom corner of the lead collage is ambiguous to me when it comes to ethnicity. Not that they all aren't. How do we know that the woman whose vulva is shown there is not black? How does one judge the ethnicities of vulvas? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to determine the ethnicity of a vulva, but simply its darkness. That is easily measured by comparing areas of the skin to images of women from Africa, South Asia, Indonesia, etc. Please note that African Americans in the Anglophone world are often of admixed ancestry and may be substantially North-West European. What I am proposing here is that this gallery is colorist and doesn't reflect the diversity of humanity on a global scale. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you support a single image with an average skin tone to avoid the challenge of a gallery?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would support that over this travesty montage where the only possibly nonwhite woman is probably a biracial white woman (or is it a white woman who had spent some time in a hot tub or a sauna?) - Hunan201p (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Biracial white woman? Anyway, as you surely know, many African American women with European/white admixed ancestry are dark-skinned. There are also light-skinned black African women. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The darkest depiction on both montages is probably 75% lighter than the lighest unadmixed black African woman. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In case it helps, the two women on the right in the current image, File:Genital Diversity Expanded.jpg, were described as Latina and Asian by the uploader. SarahSV (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Latina" is not a race and may describe someone of +80% European ancestry. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS:PERTINENCE and the proposal of a policy amendment
I was shocked upon realizing the gross Eurocentric image bias in this article and other medical related articles. The majority of images in this article depict females from the global North, with a disproportionate representation of white females, and also middle aged white females. Despite the fact that roughly 90-98% of women on this planet are not white or middle aged, depending on who we count as "white".

There must be equal representation on this website per MOS:PERTINENCE, therefore only perhaps 1 image out of 8 in the article would depict white females. Prior to my edits, about 9 in 10 did so, with the majority of the nonwhite women being light skinned East Asians.

The majority of images on this article should depict women with pigmentation similar to that of equatorial women from countries such as Indonesia, mid-India, and Guatemala, meaning an overall medium to dark brown color. A smaller number should depict women with the pigmentation typical of south India, sub-saharan Africa and large swaths of Brazil -- black. An even smaller number should depict women with the pigmentation most commonly seen in women living in lower latitudes in the global North, such as Japan, Mexico and Puerto Rico -- meaning light brown skin with dark vulvas. Perhaps one image should depict women with the pigmentation of central Europeans, although geographically more women living in upper latitude countries will have the coloration of women living near Japan or Mexico -- think of ethnic groups like Inuits, Yakuts, North Slavey, etc.

Furthermore, this article depicts too many hirsute women, both shaved and non-shaved, as evidenced by skin texture, razor burn marks, etc. The majority of women in mid-latitudal regions, where the majority of the population of this planet resides, are naturally glabrous and have a different skin texture from the majority of images in this article. These are ethnic traits that are not adequately demonstrated in this Eurocentric article.

I believe that if nobody cared to notice this glaring insufficiency and Eurocentric bias in the article, despite multiple mods and at least one admin being present, then a new RfC needs to be formed on this subject which sets a clear consensus on a Wimipedia policy page that articles should adequately represent the sum of humanity without any racial skin color or akin texture bias, especially towards extreme minorities like the lightest skinned Europeans. This does not even touch on the overabundance of European culutral depictions and art that is seen here.

The majority consensus in Sociology today is that Eurocentric sexual overrepresentation is toxic and must be deconstructed. Wikipedia can be changed at any time so we have no excuse not to start right now. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * An alternative solution is to stick to neutral illustrated examples just as most textbooks do. These images are usually more practical, as well. - Hunan201p (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The majority consensus in Sociology today is that Eurocentric sexual overrepresentation is toxic and must be deconstructed. "Citation needed". And MOS:PERTINENCE does not say what you are claiming. Also, your statement despite multiple mods and at least one admin being present makes no sense, because Wikipedia doesn't have "mods". But putting that aside, you appear to believe that we should take the backwards step of removing pictures representing women and their bodies, which are the same bodies non-white women have save for skin color, because those pictures don't represent worldwide skin color in perfect proportion. You're putting skin color representation ahead of sex representation. Your skin color proportion claims also seem questionable. The premise that our pictures need to represent the world population perfectly proportionately is not necessarily valid. Much of the world population won't be on English Wikipedia. And we are not here to right great wrongs. I agree showing a variety of ethnicities is good, but that doesn't mean ripping out pictures to instantly achieve a dubious interpretation of parity. So, I've reverted you here and at Labia because what to do with these pictures, if anything, would need discussion first, per WP:BRD. Crossroads -talk- 06:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Did you even read MOS:PERTINENCE? This is what it says:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images
 * "Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities."
 * Either you didn't read the article, or you're lying. And of course, deleting a few images of white females from the article doesn't bring it to parity, since the majority of images here are still of white women's genitals. More images will have to be removed in the future to bring it to parity, and images of women of color added. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, look at your link to RGW. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about adding informatation to the article about colorism. I am talking about neutralizing this article by removing the hyper-abundance of European images which make it Eurocentric, as it currently is. RGW says every article should be neutral. Almost all human images in this article being white is the opposite of neutral presentation.
 * RGW: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them" -- Hunan201p (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did read MOS:PERTINENCE, and it shows that you are the one misrepresenting it when you said above There must be equal representation on this website per MOS:PERTINENCE, therefore only perhaps 1 image out of 8 in the article would depict white females. It says "variety", not "equal representation". I see you would rather edit war the pictures back out and not represent women's bodies in an article about them. Whatever. Someone else will put them back, I'm sure. Crossroads -talk- 06:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the images in this article depict minority women from the global North. When 90% of the female population is excluded, variety is equality. To show the range of human variety, women from equatorial and southern regions of the globe, as well as the majority women from the global north, must be represented. That means images of white females and European culture/art will have to be knocked down to about 1/8th.
 * This article, as you reverted it, contained at least 23 images of white females, one image with a white male, and several artistic depictions created by white males, -- but only possibly as many as 6 images of nonwhite females --, almost all of whom are apparently light skinned East Asians. That is ridiculously racist and exclusionary, and you can't astroturf as some kind of feminist accusing me of removing pictures of women's bodies, when I already advocated adding more images of women of color. Your Eurocentric bias is showing. -- Hunan201p (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Accuse me or any other editor of lying or bias again and you will be going straight to WP:ANI. Crossroads -talk- 07:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing the images without replacing them, or even suggesting replacements is not useful. It damages the article. Do we even have viable replacements? The removal of File:Fresh_hanabira.jpg, the Hanabira image, seems particularly WP:POINTY. Meters (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And yes, I saw the possible alternative gallery, but what about the other images? I don't particularly care which images we use, but cutting stuff out of the article is not helping. Meters (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did suggest a replacement. I suggested replacing them with women of color. The wikimedia page at "human vulvas" has far more diversity than this article.
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_vulvas
 * Saying that I did nothing useful by removing those pictures would be like saying nothing useful was done by putting out a raging house fire, simply because I didn't replace the house in less than 1 hour. Certainly, nothing useful is accomplished by setting the charred remains of the house back on fire. Most of the images containing white females in this article need to be removed. Are you really trying to pick and choose?
 * This article has been damaged by the past several years it has spent presenting human vulvas with a Eurocentric bias, not by the ~1 hour it spent without a lead image. I'm honestly stunned to see people here defending this racial bias. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You stated, "The majority of women in mid-latitudal regions, where the majority of the population of this planet resides, are naturally glabrous and have a different skin texture from the majority of images in this article." Naturally glabrous? You are stating that these women are naturally absent of pubic hair? Any WP:Reliable sources for that?


 * To repeat what I stated in the section immediately above this one: "Less than 1/4th of the world's population? Are you aware of the world's population usually having a darker pigmentation than the images in the collage? I'm not. All so-called races can have the different pigmentation seen in the lead collage. If we want to get across that one of the images is of a black woman's vulva, we could choose an image like that if there were a good image for it on WP:Commons. We could put together a different collage. But let's not act as though all black women are of the same pigmentation. And either way, we aren't going to remove an image showing different types of vulvas, which is very educational, simply because you don't approve of the presented skin colors. Also, the image at the left-hand, bottom corner of the lead collage is ambiguous to me when it comes to ethnicity. Not that they all aren't. How do we know that the woman whose vulva is shown there is not black? How does one judge the ethnicities of vulvas?"


 * For more diversity with regard to ethnicity, in what way does WP:Commons have "far more diversity than this article"? WP:Commons overwhelmingly has images of light-skinned vulvas and images that don't focus on the vulva in ways we need them to for encyclopedic purposes. We don't want sexualized images, images with fingers, underwear or other objects in the way, images that don't capture the vulva head-on (meaning images that show the vulva from the side, etc. and don't adequately show its features), or images that show more buttocks than vulva. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for "deconstructing" anything. This is not a forum. If the image usage in the article is biased, then unbias it.  WP:BEBOLD and add some images, or remove some unhelpful ones.  Seek consensus if people object to this tweak or that one, but please do not come here and troll for a debate right off the bat without even actually attempting to do something constructive first. WP does not exist for "debate as a sport"; this is not Facebook, Reddit, or 4Chan. And no one needs an in-your-face socio-political activism lecture on an article talk page. That is not what article talk pages are for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Candlish, you're a comedian, man! Wikipedia is in dire need of "activism" everywhere and that's why the people that actually run this place have been scrambling to attract black editors (a form of ACTIVISM), as the site in full blown crisis mode with a 90% white editor base. The image content on this article is a TRAVESTY of exclusion and white bias. Go read the criticism of Wikipedia article's section on racial bias.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Racial_bias
 * "Wikipedia has been criticized for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an under-representation of people of colour within its editor base.[93] The President of Wikimedia D.C., James Hare, noted that "a lot of black history is left out" of Wikipedia, due to articles predominately being written by white editors.[94]" - Hunan201p (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if we could refer to reliable sources. Hunan, please supply a source for this: "The majority of women in mid-latitudal regions, where the majority of the population of this planet resides, are naturally glabrous and have a different skin texture from the majority of images in this article." That would give us something solid to discuss. SarahSV (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get in to a discussion about this side-lined issue of glabrousness, which you have apparently taken an interest in at the expense of the main argument, which is colorism. I will provide you with sources about the correlation between skin darkness and glabrousness and smoother skin texture, but I'll stress I'm not having a lengthy discussion about this, so as not to detract from the bigger picture. The primary issue at hand here is that this article's images are disproportionately biased in favor of white women, something some people seem to want to ignore. But I'm not going to derail this talk page from that core issue.
 * https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/anre.2014.77.issue-2/anre-2014-0017/anre-2014-0017.xml
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756870/ - Hunan201p (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Those sources don't support you seeming to have stated that women's vulvas are naturally hairless, as though they didn't go through puberty. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The core issue concerns WP:POINT violations. You have claimed a deficiency in the current article and the correct response is WP:SOFIXIT—propose some better images. Arguing that the current images should be removed because of what is written in Criticism of Wikipedia won't wash. Bludgeoning the talk page until everyone else goes away will not work. Your edits do not have consensus and will not be applied. See WP:DR for options which do not include haranguing editors. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked what images we should use instead of the ones currently in the article and got no useful response. It appears that Hunan201p wishes to remove images that don't meet his or her perceived fair ratio, but expects other editors to find replacements that will meet Hunan201p's requirements. It does not work that way. Meters (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Meters, the problem with making that suggestion is that there is another dispute concerning whether the image should be a montage or a single photo. If the picture is to be a montage, the problem is that there isn't one on Wikimedia that is diverse. Wikimedia, like Wikipedia, suffers from the same lack of diversity in its contributors and therefore suffers the same racial bias.
 * If you agree that the current lead image is not neutral, how can you justify defending it up there? Either you think the image is wrong, in the literal sense that it presents a non-neutral, racially cherry-picked version of humanity, or you don't. Please tell me whether you believe the current version is acceptable. The way I see it, having that horrid montage up there for god knows how many months or years has done far more damage to the article than having no lead image for a couple of days, until we can settle on a good illustration, single vulva picture, or a montage in which the share of women of color is higher than 16%. Please explain to me how having the lead image down for 3 days damages the article. I've already told you where I'm coming from, why don't you come out of your shell and tell me where you stand on the representation presented in the article? It is extremely difficult for me to communicate with people who shoot down my actions without informing me of whether or not they think the images on the article are even neutral. The only people who have made their positions known are myself and Kolya. The others (many of whom are admins) need to be transparent with their position on the neutrality of the pictures. Hunan201p (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation has an entire working Group dedicated to deconstructing the barriers to racial and gender inclusion that Wikimedia suffers from. Are you guys seriously telling me that Wikipedia is somehow different and that this is not the place to deconstruct racial bias?
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity - Hunan201p (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fallacious reasoning. What WMFs is doing as a nonprofit to reach deeper into additional segments of its constituency, and encourage their engagement with and improvement of all of the organization's projects, has nothing to do with what this wiki talk page is for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WMF funds Wikipedia so it very much hss something to do Wikipedia's content, especially when its hosted on Wikimedia. Wikimedia admitted it has a problem with diversity and thats reflected by the fact that they have so few images of people of color. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This says it all, really: "I am not going to get in to a discussion about this side-lined issue of glabrousness," (i.e., a claim of an alleged average difference on an ethnic basis, without any source, but which is the kind of information supposedly deficient in this article and why it is said to be biased) "which you have apparently taken an interest in at the expense of the main argument, which is colorism." (i.e., Hunan201p absolutely here to use this page as a socio-political debate WP:FORUM). I rest my case. This article may need work, but that sort of WP:GREATWRONGS grandstanding is not contributing to getting it done, and is actually getting in the way of that happening. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I provided multiple sources showing that darker skinned people at mid latitudal regions are more glabrous and have a smoother skin texture, which is what SarahSV asked for. She declined to respond to them, much as you have. Also, colorism is not a political debate, it's a banned activity on Wikipedia (which demands variety in human depictions on its pages). - Hunan201p (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Opinion Poll: Human Variation
I would like to see where the editors featured in this talk page stand on the ongoing dispute surrounding the "racial" representation in the vulva article, as it stands, 7 March 2020.

Please note that this poll will not influence or indicate consensus on this issue. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The only purpose of this poll is to see where the editors stand on the issue of skin color representation. Several contributors to this talk page have not definitively declared whether they view the current set of images on the page as acceptable or not. It becomes much easier to find common ground and a basis for constructive discussion when we all know where we stand.

I ask that all participants respond to the following 4 questions with a simple "yes" or "no" type answer:

New simplified opinion poll in response to -Crossroads-:


 * I'm not answering these ridiculous "have you stopped beating your wife"-esque questions. I doubt anyone else will either. My opinions and others' are made plenty clear above. This is tendentious WP:IDHT behavior; time to drop the WP:STICK. Crossroads -talk- 16:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What about these questions is loaded? You haven't made it clear whether or not you believe that the overabundance of white people on this page is neutral. Without a clear opinion from you on that, it's exceedingly difficult to converse with you, because if you don't agree that the abundance of white people violates neutrality, then I can't offer a solution, because that's step #2, which can only take place when most people agree that the article is not neutral.
 * Look, if you'll just state that you don't believe that this article is unneutral regardless of the fact that the human images are disproportionately white and European, I'll accept that. There's nothing I can do if the majority of people here don't think that the abundance of white bodies in the article is a problem. So I need to see a show of hands from the people involved here. Do you think the abundance of white images is an unneutral presentation of the human vulva? This is a vital component to having a discussion here so if you're not even going to make your position known, you're not cooperating. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if you found new images. Regardless of what others think about the racial representation, they may approve of new images.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not reciprocal. The prime values of talk pages are communication, courtesy, and consideration. They are not a place where people can only present their proposals to a shadowy group of jerks who get to refuse or ignore your concerns at will, without even expressly acknowledging whether your concerns about the page are legitimate, or not. If no one is even going to make their position on the neutrality of the article known, then they're failing to communicate, which is extremely rude and inconsiderate considering the brevity of what we are talking about here (racial exclusion).
 * When people are telling me  "Hunan201p wishes to remove images that don't meet his or her perceived fair ratio", it makes it seem as if they don't believe that the racial representation in this article is not unfair. And so far, everyone except Kolya has been disturbingly silent on whether or not the representation in this is article is neutral or not. That is rude, scary, uncooperative and uncommunicative. The talk page has to be a two-way street where the other side is forthcoming, too. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not participating in this poll either. In fact, since Hunan201p admits that "this poll will not influence or indicate consensus on this issue" this appears to me to be WP:NOTAFORUM.


 * For the third time (by me, and more including others), what images do you propose we use replace the current images with? Provide specific images for us to consider and I (and other editors, I'm sure) will be happy to consider them. If you do not provide images for our consideration, then your attempt to remove the useful current images is damaging the article and is WP:POINTY and disruptive. Meters (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply to talk pages. Read your own link. I added the note that the poll does not reflect consensus as this is stressed on WP.- Hunan201p (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hunan201p, WP:NOTAFORUM does apply to talk pages, especially article talk pages. That is why we cite it. Its "Discussion forums" piece states, "In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "(by me, and more including others)" Redundant much? The article isn't damaged by not having the colorist lead image. It also isn't pointy as Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive by default. What damages the article is its Eurocentric bias. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Find one new image and get opinions on using/adding that.  That should inform you of what other people think and whether they're willing to make reciprocal contributions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved    Calidum   18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Vulva → Vulva in Humans – This move was discussed in 2013 but there was no consensus. Given that I couldn't even tell if the word was limited to humans by my review of the article, perhaps it is worth reviewing the idea. But perhaps this is controversial and I lack any expertise or the time to make the case. Czrisher (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per what I argued back then. And to repeat some of what I stated back then, "Vulva anatomy and other topics about the vulva have been studied significantly more in humans than in non-human animals. A lot of topics on Wikipedia that are human-centric are mostly that way because the topic has been studied significantly less in non-human animals. As such, we usually keep the non-human animal material in the same article under the heading 'In other animals', 'Other animals' or as 'In non-human animals.' An 'In non-human animals' section should be developed before any split is considered." See WP:MOSMED. What academic sources do you have discussing the vulva in other animals? Why move this article when "vulva" will still redirect here and will be about humans (except perhaps a little bit of content on non-human animals in the future).? Where is the non-human animal content that would make it so that the Vulva article has a lot to state about non-human animals or that justifies a "Vulva in non-human animals" article? Also, although the closer of that 2012 RfC stated "no consensus", the votes leaned more so toward "oppose" and the arguments for oppose were stronger. You stated that you "couldn't even tell if the word was limited to humans by [your] review of the article." But, currently, there isn't any mention of non-human animal vulvas in the article or pictures of such. As is done with the Vagina article, we can make it clear that there is a lack of research on the female genitalia of different animals. But first, the Vulva article should actually include non-human animal vulva material. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nomination talks about a problem that might be solved with a hat note, and the proposed title is definitely wrong (wrong caps and a plural problem). When there is sufficient extra material for non-human vulvas, some solution involving splitting can occur. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Instead, information on nonhuman vulvas should be added if sufficient RS exists. --Equivamp - talk 00:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above; this is a solution in search of a problem. There is no article on non-human vulvas to distinguish from, and sources on the topic are naturally human-centric. Crossroads -talk- 04:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Being related to anatomy, and sexuality in particular, this is a naturally human-centric topic. The actual problem of not enough information about animals, which is why there's no good reason for a split here, is not fixed by this proposal. That would be fixed by constructive editing based on reliable sources within the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Other species
Other species besides homo sapiens have vulvas too. So, shouldn't this pages focus be altered and extended to reflect this fact. Alternatively, another page should be created for 'Vulva', along with this page being renamed to 'Human Vulva'? kimdino (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This was discussed recently, at Talk:Vulva/Archive_5. The fact of the matter is there's not much info in RS about the vulva in other animals. You're welcome to add information on them to the article if you have RS. --Equivamp - talk 18:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Human-centric problem
There is no content about other animals in this article so far. Such a label should be added at the beginning of this article:

BTW, I cannot edit this passage because of semi-protection. Administrators, help me to add that label. --John Smith Ri (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging an article is not very helpful. What would help would be suggestions of what text could be added, based on what reliable sources. As you say, this article is entirely about humans. The question is not whether additional information would be desirable, but rather what that information might be. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Genital Diversity Expanded.jpg

Marie Bonaparte
I will soon translate the lettering of the tables into english. Sciencia58 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Since this is a WP:Good article, I think all the more that the newspaper and pop science sources should be replaced with WP:MEDRS like the rest of the article has. I also think the historical background stuff in the section you added should be shortened and have some details trimmed. Crossroads -talk- 05:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sciencia58, I agree that's too much detail about Bonaparte, and it mostly uses old resources. It should be trimmed to one paragraph. Two small paragraphs for the limit. The heading should be cut unless there's more to say from more recent resources about "the study of the distance between vagina and clitoral glans". I know what you added isn't just about sexual arousal, but it's included in the information and the other things included if the detail is trimmed should feel at home under the sexual arousal heading. GBFEE (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Skin tones
Why are all the images only of white skinned people? 2600:1012:B053:1CF8:1908:BAD4:6D01:C839 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Distance between vagina and clitoral glans
So effectively, women should only have sexual intercourse on top of a man? Is this what the editor is saying? ZL3XD (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"Front bottom" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Front bottom and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

“Human vulva”
Please compare this entry to “penis.” There is no reason to have six different images of shaven “human vulvas” at the top of this entry.

If one seeks to perform an analysis of the effects of male-dominated internet spaces, a comparison of “penis” and “vulva” on Wikipedia is all you need. 2600:1700:4600:8470:E00E:C245:6452:64D5 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hymen rupturing during first intercourse
In the Structure->Vestibule section of this article it states "The hymen will usually rupture during the first episode of vigorous sex, and the blood produced by this rupture has been seen to signify virginity."

However, in the Wikipedia entry for the Hymen, it states that many studies have shown that, plus or minus a few percentage points depending on the study, only roughly half of women experience hymenial trauma during first intercourse.

It's a small change, but I really think that the word "usually" should be removed from the sentence "The hymen will usually rupture during the first episode of vigorous sex, and the blood produced by this rupture has been seen to signify virginity." And be replaced with "The hymen will can sometimes rupture during the first episode of vigorous sex, and the blood produced by this rupture has been seen to signify virginity." Toobad1205 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Stating it like that 'sometimes' is redundant as 'can' already implies sometimes. But the sentence is even more problematic as if it doesn't rupture it can during the second or the third or the fourth and so on. Sometimes it never does and women have been found with intact hymen even after giving birth while some lose it before intercourse. Biofase flame | stalk 20:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

National Varieties of English

 * What I think should be changed: English English colour should be changed to exotic dialect color.
 * Why it should be changed: MOS:RETAIN - the original article included the dialect variant behavior instead of behaviour, so that dialect is what should be used consistently moving forwards.
 * References supporting the possible change: It would be much appreciated if the editor implementing this change could take the time to configure their browser spellchecker to American English and then check for any other English English words. For example, Oestrogen is the English spelling and is present on this page; it should be changed to Estrogen to match the American dialect. There could well be more words that are less conspicuously inconsistent.

49.180.106.148 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

— Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] 17:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅: I changed colouring to coloring, assuming this is what you were referring to. Let me know if I missed anything.


 * Thank you for that! I underestimated the hybrid state of the article. Mea culpa. My process is:
 * notice that the article does not comply with MOS:CONSISTENT
 * figure out whether MOS:TIES applies
 * find out the earliest dialect differentiated as per MOS:RETAIN
 * adjust the article to be internally MOS:CONSISTENT
 * apply the appropriate template in the Talk page
 * Am I doing that right? I'm uncertain now.
 * If so, then I believe this article first expressed the American dialect and so should be MOS:CONSISTENT in that, going forwards. To that end, there are these words which would change to conform to the American dialect:
 * 1x centred to centered
 * 3x characterised to characterized
 * 1x colouring to coloring
 * 3x homologue to homolog
 * 1x labelled to labeled
 * 1x modelling to modeling
 * 1x oestrogen to estrogen
 * 1x practise to practice (two others are part of references)
 * 1x recognised to recognized
 * 2x vascularised -> vascularized
 * 3x worshipped to worshiped
 * There certainly are existing words specific to the American dialect in this article's current state:
 * anesthetic
 * center
 * color
 * estrogen
 * fetus
 * hemorrhaging
 * odor
 * tumor
 * (as well as many words common in both English English and American English: criticized, randomized, etc.)
 * so I think I'm right in suggesting the article change to reflect American English consistently. Please let me know if that's wrong. 49.180.106.148 (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024
{{subst:trim|1=

Change “the Great Wall of vagina” (as in the piece made by Jamie McCartney) to “the Great Wall of vulva”. Or at least put in a note about the name change. Thanks <3


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * https://www.thegreatwallofvulva.com/vagina-vs-vulva/
 * From the official website. ZacaiNowhere (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)