Jump to content

Talk:Camel toe/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Why does those girls' genitals become visible?

How does it come to be that those girls' cleft of venus are visible though their pants? Are they wearing pants which are actually too small for them resulting in fabric being pulled from the genital area to the belly? Or are those pants designed by men underestimating the overage size of the vulva?

2009-08-18 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Why don't we add a protection on this page, due to all the vandalism it gets? Edgey456 (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant

"A camel or other even-toed ungulate."

Well done.

98.210.170.91 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo of a camel's toe & etymology

Nocturnal Wanderer recently removed the photograph of a camel's foot, remarking that it did not "fit in with the article". The earlier layout was poor, with the camel's toe above the cameltoe, but the removed photograph would provide an appropriate illustration for the (currently missing) etymology. Perhaps a side by side layout would work well. -- Thinking of England (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The current layout looks good, with the photo of the camel's foot restored and that of the cameltoe moved up immediately under it. The order makes sense as the upper photo is half as tall as the lower one, so if (as with my browser's settings) part of the lower photo is obscured until the article is scrolled down, the visual analogy is still immediately visible. I do think that this visual analogy is sufficient, and I am indifferent to the addition of an etymology to the text, although one that discusses the history of the term (it's first use, etc.) could be welcome. -- Thinking of England (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think just the opposite. The first picture in the upper-right of any article should illustrate the subject of that article. This article is not about a camel's toes, so it does not make sense to have that shown first. Have the cameltoe image shown first, then the picture of a camel's toes underneath it to illustrate the etymology. I was going to change it myself, but since this discussion is here, it seems that further discussion is needed to avoid an edit war.  :-) leevclarke (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just think it's hilarous to have an actual Camel's toe picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.20.203 (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The caption "A female cameltoe" makes no sense (as the male equivalent is mooseknuckle). Cfuse (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the corresponding word for the back? backtoe, asstoe, wedgie, ....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.116.181 (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For potential merger

The below text is saved here for inclusion in case of deletion of Moose knuckle and Visible penis line. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
(Redacted)
I have removed the text as its not attributed properly and the consensus was to delete both so hosting a copy on an unrelated talk page shouldn't happen. Spartaz Humbug! 01:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the content of this article would be better fit under the title Crotch (fashion), in that details having to do with men's fashion could be included.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree - nothing wrong or inaccurate about the current title. a_man_alone (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You could create a separate article called Crotch (fashion). But, you will have to show that it's notable on its own (and it has to contain some encyclopedic content so it's not just a dictionary definition, that means getting reliable sources that treat the subject in detail, aka significant coverage, aka WP:SIGCOV.). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: rough consensus not to move. Andrewa (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Cameltoe → Visible outline of genitals through clothing – or Visible vulva through clothing or Labial profiling in women's fashion or Crotch (fashion) or Near-nudity

Per wp:NEO (emphasis mine):

... ... ...

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

The slang term cameltoe has POV issues and also only partially encompasses the neutrally stated and more generalized topics of visible outline of non-gender specific genitalia through clothing or else that of specifically female genitalia seen through clothing. Note however that either suggested title is not meant to be a coinage but only a concise description of the common phenomenon described.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thus tramp stamp redirects to the WP article "Lower back tattoo."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we should have an article about a camel's toe. Very important adaptation for surviving in the deep Arabian desert. As important in its way as a horse's hoof. If you can picture a body part in a Chinese market or a voodoo spell, we should have 100k of text about it. That's why I'm an inclusionist and say Wikipedia is no where near finished covering everything. ;) Wnt (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Eric Naval, not a neologism, as it appears in dictionaries. Also WP:COMMONNAME. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - As a note to !voters, a preference supported basically by wp:ILIKEIT is NOT going to be weighted the same, in the end, as one based in WP policies. For example, the actual guideline wp:DICTIONARY states in bold print at the top of its lede: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide"--hence, for example, finding some phrase solely in slang dictionaries will account for considerably less than if the phrase can be found in even one general reference book, at least according to my reading of WP's guidelines.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Plus, note that whereas the exact phrase camel toe garnered for me 593 Google "news archive" hits, 31 Google (current) "news" hits, 177 Google "scholar" hits, and 569 Google "books" hits, the exact phrase bulging crotch garnered for me 30 Google "archive news" hits, 82 Google (current) "news" hits, 210 Google "scholar" hits, and 764 Google "books" hits; yet, would a Wikiarticle named "Bulging crotch" pass muster, per wp:NEO? (--despite the testicals-and-penis-revealing look worn by male body builders and other Speedo-style bathing-suit wearers? bull fighters? male ballet dancers? 19th-century dandies? 18th-century followers of the ubiquitous crotch-hugging style popularized by Beau Brummell? the thin-"leggings"-covered-by-a-cod piece as worn by males during yet earlier centuries throughout Europe? the near or genuine nudity in ersatz-dress "worn" by certain tribesmen today and by many men during Classical times? and so on and so forth?)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Meanwhile..."Braless" redirects on Wiki to Brassiere#Bralessness.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    • dictionary definition is a reason for deletion, not a reason for renaming. If this is only a dictionary entry, nominate it for deletion, since renaming it does not change the fact that it is a dictionary entry, as dictionary definitions refer to the content of the article, not the title. neologism is a reason for renaming, as it refers to the title of the article. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Is "bulging crotch" a widely used neologism? It isn't, at least that I am aware of, and all the book hits are to erotic stories. Indeed it seems simply a somewhat-well-used descriptive phrase, millions of those exist and, no, articles should not exist for them. I'm not seeing how your example helps to make the point! --Errant (chat!) 10:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Neologisms are "bad"; hence, bulging crotch--yes, as a descriptive phrase in straightforward English (per wp:NEO's "[...For] notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists...[,] use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English[...]")--is "good," is it not? There's certainly plenty of scholarship on the history of fashion, including that pertaining to the display, semi-display, and non-display of genetalia.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree - "Camel Toe" is a known specific neologism that relates more to sexual slang and innuendo than fashion. So the question is whether secondary source material about the term exists - jury is out on that one for me at the moment. Your idea of the coverage of genetalia in the history of fashion is interesting, and I would love to see sources. Renaming this specific article to that title wouldn't work to my mind, though, as the topics have critical differences. As you noted; Camel Toe is a term applied in the context of making a lewd or sexual statement about someone's dress. What you are talking about is a more general idea of genital coverage and the response to it - inter-meshed certainly, but not the same. Could you please cite some of these sources r.e. history of fashion, including that pertaining to the display, semi-display, and non-display of genetalia. This would do a lot to support your argument, and are basically critical for this Move request to stand any chance.
  • To put it another way; the part of WP:NEO you cite only works in this case if you conflate the specific neologism into the wider topic, which I don't agree with. --Errant (chat!) 11:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I see, sorta (it's still a little murky for my somewhat addled mind, seriously) what you are getting at, ErranX. And I imagine that you are probably right, somehow. I'll have to give what you say some thought and come back to the subject. ps - I actually--and I know I'm being a little bit confused and, likewise, confusing, in this--felt that, for example, "bulging crotch" IS too "slangily" euphemistic and so believed a better rubric to be the suggestions I had made ("near-nudity," "crotch (fashion)," "visible outline of genitalis seen though clothes"). But, in any case, thanks so much for your feedback!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For Brummell, the influential arbiter of 18th-century men's fashion (and that of subsequent eras'--including the suit-and-tie of modern times), the 2006 biography Beau Brummell, page 121, "...tight pale breeches, such as those pioneered by George Brummell, accented the crotch exactly as do the poses of antique statuary" (apparently analogous to the Classical Revival architecture also of his period).

    And (hat-tip, user:Hans Adler), there's the 1999 book The Book of the Penis, chapter 7: "The Penis in Fashion".--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I think the nomination rather misses the point. The neologism is tied to the notability of the subject quite intimately; while obviously genitals and tight clothing are not recent inventions, the observation of the effect in question is part of popular culture in no small part due to the coining of an invocative name for it. The exact same argument applies to a significant number of minor fetishes that have arisen in the Internet era, though I've little desire to go listing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure the exact reasoning behind the rename proposal... Camel toe is the defined neologism (at least according to my dictionaries - real ones, not slang ones :)) so the question is "does enough coverage exist beyond a dictionary entry to warrant it's own article". The current article is fairly content-light and my major searches have turned up little extra to go into it - so merging the content to a List of sexual slang article might be one option. I don't think the new proposed title is good or accurate, though, no body of work seems focused on "Visible outline of genitals through clothing" and Camel Toe is a particular neologism with common meaning and accepted widespread usage. The suggested page moves would not address the issues here. --Errant (chat!) 10:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose renaming. The nomination appears misguided. However, a merge might be a possibility. older ≠ wiser 11:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


Well, WP:NEO asks for "[sources] such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Aka, raw counts of google hits have less weight that sources that are about the term or concept. You need to find sources that are about the term "Bulging crotch". Having that in mind, the best sources I found were:

  • Slang guides with only short descriptions
  • Fashion and pop culture guides with only short descriptions:

A few borderline sources that define the term in addition to using it.

  • article in Billboard (magazine). 12 July 2003, pp 6-27. Group makes a single called "cameltoe", and the magazine explains the term: "(...) Best described as an ode to the "frontal wedgie," "cameltoe" serves as the lead single to the group's debut effort. (...) We already have No.1 phones for a couple of reasons: It is an unexpected subject to touch on with a [top 40 audience], it's taboo to some people and is relatable to the audience. I know my girlfriend asks me if her pants make her have a cameltoe. (...) At first, it appealed to 22-year-old females. We'd get calls saying 'Oh, my girlfriends were just talking about this.' Then it got younger as it went on and hit a wall after 91 spins. (...)" shows that it's used among young girls.
  • Fashion Tip in Rap For Brooklyn Girl Movies section in New York Times "What's a cameltoe? (...) Cameltoe is slang for a fashion faux pas caused by women wearing snug pants; the term suggests a visual analogy. (...) The song's lyrics explain the condition more forthrightly: Girl, that gotta hurt, take some time and adjust/ Can't you see people staring and making a fuss?'"
  • 'Cameltoe' Making An Impression On Booty Shakers, Bagel Buyers, MTV.com "For those who don't know, a "camel toe" is an outward symptom of a condition some, the group Korn being among them, have termed cameltosis. Only half the population is susceptible to the affliction, which is similar to the universally contracted wedgie ... only different. More of an upfront problem, you could say. And that's about as close to a description as MTV's standards department will allow."

As far I can assess, "cameltoe" is not a neologism (because it has sources that talk about the concept itself, as WP:NEO requires). And it fulfills WP:COMMONNAME because English language reliable sources use "cameltoe / camel toel" to refer to the topic. So, in my opinion, renaming to a descriptive term is not warranted.

As for notability, it has just enough significant coverage to survive deletion. You can always argue the last point in WP:SIGCOV, if you can get editors to agree that this is a violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY.

(Hint: you want to try writing Crotch (fashion) with reliable sources that have significant coverage of fashion in crotches, then waiting a few days/weeks for the article to stabilize, maybe survive a deletion discussion or a merge discussion, then asking to upmerge Cameltoe into the new article.) P.D.: I had already mentioned this in the section above, I didn't remember it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Is it optimal to have a narrow subject title when a broader one obstensibly would work as well--and would allow for the inclusion of material that is closely related to the more narrowly defined subject title? Or is sometimes the other way around that is more optimal, for certain reasons? For example, on Wikipedia there is one catch-all article for Bikini, male- or female-worn; as there is for (gender - non-specific) Waxing. Yet the compound term Bikini waxing forms one part of a pair of articles sorta having to do with this topic, with the (um duh: post-pubescent) female-specific one being so-named due to some version of the the "Common Name" argument.....and the one about adolescent-and-above males receiving the less-common coinage/generic description Male genital waxing.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
    It seems to me as though your approach to this subject has been to recognise the existence of the phenomenon of being able to see the outline of one's genitals through clothing, deciding that we need to cover that entire area in this article, and then requesting a move because the current title (which is a good fit for what is actually notable about that subject) doesn't fit with the more general concept. Generalising for the sake of generalising doesn't seem productive to me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Arguments should cite guidelines; and, as far as the charge of "generalizing for the sake of generalizing" goes, the term "male camel toe" is sourceable but an unnecessarily POV way to describe the dress characteristic of men who work as bicycle messengers in Manhattan. (See talkpage section immediately following this one.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


Male camel toe

For the exact phrase male camel toe I get 8 Google "archive news" hits, 0 Google (current) "news" hits, 7 Google "books" hits, 5 Google "scholar" hits. (Oh--and for male cameltoe, with no typespace between the camel and the toe, I get no Google "archive news" hits, zero Google (current) "news" hits, not any Google "books" hits, not even one Google "scholar" hits. <smiles>) Here's a photo of some men in bike shorts--who, quite naturally, "sport" this condition.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary

I saw this mentioned at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I think this is being mooted by comparison to santorum (neologism), but unlike santorum, I think this term might be movable to Wiktionary. I tried editing wikt:Cameltoe to include the information here; but I didn't manage to incorporate quite all of it. But I'm not too familiar with Wiktionary and I don't know every trick for adding comparisons to other terms, usage notes, explanations, etc. My feeling is that if the article can be hosted over there (stably and without policy violation...) without significant loss of content, then this can be deleted as NOTADICTIONARY, with a redirect to that page, and no harm will be done. But it should be abundantly clear, just from trying this much, that this would never work for the santorum article. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How does one determine whether a topic is a dictionary item or Wikipedia article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There have been other suggestions which I strongly disagree with, but my answer is that if you really think it's a dictionary term, go ahead and write up a Wiktionary article. If you can reasonably cover everything in the Wikipedia article, then it's a dictionary term. Otherwise, you keep the Wikipedia article. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Write everything as a dictionary entry, and see if you come up with a reasonable definition, if you can, put it on Wiktionary. Wiktionary doesn't take all words though, so it may get deleted (placenames seem to get deleted alot). Being a dictionary entry does not mean it doesn't also get an encyclopedia entry. Heart attack would be a good dictionary entry and encyclopedia article. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
That's disappointing. If I'd known this had been brought to Jimbo I wouldn't have wasted my time with a response, what with Refuge In JIMBOSAYS being essentially an admission that the argument in question doesn't stand up on its own merit and that the proposer is reliant on an unlikely (and still unbinding, contrary to untrained expectations) decree from above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see any recommendation from him, and I certainly don't have any authority from him; this is just my own suggestion after seeing the thread. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not faulting your actions at all. It was a commentary on the original move proposal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
A few points:

- Jimbo's words never constitute any kind of blank check on Wikipedia and if someone believes they do, they haven't been around here very long. His opinion are just what they are: those of somebody famed for having been around the project since its inception who would be presumed to have a vested interest in its continued success.

- No on has shown how, per the guidelines, the basic impetus of my nom does not hold muster. It would through counting (itself contrary to policy) the chorus of Keep-existing-title !votes that individually essentially cite wp:ILIKEIT that the nom comes into trouble, per my opinion, of course.

- For those who are new to Wikipedia, per the guidelines, faulting another editor's actions belong in, eg, wp:ANI, not on pages dedicated to the discussion of content)in discussions of content.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Several people have given the quite compelling argument that it isn't a neologism, which pretty much flatly contradicts the nomination. That you apparently didn't notice this is telling, although not as telling as your earliest contributions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The article as it stands now is virtually a dictionary entry and probably ought to be transwikied -- but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia article can't be written about the phenomenon rather than about the neologism itself. Powers T 15:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree; but I don't think there should be a lasting prejudice involved in transwikiing an article. People should be free to restore it once they have something to add about it - probably, the tricks and techniques fashion designers would use to minimize or exaggerate the effect. (The article is written as if it is something to be avoided, but somehow I doubt men are complaining!) Wnt (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Crotch (fashion) or Near-nudity

What's with these two new options? They make no sense. How is "near-nudity" ever going to be able to be used? What about swimsuits? primitive dress? etc. And as for "Crotch (fashion)", what's up with that? This isn't about edible crotches, crotchless panties, the design of briefs' fly flaps, etc. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, an article about near-nudity--which might discuss, among other things, what type of swimwear was acceptable through the ages--may or not pass notability muster--just as an article about the crotch in fashion (which could conceivably reference fly flaps) might, as well.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nomination for deletion 2011

Is it just me, or is this a bit pointy, as per the nutshell? a_man_alone (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

HBSG has previous in this regard. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 06:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This section should be closed as a personal attack. Be that as it may, "wp:Pointy refers to "disruption" of Wikipedia: (1) If you think my hoping, a year ago, to debate the propriety iscuss that article about comics solely having to do with pedaphilia disrupted Wikipedia, the place to reference that would be wp:ANI, not a discussion page, per wp:AGF and wp:WIKIQUETTE. (2) Furthermore, the impetus to think think such a debate, in light of the at-that-time newly elevated wp:Child protection guideline, specifically outlawing the promotion of pedophilia, merited a speedy close, tells us more about persons holding such a view than myself, in my opinion.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to look up WP:POINT or speculate on the motivations of individual editors, but it's hard for me to believe that the coincidence of timing between this and the great santorum (neologism) debate was entirely coincidental. All of Wikipedia was in an uproar, as covered in multiple media sources. This is part of a larger dispute about the nature of Wikipedia which has been going on for a long time, and I doubt many people here have been unconnected to it. Now I also argued against much of WP:child protection when it was promulgated, with limited success (oddly enough, it was the parts that seem to protect pedophiles against accusations that I was completely unsuccessful in opposing). I believe Wikipedia needs to remain unbiased by covering everything editors want to cover, never flinching. When dealing with cameltoes and Muhammad cartoons the usefulness is hard to see, but as we came up to santorum, the reason became clearer: because we can't be saying that one side or another in a political controversy is just too gross or too outrageous to cover. If we go that way we end up biasing and censoring our political coverage, destroying our neutrality and credibility, creating a situation where every policy and guideline and vote is nothing but a political tool. I think this article became just one of dozens of small skirmishes in that debate, when people started saying that words in general weren't proper topics for encyclopedia articles. We don't have to go down that path. We can agree to preserve everything, allow every side to be heard, cover everything that can be covered in as much detail as we can. We can turn the conflict between Democrat and Republican into a friendly rivalry where each side scours their favorite media sources and adds everything they can find to help make their case, rather than sieving through the others' contributions looking for things to object to. We can build a compilation of information the likes of which the world has never seen.
Now on the specific argument here, as I said at the AfD, (and unlike with santorum) I think this article wouldn't suffer much if it were soft redirected to Wiktionary after I copied things the entry there - I just don't think that deletion should be in the picture. If someone proposed to redirect this now I might say "weak oppose", or maybe stay neutral, unless otherwise convinced. The fault here isn't really the proposal but the policy: I don't think WP:DICT should allow for deletion or AfDs as a means of addressing a dictionary entry at all, as I commented on the talk page there. It doesn't look like I'm getting the support I'd like there, but I'm sticking to my opinion. Wnt (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's all gone a bit quiet... is everyone all right? I'm a bit relieved this didn't escalate further.

There's a rough but clear and repeated consensus that the article has some value, not very much value (unless as a test case, which is of course the whole subject of WP:POINT) but enough value to stay, and that the campaign to remove it is not a good thing and should stop.

In my opinion there have been minor infringements of behavioural guidelines on both sides, but which of these are actual infringements, which are borderline and which are legitimate responses to other infringements is not possible to ever sort out, nor even good to do so even if we could. (I'm sure that some possible interpretations would see me censured too.)

So I strongly recommend we don't even try. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

rem dicdef

I've removed the dicdef template, the current version of the article [2] is more than a dictionary definition. Andrewa (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Origin

Any idea when or where this term first appeared? ColDickPeters (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1991?[3], definatly by 1993[4] Snori (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

English "camel's hoof", used in Burton's 1886 translation of the The Perfumed Garden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.76.27 (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Really! With the current meaning? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
After some research, not quite correct:

God has furnished this object with a mouth, a tongue, two lips; it is like the impression of the hoof of the gazelle in the sands of the desert. page 6

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Need a picture

Need picture of a moose knuckle. Don't know about moose knuckles.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Cptnono: We have cited policy and guidelines. The reason for my edits, as already stated, are:

  • Uncleft "bulges" are more often visible is not sourced and the following sentence is unrelated to page if this is removed.
  • The causes of the camel toe effect are not always obvious is not in sources and not encyclopedia
  • Citations #4 and #5 are not RS, just a blog.

Cptnono, you need to AGF and remember the WP:BURDEN is on you to justify inclusion if reasonable reasons for exclusion are presented. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cptnono: Your new source for the "tight seam" still doesn't work. The source just says if you get camel toe, your clothes are too tight and it's ugly. Nothing about seams or clothing design. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey if it quakes like a duck and all. I'm happy to try to AGF if you continue to use the talk page instead of edit warring. Anyays, I addressed your concerns with new sources. See how easy that was?Cptnono (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cptnono: Read my comment right before yours. Your source still doesn't work. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of the source. I can find another if you want (or you could try to do the sae since adding content is better than removal).Cptnono (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll try, but there's nothing to disagree about. Source says it's from tight fitting clothing. Nothing about clothing design. Again WP:SYNTH is an issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Cptnono, if you're seriously concerned about the article, state your case cogently. "I don't agree" is just opposing for the sake of opposition.
Peter Isotalo 13:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I also reworded the "causes are not obvious" sentence so that it matches the paragraph and the sources. Sources say it's from tight clothing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If there's currently no source for a center seam contributing to a camel toe, one needs to be found toot sweet, since it is intuitively obvious that this is the case, confirmed by practical observation in the real world. BMK (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

". . .confirmed by practical observation in the real world."? I'm relieved that you realize that references are still needed, though, as I also live in the real world where there's a pronounced dearth of this non-notable happenstance. Please tell me that this article is a joke, a sad, sad joke. Wordreader (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Woman/man to female/male

@Beyond My Ken: I changed woman/man to female/male since this article discusses sex, not gender. Please see sex and gender distinction and compare woman to female. Note that vulva does not mention "women", it uses "female". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your usage is incorrect, as succinctly explained in my edit summary. If you want to make that change, get a consensus for it here. Otherwise, do not try to edit war it into the article, a violation of both WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. Sex and gender distinction is an article not Wikipedia policy. It can't even be cited in other Wikipedia articles, per our rules.
Get a consensus. BMK (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken - perhaps this is indeed beyond your ken. My usage is consistent with sexology articles as well as almost every professional style guide (e.g., American Medical Association). See also Wikipedia:Gender-neutral_language: Generally speaking, prefer female and male to make statements that are exclusively about anatomy and biological sex, and for writing about non-human species. Is that WP:BURDEN enough? We can ask over at WP:SEX if you wish. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No personal insults, please, and no outside authorities need apply. When a consensus of editors on this talk page agree with you, you can make the change, and not until then.
BTW "Sciurus carolinensis is a grey North American squirrel" is a perfectly legitimate encyclopedic statement, even though there are mellanistic individual squirrels who are black. Not every accurate statement has to be applicable to every conceivable combination of circumstances as long as the statement is generally true about the vast majority of instances. That's very much the case here.
Anyway, please get a consensus, and be careful not to WP:CANVASS. BMK (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You asked for BURDEN so I gave some. WP:SEX seems the most logical choice for this article so I'll post there. I know a few folks follow this page, so maybe they'll comment as well.
Beyond My Ken - would you consider reinstating the other formatting, linking, etc. changes I made? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I don't think they improve the article either. BMK (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
For transparency, I made an invite to comment here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
And I've made one here, which you should take a look at to get an idea of what a required "neutral pointer" should look like. BMK (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I've also notified WikiProject Language here. BMK (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
And the Guild of Copy Editors here. BMK (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. I'm not terribly excited about rewording to account for tiny minorities (like trans men with "original" genitalia still intact). But changing from "in men" to "male" in this case seems quite inconsequential. If such a minute rewording fixes a perceived problem of trans exclusion, I can't for the life of me see why anyone would revert it.
I've suggested a third option[5] as an attempt to avoid further dispute.
Peter Isotalo 08:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
A third opinion is fine, although we're not technically in the right condition for it. I've regverted you again since consensus is not yet established -- it's been less than 24 hours and there are only 3 commenters, the 2 disputants and you. Let's give it a little time please.
Bsically, I reverted you because I do not see where your change addresses the central issue here, which is the "female" is a generic term that can apply to any animal, bird, reptile etc, and I have yet to see a female mongoose with a camel toe. What I've seen is women (and girls for that matter) with camel toes -- that is female human beings. To say this is a condition that occurs to "females" is categorically incorrect, to say it occurs to women is not. This is why "women" is the correct term to use. BMK (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No one is going to confuse this with non-human animals. Either term would be perfectly fine, but Evergreen has a rational argument for avoiding one of them. Your argument is, quite frankly, argumentative nitpicking. And your behavior is very uncolleagial.
Peter Isotalo 10:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree. We're an encyclopedia, we should not publish statements which are verifiably unfactual. A female human being is called a "woman". BMK (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The human context is already clearly given in the first sentence. It couldn't possibly be misunderstood or challenged. We don't write every single sentence for morons in a hurry. So whether it's super-duper-technically "unfactual" or not is irrelevant. If you seriously can't grasp the idea of topic context beyond the level of individual sentences, I recommend you avoid copyediting altogether.
Peter Isotalo 10:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The opening sentence is "Camel toe or cameltoe is a slang term that refers to the outline of a woman's labia majora, as seen through tightly fitting clothes." Now if "woman" is changed to "female" where is the context that you're talking about? It's not there. Our sentences must be as accurate as we can make them. If someone wants to go with "female human being" instead of "woman" I couldn't object on the grounds of accuracy, although it would be a perfectly god-awful sentence, since there's a convenient synonym for "female human being" -- "woman". BMK (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
"Female/male" is a synonym for "woman/man" and the article is about clothing. Non-human animals don't wear clothing. This is not up for discussion. Either you're hopelessly stuck in whatever confused train of though that originally made you start this dispute, or you're actually trolling. Either way, you need to stop this disruptive bickering.
Peter Isotalo 15:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but really you don't get to make statements such as "X is not up for discussion" -- it's neither collaborative nor collegial, and you do not have the final say. I believe that the context of the article requires that "woman" be used, so if you have any interest in reaching a consensus instead of just pontificating, it will continue to be discussed until a consensus is reached. BMK (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
One other thing. I have asked both you [6], [7] and EvergreenFir [8],[9] nicely to not impugn my intelligence or my motivations in bringing this issue up, now I must strongly insist on it. I've been an editor here since June 2005, I have over 150,000 edits, and my contributions to the advancement of the encyclopedia cannot be questioned. I have never deliberately made a vandalistic edit, and, while I am prone to sarcasm and occasionally losing my temper, I do not troll, ever. If you or EvergreenFir make another such accusation in the course of this discussion, I will immediately bring it to the attention of an admin for adjudication.
You must reign in your discomfort at being disagreed with and argue your point of view in the case at hand, and not personalize the issue unnecessarily. Nor should you jump to any conclusions regarding my own views about transgender rights or anything else - I am arguing solely on the basis of grammar and logic, not out of any antagonistic POV.
That being said, I hope the remainder of this discussion can be more civil, and that you can focus on the issue at hand. BMK (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I'm with Ken on this one. Several reasons for this:
  • Aesthetics - the sentence flow of "refers to the outline of a woman's labia majora" makes a lot more sense than "refers to the outline of a female's labia majora" A female what? A female camel? An assumption is being made that there will be no confusion. In fact the specific avoidence of the term "woman" suggests that this is to be applied intentionally to creatures other than humans. As Ken says, to clarify what kind of female, instead of putting "female human", English language has provided us with a term for this - "woman". This also ties in with his last point - the context of the article is all important, and is applicable to human females, again - women. (Apart from the moose knuckle bit, which refers to human males, but again, we have a term there "men".)
  • From reading through the various articles on Transsexual(ism) in wikipedia, and checking a few sources, it seems that transgendered people generally prefer to be identified with the gender they are moving to - so a transgendered man would wish to be referred to as a woman - which makes sense, as this is the gender they identify with. A transsexual man identifies with the female human gender - ie a woman - rather than identifying with the gender that is a man wishing to be a woman. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In response to the sentence flow of "refers to the outline of a woman's labia majora" makes a lot more sense than "refers to the outline of a female's labia majora" A female what? A female camel? Do camels wear clothes? Considering the very next line is "as seen through tightly fitting clothes" I'm not sure this would tend to confuse anyone. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of any issues with respect to trans people (which I'm not discounting), male/female seems more encyclopedic to me, which seems a plus for this minimally encyclopedic article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. If you feel that it's blatantly obvious that the female in question is a female human, then the term to be used should undeniably be "woman"
  2. Why on earth do you think I'm trying to make a point? Please clarify, otherwise I'll be forced to assume that you've decided to drop sensibility and make personal attacks, as you did with Ken. I would suggest that a dogged insistence to use the term "female" or "female human" in place of the term "woman" is way more pointy.
  3. I counter - "woman" seems more encyclopedic to me, but more importantly, it makes more sense to the casual reader. I point you to Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal: "Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics." In this case, "woman" makes more sense than "female (human)". While I don't discount the the fact that "female (human)" is also correct, it's unnecessarily wordy, when we already have a word that means "female (human)" You may have heard of it - it's "woman". Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Woman and female are not the same as I've already pointed out. One refers to social norms and identity while the other refers to biology. This is not a fringe position. It is the norm in medical and social scientific fiends. While I understand that most people consider them synonymous, this article is about anatomy and we should have the terminology conform with the standard of that field. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The article is hardly "about anatomy". If we all went naked, there would be no article on "camel toe", it's the system, the interaction of a woman's anatomy with the clothing she wears and society's response to the visual impression made that creates the need for an article, so we're hardly talking about anatomy pre se, we're really talking about social mores. BMK (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not considering myself a scientific fiend, I would have to bow to your wisdom, however, I'm still of the opinion that this is a social topic, ergo should be more common-man in approach - as you yourself admit that most people consider them the same. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Responding to the various arguments above: 1) The term "woman" refers to an adult female and not adolescents. Camel toe often seems to be a fashion trend of adolescents, so female would seem to be a technically better word choice here because it covers both adults and adolescents. 2)Since this article is fairly graphic, I'll go there...what would you get if a trans woman (with male genitalia) was wearing tight thin clothing? Would that be a camel toe? A moose knuckle? ...The term "woman" has more of a social/cultural meaning. The word "female" has more of biological meaning. Trans women are women while biologically they are chromosomaly male. So to cover the trans issue, "female/male" seem a bit better. Also, that issue aside, I just think "male/female" helps make this rather ridiculous article sound somewhat more serious and encyclopedic, and when the topic is "camel toe" that's no easy task. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You're correct that adolescents have been left out, but, again, that's better addressed by writing "...the labia majora of women and adolescent girls...". BMK (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not to be crude, but camel toe is possible for anyone with a vulva at any age. Children wear bathing suits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine, then "women and girls". (And, no, I did not think that was crude.) BMK (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Then I suppose we'd change "men" to "men and boys" for the moose knuckle section? It seems male/female seems simpler and less awkward. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and "cow" is even simpler, with fewer letters, but it's not accurate, and neither is "male" or "female". Let's be accurate, shall we, and use words with their commonly understood meanings so that our readers understand what we're talking about. As The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage says

In references to people, the nouns woman, man, girl and boy are most natural. If a construction unavoidably warrants male and female, use them as adjectives, not nouns. (p.131)

Here, we should use "women and girls" in the first instance, and "men and boys" in the second. They are clear, accurate, and make no untoward statement regarding gender politics. BMK (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the most most ridiculous attempts I've seen of someone trying to force their personal vision of language minutia on others. Even when it's plainly obvious that "female/male" is a perfectly adequate, catch-all synonym, we're treated to a magisterial lecture about the NYT MoS. And this is after the positively idiotic suggestion that readers might think this is about hotpants-wearing camels if we don't write out "man" or "woman".
Peter Isotalo 07:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Something new every day. This is the first time I've ever heard quoting a single sentence from a book described as a "magisterial lecture." Peter Isotalo, you seem to be getting slightly hysterical about this. It's probably time to take a break from this subject and collect yourself, because your comments seem to be becoming increasingly didactic and unhelpful. I mean, how can you complain that I'm trying to force my "personal" preference on the community when I just quoted the usage advice of the "Newspaper of Record"? That really doesn't make a lot of sense. BMK (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring to me or Ken? Just so's we know who you're having a go at. This is indeed one of the most most ridiculous attempts I've seen of someone trying to force their personal vision of language minutia on others. Even when it's plainly obvious that "women" is a perfectly adequate, catch-all synonym. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
BMK, if it's important to you that male/female be used as adjectives, how about the following wording: "Camel toe is a slang term that refers to the outline of female genitalia, specifically the labia majora, as seen through tightly fitting clothing...With respect to male genitalia , the equivalent to "camel toe" is..."moose knuckle"? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It rather misses the point again, that it's not about female genitalia per se, it's about human female genitalia. BMK (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that this article is about humans is clear from context and we've already addressed the fact that camels don't wear clothing. Given the concerns regarding trans individual and the fact that saying women and girls / men and boys (instead of using the adjective format of female genitalia/male genitalia) unnecessarily highlights pedophilia, the suggested change seems reasonable and your inflexibility here seems very confusing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Look, the article Green politics is clearly about human beings, but we should still use "women" and "men" instead of "males" and "females", so that argument just doesn't hold water. BMK (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
BMK, in what way do you think wording which avoids needlessly emphasizing pedophilia applies to green politics? Also, how do the concerns regarding choosing wording that applies to all women and men (including trans people) apply to green politics? The concerns for this article don't seem to apply over there. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, this comes entirely out of left field, what is it, exactly, that you believe "needlessly emphasiz[es] pedophilia"? Saying "woman and girls" instead of "females"? Is that what we've come to, that simply writing "girls" can get one accused of promoting pedophilia? If that is indeed what you mean, then we have absolutely nothing to discuss, because I think you are way, way out of line. Please, please, explain and tell me that I'm wrong, that I've completely misunderstood what you meant, and I'll apologize profusely and we can continue talking. BMK (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was clear from the context of the above discussion, but to repeat I was specifically referring to your stated preference for this wording: "Camel toe is a slang term that refers to the outline of a woman or girl's labia majora, as seen through tightly fitting clothes...In men and boys, the equivalent to "camel toe" is "moose knuckle" and your objection to this alternate wording: "Camel toe is a slang term that refers to the outline of female genitalia, specifically the labia majora, as seen through tightly fitting clothing...With respect to male genitalia, the equivalent to "camel toe" is "moose knuckle". The later does not seem to needlessly emphasize pedophilia (i.e. adults checking out camel toe or moose knuckle of young girls or boys) The later also addresses your earlier concerns regarding only using male/female as adjectives. As a bonus, it also addresses the trans issue, but apparently you still object, based on something to do with green politics which you've yet to explain. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As I reminded everyone below, and as you can look up just above, it was you who was concerned that the sentence didn't deal with adolescent girls.[10] I was happy with "women", it was to address 'your concern that I first said "women and adolescent girls",[11] and then when EF pointed out that younger girls can get camel toes in bathing suits,[12] I amended it to "women and girls".[13] This was all entirely in the spirit of trying to compromise in order to get a consensus. Now, you're throwing that in my face as if it was my preferred choice, and saying that the mere mention of the obvious fact that girls can get camel toes is somehow promoting pedophilia. If I wasn't an entirely reasonable person, I'd be e-mailing an admin right now complaining about your using the supposed promotion of pedophilia as a rhetorical device in an argument. I'm not, though, but I will say this don't fucking do it again. BMK (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow. I bring up a concern regarding article text and you mention back channel admin action, which seems inappropriate. You are misrepresenting me (or misreading what I actually wrote). I didn't say "promoting" pedophilia, and I didn't say you promoted pedophilia. To be clear, I said that the phrase "women and girls" needlessly "emphasizes" (not promotes) pedophilia and that this needless emphasis could be eliminated by using the phrase "female genitalia" instead. I did earlier bring up that the term Woman doesn't include adolescents, and that this seems relevant with respect to the topic considering this is largely a fashion trend of adolescents. EF brought up that anyone at any age with a vulva could have camel toe, which I agree is factually correct. I prefer "female genitalia" because it covers all ages without highlighting camel toe of girls. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want to see if an admin agrees with me that when you write that one of my suggested wordings "emphasiz[es] pedophilia" it's a personal attack, and well outside acceptable discourse on Wikipedia, just let me know, I'll report it, and we'll see what happens.
It's absolutely amazing to me that instead of immediately offering an apology for inadvertently insulting me, you continue to defend your statement. Un-fucking-believable. BMK (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is getting so POINTy and rather insulting to the apparently inconsequential number of people that "woman" doesn't apply to. First I'm told outside style guides are pointless, but then the same person uses one as evidence for their point. This is truly beyond your ken BMK if you don't know that male/female vs man/woman is the standard in all social science and medicine. You'd think after Manning and other cases WP editors would be remotely more savvy about these issues. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No one is being POINTy on this side of the discussion, I'm afraid. No one intentionally giving offense to anyone, but you seem intent on taking offense nonetheless.
A general sentence applies to the general case, if you want to craft a long and convoluted sentence which applies to every conceivable specific case in order to cover every possible circumstance, then you have a go at it, mate, but it doesn't change the plain fact that "females" is incorrect and "women and girls" is. (And, actually, just plain "women" was fine with me, it was you who wanted girls to be covered as well (not being haoppy with either "women" or "women and adolescent girls", and reminding me -- "not to be crude" -- that girls can get camel toes in bathing suits), so go fight it out with the editor all worried about promoting pedophilia.) If you want to be offended at that, please be my guest, but in my book it's a pretty awkward way to live your life, being offended at everything.
At least, though, we've gotten down to the bottom line here. You object because of gender politics, and the other guy objects because it promotes pedophilia. Neither is true, or relevant, since this is entirely a question of grammar. (Oh, and BTW, your claim of being "standard in all social science and medicine" is almost entirely irrelevant, as it the article is neither about medicine nor about social science, it's about clothing and slang.)
Unless I read something here that backs off from these two ridiculousness and irrelevant positions, I'm out of here. You want to discuss grammar, encyclopedic writing, the sense and meaning of the sentence, I'll be here, but the rest is just not on. This discussion has descended into rather sublime depths of silliness. BMK (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
BMK, I specifically addressed your grammar concern by using male/female as adjectives. Grammar concern solved. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(**sigh**) Yes, you used "female" as an adjective but you did not solve the problem that that word can apply to animals, birds, reptiles etc. We need to be more specific than "female genitalia" and say "female human genitalia" which is more succinctly expressed as "women's genitalia".
Let's not go around in circles, please, this discussion is tedious enough as it is. BMK (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this is starting to seem pointless. The non-human issue has been addressed repeatedly, and it's becoming clear that your issue isn't grammar, or people thinking this is an article about camels who wear clothes etc, but rather about your apparent dislike of edits which you interpret as "gender politics".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Here again, you jump to incorrect conclusion, based on your own presuppositions. My issue is precisely what it's been since Moment One: the proper word to use is "women" and not "females". That you and others want to spin things into something else entirely says nothing about me, but volumes about your own motivations, which you have now conveniently revealed in these last few commets. Since those appear to be about political correctness and gender politics (read: a violation of WP:NPOV), you don't have a leg to stand on. You can allow yourself to think whatever you want about me, my politics, and my motivations, and I can guarantee you it won't be true, either in general or about this specific issue: the reasons I have presented here are the truth, the whole truth, and nuttin' but the truth.
We are an encyclopedia, which means that we (not me) are inherently resistant to change, which is why we (not me) require verifiability, citations from reliable sources, and why we disallow original research. We, as a reference work, do not lead we follow, and until someone changes the rules of grammar and word usage, we follow those rules -- if you want to mount a campaign to change accepted grammar or word usage, start a blog or a foundation or write a petition to somebody somewhere, but this is not the place to pursue your POV political goals. BMK (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
BMK, you just wrote "My issue is precisely what it's been since Moment One: the proper word to use is "women" and not "females".". As was just pointed out above, I didn't substitute "women" with "females". My version contained the grammatically correct phrase "female genitalia", so if you want to continue objecting, that basically leaves you the people might think this is an article about animals argument. The absurdity of that is what led me to suspect dislike of what you interpret as "gender politics" might be the issue. If you really are concerned about people being confused that this is an article about hotpants-wearing-camels, I apologize for the misinterpretation, but I don't find that argument convincing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You are once again allowing your prejudices and presuppositions about me, personally, to get in the way of your argumentation. I've already told you that you are wrong, and any analysis of my collective commentary will support that - not that I expect you to do that, since it's so much more comfortable to believe that your opposition is wrong because he or she is a bad person.
In any case, you're repeating your suggestions once again. Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it righter each time. I've already explained why your suggestion is not accceptable, at least twice. I'm not going to do it again, and certainly not going to continue to engage you while you continue to impugn my motivations.
Just a reminder that your co-argumenter, EvergreeFir, has twice now insulted my intelligence with the oh-so-amusing remark that this issue was "beyond my ken" [14],[15], and that Peter Isotalo questioned my motivations on my talk page.[16] Now, you tell me why I should continue to have a consensus discussion with three editors each of whom has directed themselves at me personally instead of dealing with the actual argument I've presented, that the rules of grammar and word usage clearly call for "women". The answer is, I shouldn't, the three of you have shown absolutely no ability to look beyond your own prejudices, personal opinions and political views to the question of what the proper encyclopedic language is.
As I said, when you want to engage with arguments directed at grammar, word usage and proper encyclopedic language, I'll engage again, but as of now, you're not worth my time. BMK (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
BeyondMyKen is absolutely correct. Anyone, anywhere in the English speaking world would use the word "woman" in this sentence if used outside of wikipedia. Normal rules of English clearly don't apply here. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't insult your intelligence, I said this topic is beyond your knowledge base. You, on the other hand, imply that trans people are just a minority of instances that don't need to be considered. Tu quoque. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(←) The accepted word for an adult female human is "woman"; "female" can refer to human children and babies as well as adults. If the term "camel toe" is applicable only to adult females, I'd use "woman". If it applies to women and female children (girls, teenagers, adolescents), the more general term "female" would seem the more appropriate choice. Just my 2d worth. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Improper categories

Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category. Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate.

For this reason, I will be removing the unsupported, unsourced categories. Almighty Camel (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I had softened my position to just flagging, which compels other users to act. Apparently, that was also too extreme.
I'm at a loss. We just do nothing? Almighty Camel (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
No, not "nothing". For one thing, we WP:DNFTT. BMK (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand, you don't want me to feed the trolls. But how does allowing them to run wild improve Wikipedia? Almighty Camel (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Just one note: It is clearly a sexual slang. It states it's a slang term describing the outline of a sexual body part of a female. You only have some sort of case for sexual fetishism, which was placed back because it needs consensus for how long it has been there.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The article says it's just "slang". Nothing included about its visual effect being sexual, let alone it being "sexual slang". Do you have any RS to back up your assertion? Almighty Camel (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Strange...a slang term referring to a female sex organ is not "sexual slang". Really strange...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

So, you can attempt sarcasm, but still no RS? Noted. Almighty Camel (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Almighty Camel: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Random House Dictionary. WP:SOFIXIT, it would take you several minutes at most either to find the requested source or to find none. Brandmeistertalk 21:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Almighty Camel has been indef blocked as a troll. BMK (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry guys, if I had known that troll would come back I wouldn't have asked to have the page unprotected.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Been here since 2005 - if there's one thing I've learned, trolls almost always come back. BMK (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC Male equivalent

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is not to add some such thing. Kraxler (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you support or oppose adding a male equivalent section that looks approximately like this or a variation of it ? Freidnless lnoner (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the see also paragraph include:

  • fat woman's back which looks like tits

back bosom, titty-back, reversed boobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8489:D000:B00F:567B:A21A:F076 (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camel_toe/Archive_2&oldid=1128045058"