![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"Labiaplasty is sometimes performed to revise anomalies and congenital conditions such as large inner labia" A large inner labia is not an anomaly or an congential condition. Spuddy 17 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed several commercial external links. Joie de Vivre 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The The Toronto Globe piece no longer exsists on the Globe’s website. The link posted is a text copy on the www.noharm.org[ [1]] (National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males) website and only has the one page with a text copy of the Globe article refering to labiaplasty. Preceding the text copy of the Globe article is this controversial and somewhat confusing comment:
“Looking Like Mommy? Labiaplasty Dilemma”, “... If a woman has her genitals altered in this way, and then becomes pregnant with a daughter and feels that it would be in her child's best interests that the girl's genitals should "look like mommy's", would this be sufficient reason for a physician to carry out the "service" of altering the girl's genitals? ... etc,etc.”
I think the link should be removed. Please advise. LoveyK 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care about this topic, so I'd like to just note people's edits are very far from complying with WP:NPOV. It's an old POV warrior strategy to attribute the opinions of article authors to the journals themselves in order to artificially bolster one's case.-- Ty580 01:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this paragraph from the controversies section to here because it's contracted by both pro and con sources. (The British Medical Journal blasts all labiaplasties, whether for quality of life or cosmetic.)-- Ty580 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I’ve interviewed dozens of labiaplasty patients along with surgeons who provide the procedure. In the U.S., hardly anybody is concerned about a so-called “controversy”. Primarily, patients are having labiaplasty for the three reasons cited by Ty 580, because they want it for themselves and possess the wherewithal to happily pay for it. Moreover, when done correctly, the procedure produces positive changes in women’s lives. The vast majority of labiaplasty patients would have the procedure again and unfailingly recommend it to their interested friends.
Overall, I see an extremely judgmental slant against the procedure and the women who undergo it. Moreover, the trend is not driven by clever marketing (people are not such fools) but by popular culture and the changing lifestyles of women of means. Overall, my impression is I’m reading a lecture by a stern, finger-pointing aunt, saying, “Shame, shame for being so vain.” Additionally, the references are not academic references at all but two pieces of news copy and an opinion piece by, not an expert in plastic surgery, but a seemingly alarmed psychologist and gynecologist. At least, I see nothing of the scientific method in their approach to the topic. And what does genital mutilation have to do with the topic?
Finally, any plastic surgeon in the U.S. or the U.K. worth his or her salt fully informs prospective patients about the possible risks from any surgery.
If a truly neutral entry is the object, I recommend starting from scratch. This is what we Yanks call a “hatchet piece. Charles.Downey 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Really. I'll take care of it shortly, as soon as time allows. Stay tuned. Charles.Downey 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to this? Email me, please. Joie de Vivre T 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This looks neutral to me but I supposed we'll have a bit more debate. The surgeon to whom I made the first external link is willing to sign over the rights to that before-and-after Labiaplasty picture if you think it would explain things better. I did have the BMJ article in question but the owner filtched it back. The article does list the reference for that if you want to get a copy. Charles.Downey
I posted the other side of the controversy issue according to a leading expert and it was deleted entirely. I don't think it does anyone any good to have only one side of a controversy. I'll post it again later when I have more time. 6-16-07
Congrats Charles.Downey on an improved version. The only think lacking was a 'controversy' section which I have added back in. I think this focusses the debate a bit better. I have edited the controversy section to remove some of the weasel words but it still needs better references. Well done. Gillyweed 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I did a thorough sweep-through of the article, improving the Wikilinking, as well as grammar and sentence structure in a few places, as well as requesting citations. Joie de Vivre T 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed three paragraphs that were either poorly sourced, or constituted undue weight. Here they are, for discussion. Joie de Vivre T 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
However, plastic surgeons like Pamila Loftus and David Matlock, who have been performing labiaplasties and other cosmetic surgeries of the vulva for two decades in the U.S., report that they have been bombarded with requests for the procedure in the last four years. Loftus reported performing about six a week in 2004. [1] One author at the University of Auckland in New Zealand thinks the popularity of female genital cosmetic surgery may also be due to heightened orgasms, because elongated clitoral hoods are also often shortened by the same practitioners. The hoodectomy procedure allows the clitoris to receive more direct stimulation. [2]
Some surgeons have reported that many of their labiaplasty patients have suffered irritating, chaffing tissues in silence, thinking they were alone with their condition. One physician, Robert Ersek, M.D. a Texas plastic surgeon, reported that one such patient, a successful attorney in middle age, had previously undergone several surgical rejuvenation procedures. When the attorney saw on a website before-and-after pictures of a patient who found relief from grossly enlarged labia minora, she, too, requested the surgery saying, she had no idea until now that anything could be done to improve her condition [3] In the same letter, Dr. Ersek observes: “Reconstructive surgery aims to restore form and function to near normal. ‘Cosmetic’ designation is an attempt to improve appearance beyond, or better than, normal. No one is going to request surgery in this or any other area unless they perceive their anatomy as “unnormal.”…..I write to tell you these patients should not be ignored or trivialized.’”
Doctors John Miklos and Robert Moore, board-certified gynecological surgeons in Atlanta, Georgia, reviewed the medical records of 131 patients who underwent labiaplasty over 32 months. They divided the patients into three groups -- those who had the procedure strictly for aesthetic reasons; patients motivated by pain and discomfort and a group who were motivated by both symptoms and aesthetic concerns. They found that 62 percent of the study group had labiaplasty for functional or symptomatic reasons, including discomfort in some clothing and while exercising or during intercourse. [4]
Paragraph 1: I don't see the rate at which a given surgical practice performs labiaplasty as being particularly important, nor do I see their speculation on the possibility of sexual improvement as well-founded.
Paragraph 2: The phrase "suffering in silence" is rather flowery and, again, I don't see what the purpose is of including one anecdote of one person's reason for having surgery. This part reads like a brochure for labiaplasty.
Paragraph 3: This does not constitute a full report. They only reported the percentage of women who responded as choosing the surgery for a functional reason (62%). This is misleading; because they don't clarify if that refers to women who chose it for functional reasons alone, or if they also included women who chose for both functional and aesthetic reasons. There is no way to tell, because they didn't specify.
My guess is that the 62% refers to those who chose it wholly or in part for a functional reason, which, if true, would mean that any percentage of that 62% cited looks as being at least part of their reason. In other words, if this interpretation of their ambiguously-presented data is correct, at least 38% chose it for an aesthetic reason alone, and the percentage of those who chose labiaplasty at least partially for aesthetic reasons could be 100%.
— Joie de Vivre T 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Please place comments here. Joie de Vivre T 19:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the neutrality is still in question. How about a second opinion from another editor? If you find that fair, I'll concentrate in the meanwhile on getting the citations called for.
2. How about a citation notice after the following statement under the Controversy section? "For most women, it (labiaplasty) is cosmetically unwarrented, and constitutes a needless exposure to the risks inherient in any surgery." One thinks that is more personal opinion than fact.
3. The Transsexual section really does not fit. For one, the preferred nomenclature for the procedure is the nonjudgemental and more neutral, "gender reassignment surgery." Additionally, a great deal more than labiaplasty takes place during gender reassignment. Charles.Downey 20:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is there such flattery of the doctor and his 'international' recognition or his citation on Dr. 90210? Both feel like marketing and make that section of this article seem like a brochure. There's also the weird weasel language 'was said to be refined' which has no attributable sources. In addition, the tone of the article has some odd points of view and 'some say' attributions. I'm removing the weasel language and advertising. I think the article as a whole could use some clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.130.221.30 ( talk • contribs) 11:23, June 22, 2007 (UTC).
Is a photo of such a graphic nature appropriate for publishing? I didn't see any sort of 18+ warning. Wouldn't that potentially violate certain US laws regarding showing photography of genitalia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.35.109 ( talk) 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The person who published the photo shares how they got a piercing, etc. How is that relevant? This should be a generic article?
Wikipedia: how do you remove photos?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.35.109 ( talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe this to be an extreme example of labiaplasty and not the sort of thing that many women looking at labiaplasty would consider, thus it would be more appropriate to put a before and after photo of a common labiaplasty reduction which would be more relevant. Labiadectomy is an extreme and uncommon example which isn't the norm for this sort of surgery. It's the difference between breast augmentation and a mastectomy for example. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ubervixxen (
talk •
contribs)
16:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
i removed this image, and was reverted by an ip, due to concerns over self-promotion and inaccurate medical representation by the porn photo (complete with piercing). if anyone has justification why it is medically representative or otherwise adds encyclopedic value, please comment. untwirl ( talk) 05:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed a citation to a promotional article on an MD directory website that doesn't meet WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 00:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone who gives oneself out as performing “G-spot amplification” must be a quack since the very existence of the G-spot is controversial!
2009-08-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.155.69 ( talk) 10:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
the risk section needs to be redone. it doesnt talk about the risk about the surgery but it compares it to other surgeries. im not against that but it is mostly COMPARING. I've couldnt find any story about someone dying form the surgery but the section talk about people dying from liposuction. why? it seems to me that that this article is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.252.97 ( talk) 21:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I know there are multiple kinds of circumcision and I've heard hoodectomies referred to as the like the "proper" form of female circumcision, like the female equivalent of male circumcision. Not sure if I can provide a source but wondering if anybody else has any thoughts or could maybe provide a link on either page as I feel it's kind of relevant. One searching for female circumcision (NOT mutilation) may be interested in this topic. 64.222.103.254 ( talk) 08:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, because that would mean that women whose labia are already small wouldn't be able to get circumsized, whereas all men can get circumsised. They are not equivalent. I really do think that mutilation is the only equivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.30.65 ( talk) 08:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this image [3] twice, because it appears not to be the same person, as the caption states, and the same concern has been raised on the image page. We would need a high-quality reliable source confirming that it's the same person before it's restored. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 19:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear slim virgin:
Good, excellent! However, the burden of proof is upon you! Because the image is already registered and legitimate for Wikipedia use. Please, play by the rules you claim to enforce as an Administratrix; prove your point. Anonymous "somebody says" is dishonest.
99.148.69.27 ( talk) 04:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, SlimVirgin:
I do not wish to edit war with you and your friends, but, it is normal and usual for the accuser to present evidence of the wrong-doing of the accused, User: OttoPlacik. The Labiaplasty article is substantiated with proper citations, from the pro and the con sides of Labiaplasty; they are at the bottom of the page. Tell me your specific concerns, because your addition to the Critism section contradicts you: it says that Female Genital Mutilation does not include Labiaplasty. This article is about a plastic surgery procedure, not its sociology, that is why the Criticism section exists.
Otto Placik ( talk) 19:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I was struck by the changes in the article between 2 October and the current version 26 October, which seem to have made it rather more technocratic and less questioning of the procedure, so I have posted at WT:MED to ask for some uninvolved review, and also perhaps whether there might have been the inadvertent possibility of some WP:COI. Jheald ( talk) 01:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear JHeald:
How is an alarmist newspaper article more medically accurate than a medical source, such as the one deleted from the introduction? The sociologic aspect already is addressed in its proper place, in the Criticism section. Would you be specific about the conflict of interest? I ask because your alarmist tone is misleading about the content of a medical article, and I have read no such conflict of interest in the text . . . Where is the sales pitch? Mhazard9 ( talk) 15:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is some content that imho should live in own articles or get merged into existing ones.
The article should follow the manual of style - it looks terribly obfuscated in places ("The patient"). File:Variation of female genitalia.jpg would be a nice addition to the article, also see Elongated labia.
Richiez ( talk) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Follow-up queries to the worries
Dear Richiez:
I think that the labia image recommended would be a good addition, much better than a hypertextlink. But, a surgical anatomy description is not the same as a morphological description, because VULVA is about morphology and function, while LABIAPLASTY is about surgery . . . your claim is an illogical non sequitur, not objective. Perhaps you are too close to the subject? Still, deleting medical citations reveals (anti-intellectual?) PARTIALITY, not objectivity. Terribly obfuscated, as in HIDING FACTS? Where?
Please, explain yourself more, because your first-person plural tone bespeaks that you represent others, which is never a good sign, because the speaker is hiding a POLITICAL agenda; y'know, feelings, rather than thought, emotions, rather than reason, opinions, rather than facts, as in Appeal to emotion, rather than critical thinking? I find that most worrying, almost terrifying in its book-burning, clock-stopping obviousness. A ruse, perhaps, for dumbing down a "faux controversial" article, in the name of . . . the children and their endangered innocence? Really? Are the Harley Street physicians at it again?
Do I understand you well, are WE (Wikipedia editors) to destroy the Labiaplasty article because the subject offends your sensibilities? The article is about a surgical procedure that has SECONDARY applications as cosmetic surgery, not the inverse. Does such politically correct illogic really not elicit derision among self-respecting editors? I ask because the editorial comments in the edit summaries betray partiality, i.e. Wikipedia:I just don't like it!
As you might recall, Wikipedia is not censored, simply because your sensibilities might be bruised. Still, following your illogic, my dislike of Nazism would not justify a disingenuous demand that the article be chopped up an redistributed to other fascism articles, simply because I lost family in the Holocaust? Would it?
Please remember to remember: The Self is not the world, and the world is not the Self. The canard is too obvious.
Mhazard9 ( talk) 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear WhatamIdoing:
The vinegar equals the hysteria; the argumentum ad hominem confirms the political nature of the imprecise complaints. The Labiaplasty article does not tell the reader how to perform a labiaplasty. It does not communicate how to hold the scalpel, how to do things in the OR, but does communicate WHAT is done. Please, stick to the subject; thus "the vinegar" to cut the misrepresentations. I agree with you that the distribution of information is necessary, but not by arguing that NEWSPAPERS trump MEDICAL sources, as did you. The groupthink comment betrays you; Wikipedia does not demand, it recommends. The article is about a surgical procedure, not how to do it. Your politics betray you; and I wrote explicitly. Quote the faults of the article, not some off-side nonsense, as you just did. If the faults exist, then you can quote them. Complaining without examples is a canard, worsened with off-subject examples that AVOID the Labiaplasty subject; be specific, give examples.
You have not addressed the subject, just my replies to PC whingeing meant to appeal to emotion, not reason. Because the dumbing down of the introduction, which reverted the surgery's purpose from correction to cosmetics, and deleted a medical citation, does not communicate impartiality or objectivity. Your opposition is noted. Include it to the criticism section, but, please, do not lie, and write that labiaplasty is mainly for cosmetics and SOMETIMES for medical reasons. If what you claim is true, why go ask others to do your work for you?
The sociologic criticism is present, ALL OF IT, not just the selective, anti-surgery alarmism from the 2 October 2011 version. What is the problem? Where is the advertising? Where is the advocacy? This article does not misrepresent any of the FACTS, as does the Labiaplasty text in VULVA ("Some say Labiaplasty is FGM"), which is based on the SAME SOURCES as the criticism section of Labiaplasty, so . . . Which is it? The sources are explicitly quoted herein (Labiaplasty) and obscured elsewhere (Vulva). Gosh, what intellectual minimalism am I missing?
Mhazard9 ( talk) 17:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that labiaplasties done for purely functional reasons, such as dyspareunia (pain during sex), may be categorised as medically necessary and therefore eligible to be covered by insurance. However, when I spoke to practitioners at the conference, they waved away the idea that either they or the client would want to take that route. "It'll take me 10 minutes, but I'll get only $300," one explained. "And it'll look like I spent 10 minutes on it." Another agreed, explaining that much of the elective fee he charged had to do with the two hours he'd spend "making it look pretty".
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Variation of female genitalia.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
I somehow don't see the purpose of many images in the article (Tanner stages, Boticelli, Courbert), as they don't illustrate anything related to labiaplasty.-- Bus Bax ( talk) 19:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is this article talking of "pudendum femininum", while everywere else the more common term "vulva" is used?-- Bus Bax ( talk) 19:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Editors Bax and Taylornate:
The Labiaplasty article is about surgery of the pudendum femininum, of which the vulva is a part; they ain't equivalent; the part is not the whole. The "medical student" Taylornate is in error, the word pudendum femininum identifies the area of the subject matter, which is labiaplasty, so, it is not a personal matter of wordiness; yours are understandable mistakes common to laymen. The artistic images in the criticism section are relevant to that section, and are necessary, because of the layperson hysteria usually provoked by this subject; read before you delete an illustration that SUPPORTS the text; otherwise, you are dumbing down the article, which is disrespectful of other readers. This is not a pop culture article, like most of the articles in your work histories, so, please, do not remove text and images, simply because you dislike them, abide the wiki-rules.
Say “Hello!” to the Dutch Doctor, from Dr. P.
Regards, 24.1.181.44 ( talk) 17:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
To the Editors who have censored this article:
I have reverted the censorship you four editors have forced on this Labiaplasty article, because your action contradicts the very point of Wikipedia -- uncensored factual information! I do not see any conflict of interest, other than your opinion, because the images are real, and not sensational, and are not advertizing. So please show where and how, in the article, there exists a conflict of interest?
Please explain, how making the article a sensationalistic newspaper report, complete with boosterism of you favorite opponents, makes this an objective presentation of a plastic surgery subject?
I have done this reversion anonymously, as an IP address, because the editors being addressed tend to revenge edits elsewhere in the work of anybody who opposes them. Please practice what you preach, and give your reasons for censoring an article that only you four individual editors oppose in the name of everybody else in Wikipedia. You know, the give-and-take of collegial, intellectual debate about a subject, rather than authoritarian censorship.
And, asking the medical editor, User:Otto Placik, who created the article, to request your permission is discourteous, to say the least, and quite contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
64.107.183.115 ( talk) 21:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
To Flyer22:
It is unnecessary to conduct a sock puppet investigation, because I edit only under my name: User:Otto Placik. Yet I do have friends among the Wikipedia Medical Community, despite the spurious accusations of "excessiveness" leveled in the Wiki Med discussion page. Sharing an IP address range is not evidence, neither are hunches and opinions, so sharing an IP address range is just that.
I have reviewed the complaints of the lay editors, and shall provide the medical references they require to believe an anatomic description. So, please, be patient while I do the work. I will follow up with factual corrections to the text, in order to dispel doubts about conflict of interest, self-promotion, and original research. Silence is not acknowledgement of wrong-doing or bad faith, it means just being busy outside Wikipedia.
Thanks
Otto Placik ( talk) 17:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Otto, would you mind discussing your proposed edits here on talk first? There seems to be a significant COI, and people have expressed concern about it a few times on WikiProject Medicine; for example, see 18 June 2009, 6 November 2011, 27 January 2013, and 8 August 2013. Also see this section of the COI guideline, which says that anyone with a financial connection to a topic should use the talk page to suggest edits, or the {{ request edit}} template.
That apart, your edits seem to violate some of our polices. Removal of the risks and the comment from Linda Cardozo is arguably a violation of Neutral point of view and WP:LEAD. Rewriting the criticism section to add your own opinions violates No original research. Some of the material you're adding is unsourced, violating Verifiability. Other sections are sourced to primary sources, in violation of WP:MEDRS, which is our sourcing guideline for medical articles; it says we should mostly rely on secondary sources such as review articles. You're also adding distinctive formatting.
For all these reasons, I'd appreciate it if you would post your proposals here on talk, together with the sources, so that they can be discussed before adding them to the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Otto, one more revert and you may shortly find yourself the subject of a discussion at AN/I. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it should be clear to you by now that your unilateral changes do not have consensus. Regards, Andreas JN 466 04:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply to Slimvirgin and cohort:
Your POV-pushing version, and your censorship of the legitimate medical photographs, already were factually countered by the Adminstrator Flyer22. So, you, Slimvirgin, a Wikipedia Administrator, and your cohort, are obliged to follow the rules that you ask me to follow, that is, you must prove your accusations, because the word "seems" indicates your doubts about what you claim is wrong with the article.
For two years, you have deliberately vandalized the article, and used the sources to push a pov that does not match the reality, either medical, clinical, or sociological, about this subject. In fact, your censorship and page-owner behavior were the subject of the January 2013 discussion that Flyer22 had with you and your fellow editors, in which she informed you that you are in the wrong in CENSORING the article, because you just don't like it. That is why we are quarreling. Everything I have contributed is true to the sources, after all, this is an article about an elective medical procedure, not about the sociology of Labiaplasty, which is the pov-pushing you have been doing for two years.
So, let us meet half-way, and you begin the dialogue, by showing the specific sections, subsections, and sentences that are factually untrue. Playing games is conduct unbecoming a Wikipedia Administrator, the ethical onus is upon you, because it is you, Slimvirgin and cohort, who disagree with the medical facts of a medical article. The sources are listed, please explain where the article does not correspond to the facts cited.
Come, let us begin.
Otto Placik ( talk) 04:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Otto_Placik_editing_plastic_surgery_articles. Regards, Andreas JN 466 05:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we ought to explain the term "standard deviation". Readers should understand that in a normal distribution (the type of statistical distribution most anatomical measures follow approximately), a little over two-thirds of the population are within the range of mean ± 1 standard deviation, a little over 95 percent lie within mean ± 2 standard deviations, and 99.7 percent lie within mean ± 3 standard deviations. This would enable readers who lack statistics knowledge to gain a realistic idea of the size of their own labia relative to the general population. (The graphic is primarily intended to help editors here on this talk page understand the issue, though we could think about adding it to the article too if editors think it would help readers understand the normal human range of variation.)
It also seems to me there is some confusion over the definitions of "width" and "length". Otto Placik sought to introduce a definition that termed anything in the range from 3.0 to 5.0 cm as "excessive" (while adding that a length in excess of 5.0 cm would "present functional and aesthetic problems for the woman who seeks a labioplastic correction").
In the table, the mean for "length" of the labio minora is 60.6 mm (standard deviation 17.2 mm), while "width" has a mean of 21.8 mm (standard deviation 9.4 mm). If Placik's "length" is the same "length" as in the table, that would mean that well over 90% of women have "excessive labia", according to his definition. If Placik's "length" corresponds to "width" in the table, this would still mean that about one in five women have "excessive" labia according to Otto Placik's version, making them candidates for plastic surgery.
Note also that there is no universally agreed method of measurement for all of this, e.g. whether the labia should be stretched to their maximum extent for measurement, or measured in their natural state. Andreas JN 466 18:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether more people are just asking about it than before, or concerns are growing, we've been seeing more and more – often unfounded – worries about labia as the years have gone by. ... We've done a couple blog-a-thons on it in years past. We've answered questions like this tirelessly for years. We've talked about it in other pieces, we've suggested visiting gynecologists to have an expert assure someone they're normal. We've directed people to some links or books with labial imagery. We've worn t-shirts which proclaim "I Love Labia!" while shaking peach, violet, brown and pink pom-poms on the White House lawn (okay, so we haven't but if someone sent me the supplies, I would in a heartbeat), but for the love of Pete, the labia-freakouts keep sticking around. Whatever it is that keeps churning labia worries out these days is doing it like bunnies.
Right, I've shifted from full to semi-protection - let's keep this to named accounts rather than IPs. Any IP is welcome to make an account to discuss the article. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
One before after image IMO would be useful for this procedure. This one is not to bad [15] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Are there any images on commons you would be okay with? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Flyer22: - you had a concern about the lead section? -- Callinus ( talk) 01:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Labiaplasty. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The answer is yes they are trying. Not just this topic but 1,000s to 100,000s of others. WP:COIN is busy. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Labiaplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://abccommercial-production-aws.s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/study-guide/assets/Vagina%2520Diaries%252C%2520The.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
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) 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Julietdeltalima, regarding this, what issue do you have with the Shameless source? How does it not pass WP:Reliable sources in this case? Regarding blogs, see what WP:NEWSBLOG states. If the section is going to use sources such as those from Slate, I don't see why Shameless should be singled out. Furthermore, as seen here, it's still currently used in the article. If these media sources were used for medical material, I would see the point of removing them; this is per WP:MEDRS. But these media sources are used for the Criticism section, which is mainly about societal issues.
Please don't WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Labiaplasty has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Section: criticism
"The WHO writes that the term is not generally applied to elective procedures such as labiaplasty.[46]"
Hello fellow editors. In this article I find source number 46 contradicting. The WHO report does not mention that the term "Female Genital Mutilation" does not apply to elective procedures such as labiaplasty. Kindly look into this. Riverfan3000 ( talk) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Nike rosh Motshegoa ( talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Juliechaeoon.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
We currently say "The WHO writes that the term is not generally applied to elective procedures such as labiaplasty.
" but I don't see where the source actually says that. What it actually says is
Some practices, such as genital cosmetic surgery and hymen repair, which are legally accepted in many countries and not generally considered to constitute female genital mutilation, actually fall under the definition used here. It has been considered important, however, to maintain a broad definition of female genital mutilation in order to avoid loopholes that might allow the practice to continue.
While this can probably be said to support cosmetic labiaplasty and some other procedures not being considered FGM, I can't find the word elective used anywhere in the source. Yet this seems to be an important distinction, my understanding is in a lot of the West, a doctor who performs anything generally considered FGM even if it's on an adult with no indication of undue pressure being placed on them can easily face criminal charges even though this may seem to be an elective procedure. Indeed I've seen it suggested (and our article sort of hints at this) that you could perform the exact same surgery (on an adult in both cases) as a simple cosmetic surgery and be fine but if it's being done for cultural or religious reasons, you may be in big trouble. For that matter something which appears to have less potential for harm the same. (Hymen repair seems to be one exception.) And we haven't even touched on the apparent terrible regulation of such mostly cosmetic procedures being performed on children as well as misleading advertising or information calling into question informed consent.) Anyway rant over, how do editors think we should improve this sentence? Is just removing elective enough? Nil Einne ( talk) 17:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)