Talk:Vulva/Archive 1

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * It's been replaced (by an image whose copyright/license isn't disputed).   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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Including a diagram, a photograph, or neither

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Analogy with [[Penis]]

message: 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)
replies: text: * It's been replaced (by an image whose copyright/license isn't disputed).   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)
thread_title: Image already at [[Clitoris]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New image - from [[Perineum]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Spurious word

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image and page protection 

message: Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images: “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.” 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. Rafał Pocztarski 06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at clitoris, and I don't see any vandalism there. 12:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. And that is because Clitoris  has been protected again, unlike Vulva.  Rafał Pocztarski 03:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll above has closed, and there is no clear consensus. Andrew pmk 01:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Disturbing images

message: Please refrain from adding images that just show the vulva when we already have a more informative one. I am referring to . LostAccount 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Stop adding new vulva images

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Moose knuckles" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 — without admitting for a moment that we need to maintain "parity" — 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)
replies: text: I concur with Nandesuka. —Locke Cole 06:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  how many different images do we need? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: vulval vestibule

message: :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)
thread_title:  Kick? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Moving pictures around in the article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scent 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  more pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moving the images down 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, that picture is rubbish. Mine is much more true to life.Bobble2 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarah picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Sam Blacketer 12:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#When_possible.2C_avoid_images_that_are_likely_to_offend, 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Seriously