Talk:Hymenorrhaphy

Fact tag

Someone slapped a fact tag on the statement In France, the cost can be covered by state if the patient claims that she has been raped. There's exactly one external link referring to France, and it's an article on Reuters that says Surprisingly, French social security reimburses some of the cost of the operation in cases of rape or trauma. Seems an adequate citation to me. Maybe the format could be improved, but that's not what a fact tag is supposed to be about. Andrewa 12:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And they just put it back again, with no comment here as to why they are unable to follow the citation. A footnote isn't hard to create, it would have taken little extra time than slapping on the fact tag. Frankly it seems overkill to me on an article of this length, with only three citations in all, but I guess that's what they want. Done. Andrewa (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mostly Arab"

The article currently says, "The normal aim is to cause bleeding during the wedding night, which in some cultures, mostly Arab but not exclusively, is a required proof of virginity. It is becoming slightly more common in the United States of America." Is there any source for the claim that this requirement is "mostly Arab"? What does "mostly" even mean in this context? Honestly this sounds like someone's ethnic bias got in there, so I'm taking it out. If anyone has a problem with that, we should discuss it here. 67.172.93.9 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... perhaps mostly Muslim is not a lot better. This edit by an IP with no other edits added it. IMO it's unsourced speculation and should be removed. Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the suspects

Wow, there's an incredible amount of misinformation on this topic on the web! The article is a little light on citations at present, but more to follow.

The problem is, there are several lobby groups wanting to suppress this information (it's a strange coalition):

• The religious right, both Christian and Muslim, who want to deny a woman the option of restoring her hymen because they think virginity is too important to fake.

• The liberated left, who want to similarly deny a woman this right because they think that nobody should value virginity anyway.

• The medical old guard, who don't approve of this sort of thing at all.

• The misguided idealists who confuse the more modern options with infibulation.

And against this, you have the boutique clinics, who are making a lot of money out of this and so promote the obvious and opposite POV.

There's a restricted-access site which advises NSW GPs not to offer the option of sutures to the relatives of a rape victim. I'm looking for more public-access information to back this one up, but it more or less implies that such operations are secretly available. And let's not be too hard on this approach, note that what it says is that the relatives shouldn't be offered this option. It says nothing about what the victim should be offered herself (that's too hard perhaps, so the poor GP has to work it out as they go).

There are also some revolting accounts of operations in Egypt (where all hymen restoration is illegal) and of victims being advised to tell their new husbands to use a cutting implement. I'm looking for some more objective accounts of this. Andrewa 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=15038 is interesting reading... These women may be told to instruct their husbands that their hymen is very vascular and that he should cut it with a sharp instrument before they attempt sexual intercourse. This recent article also states that there is no law against hymen restoration in Egypt. It may have changed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1314090.stm still says it's illegal. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalised link restored

One of the external links was vandalised to point instead to a commercial clinic site. I've restored the link to the article. Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a (presumably commercial) link site, dealing mainly in pornography websites. The IP who performed the vandalisation has made no other edits, and one guesses they're associated with the link site in some way. I thought of dropping a line to each of the clinics who (seemingly) choose to advertise on the site, saying that IMO their credibility is damaged by the association, but maybe not this time. And we should not even assume the nature of this association; Porn merchants often link to unrelated sites to try to establish their own credibility. And nor should we assume any arm's length between the link site and the porn sites it promotes; Often the same provider owns hundreds of seemingly unrelated sites, including link sites such as this, and one suspects that if you are silly enough to pay for more than one of them, you just get two accounts to access the same content. Andrewa (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Detection methods?

Is it possible--either for a physician, or for an ordinary person--to detect whether an operation of this kind has been performed? If so, how?

I suppose it is just a matter of time before the more commercially-oriented medical clinics begin offering this service as well. As with computer security, we can expect a kind of "arms race" to develop between those who would commit, or prevent, virginity fraud.

(Singing) "But I can't regret...what I did for love...what I did FOR LOOOOOOOOVE...."

--Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.168.159 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Laughable

I'm about to remove the unreferenced tag, which was added by the same IP who similarly vandalised the hymenotomy article. Vandalism? Am I coming on a bit strong?

Well, let me simply point out what the tag reads: This article does not cite any references or sources (my emphasis). Um, Blind Freddy knows that's not true, and in fact it never has been. It's a laughable claim.

It's not quite as bad as the one on the hymenotomy article. There is some unsourced stuff in this article at present, some labelled with fact tags, some not. And as commented above, other fact tags are actually on points that are perfectly well supported by the general references. But I guess the easiest thing is just to footnote these explicitly, and in fact under Wikipedia's guidelines that's the only proper procedure. If anyone asks for an inline reference, the tag stays there until they get it.

So there are some legitimate tags on the article. As the first step in cleaning these up, let's remove the laughable one so we don't need to waste any more time on it. Andrewa (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

move to Hymenoplasty

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hymenorrhaphy → Hymenoplasty – Much more widely used term. Both these were merged long back. Heading indexing (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hymenorrhaphy is a type of Hymenoplasty. Hymenotomy is another type, and it's a separate topic. Powers ^T 12:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case would you prefer merging these 2 articles into hymenoplasty? Or hymenoplasty can be made a disambiguation page as well. Heading indexing (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, a disambiguation page would be fine. Powers ^T 12:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The situation is that technically hymenorrhaphy and hymenotomy are the two types of hymenoplasty, but the greater newsworthiness of hymenorrhaphy has meant that in common usage hymenoplasty is a synonym for hymenorrhaphy. The existing redirect, hatnote, leads and See also sections deal with this accurately and efficiently and conform to policy and guidelines. A two-way DAB does not. Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hymenorrhaphy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106195525/http://www.newhymen.dk/ to http://www.newhymen.dk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent article move

Soarwakes, regarding you moving this article from "Hymenorrhaphy" to "Hymen reconstruction surgery," I noticed that you always move articles without taking the matter through a WP:Requested moves discussion. Do see what WP:Requested moves states about making moves that might be contested. What evidence do you have that "Hymen reconstruction surgery" is the WP:Common name for this topic? Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles. "Hymen reconstruction surgery" is the more descriptive title, obviously. But common name is different, and the MOS:MED section I linked to emphasizes the scientific name. I'll alert WP:Med to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

this article from "Hymenorrhaphy" to "Hymen reconstruction surgery," I noticed that you always move articles without taking the matter through a WP:Requested moves discussion. Do see what WP:Requested moves states about making moves that might be contested...agree w/ Flyer22--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that "Hymenoplasty" is the common name, that "Hymen repair" (without specifying that it is accomplished through surgical procedures) is the next most common, and that both "Hymenorrhaphy" (just seven articles using that term on PubMed) to "Hymen reconstruction surgery" are far distant choices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably best to go with "Hymen repair" per WAID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a different article for Hymenoplasty, which is a superset of surgeries like this one. While WP:MED is a Wikiproject and not a wikipedia policy, while WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. Flyer22 Reborn, the article can be moved back on redirect if that is required, but I would not support that. Soarwakes (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Soarwakes, there is no need to ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist. You need to give some solid evidence that "hymen reconstruction surgery" is the common name. Otherwise, the article will be moved back since your move is contested. WP:Requested moves is clear about moves that are contested. You can't just state that something is a common name without evidence and expect editors to keep an article titled that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)