Talk:Front hole

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is there a reason why people want to keep this a redirect rather than expanding on the use, history, purpose, and significance of the term?

I am Frontholio (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am Frontholio, likely because of what WP:Content forking and WP:No page states. If this article is to stay about the term, though, then a case can be made to keep it per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looks justified to me - content doesn't seem to be duplicated anywhere that I can see, and it is exhaustively referenced. Marking reviewed for now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Elmidae, WP:Content forking isn't solely about copying content. For example, it has a WP:POVFORK section. Given that this topic is about an alternative term for the vagina, and it's led to arguments of a non-standard POV, one might argue that the article is a WP:POVFORK. If it started including anatomical material about the vagina while using the word front hole, a strong argument for it being a WP:POVFORK and that it should be merged with the Vagina article could be made. Even now a valid argument can be made to merge the article to the "Society and culture" section of the Vagina article because of the little bit of material the Front hole article covers, and because it's about a transgender term for the vagina, and because the sources currently in the article mainly focus on the Internet being upset about and/or debating the topic in 2018. But again, since the article is currently focused on the term, I can see this article validly remaining separate from the Vagina article. If one ever creates a Transgender terminology article, though, I will feel that this small article should be merged there. If editors start adding "front hole" in place of "vagina" in our medical and anatomy articles because this article exists, that will be a problem, and I might then seek to merge the article. We shouldn't use Wikipedia to increase usage of a new or relatively new term, or an isolated term. And advocacy on Wikipedia is a no-no. I'll go ahead and alert WP:Med, WP:Anatomy and WP:LGBT to the fact that this article exists. I see that one editor recently added the LGBT tag above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to merging if a suitable location is identified. I certainly don't have an overview of the subject area. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The front hole is not mentioned in Vagina so a redirect would not be useful. This article seems to meet WP:GNG and shouldn't be merged where it would be undue. wumbolo ^^^ 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it with the Vagina article and redirecting the term to whatever section the material would then reside in there wouldn't be undue; it would be on-topic because the article is, as the article currently states, mainly about an alternative term for the vagina to "avoid triggering dysphoria in trans men." It would fit fine in the "Society and culture" section of the Vagina article, with the section addressing transgender matters and that some people prefer the term front hole and why. And because it's a relevant topic and the article is currently orphaned, a bit about it should be mentioned in the Vagina article anyway...either in the "Etymology and definition" section (which could be changed to "Terminology" for its title) or the "Society and culture" section. As for WP:GNG, as I mentioned above, the article's current sources mainly focus on the Internet being upset about and/or debating the topic in 2018. So, yeah, having seen editors (including me) point to sources for a topic mainly being about one event or one matter that blew up on the Internet and that a lot of sources therefore covered, such as sapiosexuality, I can see editors arguing that it doesn't meet WP:GNG or shouldn't have its own article per WP:No page. For now, though, the article should at least be linked in the See also section of the Vagina article and some other articles so that it's no longer orphaned. I will go ahead and link it in the See also section of the Vagina article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a neologism. Restore redirect. Natureium (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding per ping at WT:ANATOMY. Agree with Natrueium. The nature of this article is definitional and the rest of the text is to disambiguate the meaning. Would be suitable as a redirect or disambig page. I suppose some case could be made for an encyclopedic entry if notability can be demonstrated.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Healthline is a popular press site? Meh would want better sources. I say trim and merge back to vagina as a neologism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support deletion. If it becomes a redirect, the more appropriate target would be Healthline, given how narrow the scope of the sourcing is.--Trystan (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Healthline did not invent the term they just reported on it very poorly. This is a known neologism for vagina. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also suggest deletion / redirecting; the sources used are few and very low-quality (RT and TheBlaze? really?), suggesting the topic is not notable enough to have its own article. -sche (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of the term would be a good addition to the vagina article but it seems odd to have an article devoted to it. WP:NAD: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide....Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing (synonyms)...are duplicate articles that should be merged. For example: petrol and gasoline. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this discussion, I restored it to being a redirect. One could see about expanding Vagina's terminology section a bit, though I'm concerned that a term this un-notable could easily be an un-due addition there. -sche (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healthline

Is not a reliable source for the position of the NIH or anything medical really. Thus moving this here

"According to Healthline, the term "front hole" is accepted[clarification needed] by the National Institutes of Health, Human Rights Campaign, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal, and Fenway Health in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, the National LGBT Health Education Center, and the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers.[1]"

So what we have is one unreliable source quoting another unreliable source on what reliable sources may say? Show me were the NIH website says this. Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NIH

This is interesting "In their response, they note that the National Institutes of Health, the Human Rights Campaign, the BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal, and Fenway Health all also use this terminology."

They link NIH to this research paper. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10461-017-1735-4

Do they seriously consider abstracts to papers found on pubmed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28236144

To represent the NIH? The DailyDot refers to the people from Healthline as experts? Gah.... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth journal

The term is used in the journal article published by BMC. https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-017-1491-5

The authors of the paper use the term not the journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fenway Health

This MD mentions the term is passing. It does not represent an official position of Harvard

https://fenwayhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/Taking-a-Sexual-Health-History-Cavanaugh-1.pdf

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails to be adequately descriptive of anatomical geography

There are actually a total of at least four excreto-/erotorifi, to-wit:

2600:1003:B11E:1D01:0:5C:41AD:1E01 (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ ""Front Hole" Is Not A New Word For "Vagina," Despite What The Internet Says". BuzzFeed News.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Front_hole"