Talk:Vaginal flatulence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Biology Portal Vaginal flatulence is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vaginal flatulence article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on November 10, 2003 and again on April 25, 2006. The result of the discussion in both cases was keep. An archived record of the second discussion can be found here. No archive of the first discussion is available.

Archives:

• 2004-2005

dudes i do'nt know how to edit the sources, but here is a link tot he sources that are listed as dead links http://web.archive.org/web/20040329060048/http://www.medicaltribune.net/dispserchcontent.cfm?pg=1&id=10476 http://web.archive.org/web/20050826113008/http://www.helenhall.com/programs/pelvic.html

ppl should use that site more often lol

ps. sorry for screwing up the talk page i suck at this, please delete my comments when article references are fixed

Contents 1 Recent edits 2 AFD 3 smell 4 Overhaul 5 Vart 6 AFD debate link 7 Pornography? 8 Odor edits 9 Anemogiannis 10 Slang 11 Sarah Silverman 12 CO and other gasses 13 We need a diagram!! 14 "Pornography" becomes "Eroticism"

[edit] Recent edits

I've just reverted a batch of recent edits. First, some of them made claims to a particular movie popularizing "Queefing" in the porn world. Ignoring the incorrect capitalization in that edit, it simply wasn't substantiated.

There were also edits that inserted new terminology and were equally unsupported by citation. Such citation can be made as an external link at the end of the article, inline, or on the talk page. Until such citations are found, please refrain from introducing original research. -Harmil 12:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

I'll leave the AFD tag up for a couple of weeks, but unless the person who put it up can explain their reasoning and correctly create the AFD sub-page, or at least explain themselves here such that I can put it up for a vote for you (my vote would be to keep, but I won't block putting it up for a vote), then I'll take the tag down after a reasonable grace period. -Harmil 18:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone else had put it up without a subst so I fixed it prior to reading the discussion. Since discussion is closed on it, and I didn't actually want to reopen discussion, I removed it. Serlin 05:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] smell

Removed a reference to suggested erotic smell. The first section contradicts this, stating VF does not produce specific odors. Intinn 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed the word "mell" again. I assume User:68.43.140.213 meant to write "smell". Although good additions concerning odor were made, the first section keeps contradicting that VF produces a specific odor. Also, no evidence for the presumed erotic sub-genre regarding odors is presented.

[edit] Overhaul

This article has long needed an overhaul, and I've known about the link between this and colovaginal fistula for a long time. I finally decided to do something about it. I think the article is now in decent shape, and contains all of the bits and pieces that I could find about the topic. If anyone has a really good off-line resource for information on this topic, however, that would be great! -Harmil 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vart

"vart" is a slang term and un-apostrophied contraction for "vaginal fart". Its use is wide-spread, though only as slang as far as I know. Still, it is not a localized pet name, and as such I think it should have its place in the slang section. For reference, here is a Google search that looks for its use (outside of Wikipedia) in English [1] -Harmil 17:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD debate link

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link.

Just wanted to say I'm glad the article's been kept, and I'm actually disgusted at the people who wanted to delete it. Girls and young women, when they grow up and develop, can get so very insecure about their bodies and the changes they go through. A great many will have feelings that there's something terribly wrong with them, that nobody else has the same problems they do (which may not even be problems, as is the case with vaginal flautulence). It's exactly what they need to be able to come to Wikipedia and find a factual article on this normal and entirely-harmless phenomenon. I don't want to exaggerate the case, but if there can't be an article on VF in Wikipedia, then what good is Wikipedia? Well, I know the issue is closed, so I hope it's okay that I added my thoughts here anyway. --63.25.239.108 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography?

The burden of proof in Wikipedia lies on the one who wants to keep material in the article, not the one who wants to take it out. I'm going to take out the reference to pornography. Anybody wishing to put it back should source it, but even then I don't think it's terribly relevant. I'd like to see this article stay scientific and not descend into vulgarity. I voted to keep it at AfD because I thought this could be a decent medical stub, not an attractive nuisance to juvenile perverts. Brian G. Crawford 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's quite a lot of queef-related porn out there. I'm not thrilled with having to troll the net to find examples (it's really rather ugly work), but here's an example that I got from Vivid's site (they're the largest maker and distributor of adult films in the U.S.): (note - dead link removed. Risker 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

If you really want lots of sources, hop on down to your local adult video store and ask how many queefing titles they have. They'll cite you some sources.

In fact, this article was originally created because of that sub-genre, and it was only when I moved it from Queef to its current name that I expanded it into an article with a more medical angle. -Harmil 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: Here's one of the pages that used to be linked to from this article (but I believe was placed here as advertising, so I removed). I think this makes my point rather clearly: Amber, The Lesbian Queefer (note: that page was deleted after being referenced here -Harmil 04:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)) -Harmil 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

An anon removed the pornography sub-genre part again, I've put it back for now. I think above links are proof enough. Intinn | Talk 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The star of Amber, The Lesbian Queefer has an article: Amber Rose (porn star). --Muchness 06:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good call. It makes more sense to list the star than a specific movie anyway. Thanks! -Harmil 14:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's disturbing to see how much time some of you have spent on this article. May I suggest leaving the porn references out of it and making the article based strictly on scientific grounds? Otherwise it seems doomed to end up as some sort of crude pop-culture reference rather than a function of the female body. --Nazrac 22:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of minors. In short, that means that we don't shy away from a controversial topic (like vaginal flatulence in pornography) just because it's distasteful. As for the article devolving into crude pop-culture references: first off, "crude" doesn't enter into it (see above) and pop culture is only encyclopedic where it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. If we stick to the guidelines that Wikipedia uses as a whole, I think we're reasonably safe. -Harmil 22:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting censoring the article, for the benefit of minors or otherwise. I simply fail to see how porn movies depicting vaginal flatulance fits into it. If a porn movie depicts a refrigerator, does that mean it should be mentioned in the refrigerator article? If a porn movie depicts masturbation, does that mean the Wikipedia article dedicated to masturbation should list every pornographic movie that depicts such behavior? Your logic for including it in the article simply isn't very sound. I also find it rather humorous how you have such a fascination with the topic, and your reaction to my criticism even more amusing. How it is you know vaginal flatulance is distasteful I have no idea, but that kind of sounds like original research to me. --Nazrac 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, please refrain from making this personal. This is an article, like any other, and if you would like to improve it, I welcome your efforts. if not, then there are message boards out there that welcome discussions of whatever topic you like.

As to the pornography aspect. Read the discussion above. We've refrained from pointing to any of the particular movies because a) they're not particularly acceptable sources and b) there's no one particular movie which is considered seminal (no pun intended) in the genre, as far as I know. Then again, I don't know much about the genre other than the fact that it exists.

The refrigerator analogy is flawed. There are no porn movies about refrigerators. When you make a movie called "Queefing Squirting Coeds" (Totally Tasteless [2]) or "Amber the Lesbian Queefer" (Unknown studio [3]), you establish that there is, in fact, a fetish audience out there. I don't really want to keep surfing around for these movies because, honestly, I find them rather off-putting, so can we just drop it? -Harmil 04:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odor edits

There have been documented cases of odors when the expelled air reaches the grundle area between the gentials and the rectum. i8pgump | Talk 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, it should be easy enough to provide those sources. Well sourced edits are always welcome. -Harmil 06:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually having a reasoned discussion about queef odors? Seriously? - 72.227.27.136 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anemogiannis

I am not sure about the new slang term being "anemogiannis." I have looked for that term everywhere else on the internet including urban dictionary and only found the Australian filmmaker Con Anemogiannis. I just wanted to draw attention to that in case someone else knows about that. this is my first discussion post, so I'm being cautious. Good page to start on, I know.

24.33.25.13 01:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slang

I'm not sure the slang section is heading anywhere useful. Is it really nescessary or encyclopaedic to list various translations of "pussy fart" ? Intinn^Talk! 11:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I try to keep the slang section brief, but the article was originally titled Queef, and that's certainly a very common slang term, used broadly in pornography and certain sub-cultures. As you point out, "pussy fart" is also broadly used. Not including this information would be somewhat questionable, I think. That said, a LOT of the additions that people contribute are just local neologisms that are not, on their own, notable. It's a hard line to draw, and mostly I do so on the basis of (the lack of) citations and/or discussion here for new entries. -Harmil 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I have to agree with User:Intinn. The foriegn-language translations didn't make sense (what's more, I'm not SURE they were slang in those languages). If there are articles on other languages' Wikipedias, then we should link to them using the standard interwiki linking scheme. Othewise, translations that don't impact English should probably be removed. -Harmil 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Silverman

Turns up as an element of the Humanitarian of the Year episode of The Sarah Silverman Program, should a cultural reference section be added. Laszlo Panaflex 05:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CO and other gasses

The following text was added:

In some cases, and likely the most dangerous of them all, the "air" released contains noxious gases that were absorbed in the wall of the uterus. The initial gases released are not toxic however they release a series of chemical reactions that cause the release of carbon monoxide (CO) and various other but less concentrated gases. This case, although rare, usually takes place in women who have undergone menopause. The most documented case has been Dr. B. Steinberger and his patient Sharon Graves. It was because of this case that this occurrence has been unofficially called Graves Syndrome.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.stogv.co.uk/SGraves/ | title=Steinberger and Vaginal Flatulence | author=Dr. B. Steinberger | year=2003}}</ref>

Sadly, that link doesn't exist and the information in this section would really need to be cited with a verifiable source in order to add it (plus the language would have to be cleaned up a bit). -Harmil 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need a diagram!!

I'm serious. I'm thinking like a cartoon or something, like they have for mastubration. But with smelly lines coming out, or something.

--121.7.250.12 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And that would be funny, if queefs stunk, which they typically don't.

Oh, wait . . . No, it wouldn't . . . .

--63.25.239.108 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Pornography" becomes "Eroticism"

I changed the title of this section to "Eroticism", and added a second paragraph. Didn't touch the first paragraph. Here's the whole section as it stands now:

So-called "queefing" can also be considered erotic and is the subject of a pornographic sub-genre, as for example in the movies of Amber Rose.^[1]

Some men may find the sensation of his partner "queefing" during intercourse to be pleasurable, as it causes vibrations, and can create a sensation of vaginal tightening.

I'm concerned that my statement might be considered "original research", but what "research" would be done on such a strange topic? And isn't my statement just a reasonable supposition? Flatulence by definition causes vibrations and expansions/contractions of the orifice in question, so it's logical enough to suppose some men would really enjoy this happening during intercourse. But it's true enough that I learned this from personal experience.

Any objections to this addition?

I hope it's agreeable that I changed the section title to "Eroticism"; this way the section can be kind of a clearinghouse for any sexually-oriented information about the topic. I would think that would make the whole notability thing less debatable. --63.25.239.108 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)