Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:27, 8 August 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's Health This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Vaginal steaming be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from Vaginal steaming appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that "sorcery for your vagina" can result in second-degree burns? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2017/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming.

[REDACTED]

WP:MEDRS

As much as I'd like to get a DYK out of this, wonder if this article can stand with zero sources passing MEDRS. Ritchie? EEng 21:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to skirt around that issue by basically changing the article so it's all opinion based, "x said this", "y said that", or words like "claims to" - basically nothing that actually presents itself as scientific fact. Ritchie333 21:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Still I think we might have a WP:NEO problem too. Can you find something helping us past that? I'm skeptical of the claims this is an ancient Chinese secret and so on. If it's just today's fad with no serious comment at all, we might be out of luck. (Hate to, er, throw cold water on it.) EEng 22:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian source I just added explains the science, though I wouldn't normally treat that as a valid MEDRS; however, I don't think anyone's seriously claiming anything that's actually scientifically proven anyway. Ritchie333 22:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• They're not MEDRS, but at least they're more reliable than news articles:
  • ‘Basically, it’s sorcery for your vagina’: unpacking Western representations of vaginal steaming - Culture, Health & Sexuality
  • A multi-country study on gender, sexuality and vaginal practices: implications for sexual health: policy brief - World Health Organization
  • Prevalence and self-reported health consequences of vaginal practices in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: findings from a household survey - Tropical Medicine & Internal Health

There's also this review which was pulled from publication for apparently being abandoned by the authors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, bullets 2 and 3 get us out of NEO. All we need now is the right hook. EEng 22:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's always the droll, neutral version "Some women use steam from boiling herbal water on their vaginas due to a belief in its positive health effects." It's not a hook per se, but it's a place to start. I think the right wording could make a good hook. I'm not going to suggest too many myself because, well, I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to just pun my way through offending everyone who reads this thread. I'd get everyone all hot and bothered. ANI would boil over with complaints. One might even say I'd make steam shoot from their... Ears. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

...they're their ears? By all means, pun away! EEng 03:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

they're ears? <twitch>...<bites his lip>...<twitch>... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep it in your pants. I'm blaming this one on the autocorrect. EEng 22:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The only things that are MEDRS are the statements that there is no scientific basis for this nonsense. Probably reliably sourced as to the cultural practice, but absolutely not with respect to the bodily aspects being anything other than fringe/pseudoscience/placebo. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not attempted to look for any sources on this. I have recently heard of it, and heard it also called yoni steaming. I offer that as an additional search term for those who would like to improve the article. LadyofShalott 02:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect if I went into my local library and said "have you got anything on vaginal steaming?" they'd give me a funny look. Or direct me towards the "romantic fiction" section. Ritchie333 22:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Or, you know... they might actually try to help you find the information. Signed, a library employee, aka LadyofShalott 19:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC) If someone goes in acting like the topic is a joke, like much of this discussion has done, it might be received as such. If it is presented as a real inquiry, it should be treated in that manner. LadyofShalott 19:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a medical library near me which permits limited public access. I have, quite literally done exactly this, and I can say with assurance that you are both right. I was, at first, advised to visit the check-out line of the local supermarket with a (shared) chuckle, then helped efficiently. And the answer, by the way, is "No." They had nothing on it except for digital access to the two peer-reviewed sources I provided above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Social science (and related) literature

• Hilber, Adriane Martin. "A cross cultural study of vaginal practices and sexuality: Implications for sexual health". Social Science & Medicine. 70 (3): 392–400. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.023. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Hull, Terence H. "Prevalence, Motivations, and Adverse Effects of Vaginal Practices in Africa and Asia: Findings from a Multicountry Household Survey". Journal of Women's Health. 20 (7): 1097–109. doi:10.1089/jwh.2010.2281. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Two thirds of women in Chonburi had ever performed vaginal steaming or smoking (66.9%), which they associated with maintaining wellness and feminine identity. Women mostly reported carrying this out in the postpartum period (85.5%). The practice was also not uncommon in Tete (current practice 10.0%), although there it was mostly intended to enhance male sexual pleasure by causing vaginal tightening (64.1% of users) and drying (22.9%).

• François, Isabelle. "Prevalence and Motivations of Vaginal Practices in Tete Province, Mozambique". International Journal of Sexual Health. 24: 205–217. doi:10.1080/19317611.2012.691443. ISSN 1931-762X. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• De Gezelle, Jillian (2014). Q’eqchi’ Maya Reproductive Ethnomedicine. Spinger. pp. 56–57. ISBN Jillian De Gezelle. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

use of Piper auritum "leaves in a postpartum vaginal steam bath"

• Thank you Lady. I worked two of them into the lead, with the tweak that indicates this is not just some hipster thing--that's what matters here. I cannot expand on this article right now, sorry. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! LadyofShalott 19:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Potential DYKs

Honestly it's a daunting task to decide among the potential hooks. The following are extracted from various sources. Please give your opinions and whichever one seems most popular I'll (a) figure out how to shoehorn into the article and (b) boil down to the requisite 200 chars. (Others, feel free to add their favorites to the list.) EEng 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• From https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jan/30/sorry-gwyneth-paltrow-but-steaming-your-vagina-is-a-bad-idea
  • "Mugwort, for instance, is an aromatic herb used in Chinese traditional medicine and as a food flavouring. In South Korea it’s used in rice cakes and soup. And in LA it’s used to steam vaginas."
  • "heating the vagina isn’t necessary"
  • "Steaming the vagina cannot possibly impact on hormone levels. I urge you to put the kettle away, throw the mugwort in some soup and consciously uncouple from this website."
    • ... that women have been advised to "consciously uncouple" from vaginal steaming? Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "rebalance female hormones and for a squeaky clean uterus"
  • '"If you’re in LA, you have to do it.” Which makes me grateful that I’m not.'

• From http://www.livescience.com/49648-vaginal-steaming-no-benefits.html
  • "V-steaming could also cause more immediate problems, such as second-degree burns"
  • 'it's possible that the treatment is doing something else. "She's probably getting turned on," Burch said. "Heat increases blood flow to the vagina, as well as the clitoris."'
  • The vagina cleans itself
• From "'Basically, it’s sorcery for your vagina': unpacking Western representations of vaginal steaming". Tycho Vandenburg, Virginia Braun. Culture, Health & Sexuality. Apr 2017, Vol. 19, No. 4: 470-485:
  • Did you know ... that themes found in online accounts of vaginal steaming include "the self-improving woman", "the naturally deteriorating, dirty female body", and "contemporary life as harmful"?
  • Did you know ... that online accounts of vaginal steaming appear to fit "within historico-contemporary constructions of women’s bodies as deficient and disgusting"?
  • ... that "sorcery for your vagina" is not universally recommended? Gatoclass (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So far I like this one best. The problem is that the phrase sorcery for your vagina only comes, so far, from the title of the paper -- apparently that's from some quote inside the paper, and (weirdly) the paper won't come online for a year. I'll have to see it in hardcopy next time I wander into the library. However, are we agreed that there are certainly good hooks available, so that we should go ahead and nominate? EEng 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Collected from discussions elsewhere (mostly appropriate for April 1 -- probably true for all of this):
  • Did you know ... that Gwenyth Paltrow was advised that vaginas need not be steam-cleaned
  • Did you know ... that Yes, vagina, V-steaming really is a thing?
  • Did you know ... that Gwenyth Paltrow claims sitting on a throne cleanses the female reproductive system? (Thanks to HalfGig)

and (weirdly) the paper won't come online for a year. Check out the section above. I'm pretty sure I can get access to a digital version of this article before then (it may be a pre-review version, or hopefully just a pdf of the journal page). I'll check back next weekend after I give it a shot, and bring notes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you might want to call ahead or check the catalog before you go, because I predict you'll find it's not available yet. But The Great and Powerful Oz has been wrong before. If you could get the context for the "sorcery" quote (including page #) that'd be great. EEng 21:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I'd be looking for. The only reason I didn't take notes previously is because I could have sworn both of those articles were open-access. Question: Do you have access to that journal? It says it was published last year, and the search at the library was only of articles they have access to. Or at least, that's what I was told by the librarian. Personally, I don't think I'm willing to shell out 42 bucks for 24 hours of access, when I'm used to spending ~30 bucks for a pdf of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I do have access but as seen here it seems issues are available only on paper for the first 18 months. I spoke with the library just now and it appears, further, that the last issue they received in hardcopy was last summer. So we probably shouldn't hold our breaths. EEng 00:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the hook. What does it matter that the quote comes from the title of an article? It's still a quote, and the hook is still valid. Gatoclass (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Even for April 1, it's dangerous to use a quotation without knowing its original context. EEng 16:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not that it's a good hook, but that it might give someone some ideas: In the 19th century, a physician by the name of George Taylor invented a steam-powered vibrator to treat "hysteria". Here's the source for the vibrator. (If one takes the "sorcery" comment a bit more literally than called for, that might be said to make this a strange case in which technology not only preceded sorcery, but turned out to, presumably, be a lot more fun.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely you don't intend to challenge the supremecy of Talk:Dr._Young's_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators. EEng 17:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Right up until the point that someone straps them to a steam engine, at which point all bets are off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Since we have to get a DYK nom kick started within a week of the article being created (unless the rules have changed since I looked, and that's always possible), we've now got Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal steaming. Go forth and add hooks (but make sure you steam clean them first). Ritchie333 17:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, EEng, I hit the library yesterday and you were right. They got nothing but about 75% of the abstract for the article body (but 100% of the abstract when searching for abstracts, of course). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course I'm right – see User:EEng#correct. I'd write to the authors for a preprint but I'm not sure they'd be sympathetic to the goal. EEng 23:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ehh, it can't hurt to try! Unlike the act, itself... Which makes me wonder if penis steaming is a thing. Trust me, don't look for sources for that. Rule 34 is a harsh mistress... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Stealing. Penis stealing. EEng 23:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I got a Lojack for mine. I'm ain't worried about theft. It's hackers that worry me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• @EEng: @Ritchie333: May be a bit late to the party but my suggestion for a hook would be "...that it is considered healthy to blow steam up your vagina?" The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Readers lacking vaginas may be momentarily confused. EEng 12:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Or perpetually, in my case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with that hook is "considered by whom"? Certainly the sources used suggest there is no conclusive scientific benefit, and therefore you steam your crotch at your own risk. Ritchie333 16:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

By Gwyneth Paltrow, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope you are just having fun. Please don't use this vaginal steaming article for a DYK. The article text debunks it on the basis of critical theory. There is a better reason (also mentioned in the article) which is actual harm, like getting burnt or causing vaginal infections. I am female, and the thought of subjecting myself to something that could burn or irritate mucosal tissue makes me shudder and cross my legs. Mjolnir's comment about advocates of vaginal steaming, pseudo-science queen Gwyneth Paltrow, speaks for itself. There is NO scientific benefit, and a real possibility of harm. The livescience post that you linked to is correct.--FeralOink (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The DYK proposal is for April 1, and all the versions I've seen imply or state that it's been debunked as healthy or useful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yay, I feel a lot better knowing that. I didn't realize it was being considered for the April 1 DYK. Thank you for the quick response, User:MjolnirPants.--FeralOink (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

4/1/17 is over, and anyway I'm glad to know you crotch cookers weren't serious. Lord High Permanent Senior Undersectretary to L3X1 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but I remain dead serious about crotch cooking and i would thank you not to denigrate this important and meaningful activity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Its all sorcery. I shall have my new fav admin block people who don't see eye to eye with me. And that useless undersecretary is fired. L3X1 (distant write) 16:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't make me take off my tin foil hat and come over there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of RationalWiki link

WP:COI warning: RationalWiki (RW) editor & creator of RW vaginal steaming article.

@PCHS-NJROTC: removed a link I added to RW's vaginal steaming article. That's fine. A month later, unprompted, PCHS-NJROTC warned me that I was "spamming". I suppose I'll justify myself.

The vaginal steaming article on RW is years older (2014), substantially larger (>10x) and more-indepth, and substantially better cited (80 cites) than the Misplaced Pages article. The RW article may thus be of interest to readers.

As noted here, RW is WP:UGC. However, this is an area with little published research. Most "articles" on the subject are sensational news praising/bashing Gwyneth Paltrow. I suggest that RationalWiki is a decent external source for this WP:FRINGE subject.

But I didn't see a need to revert then and don't now. The WP article is a decent introductory stub. Besides, I've got lots of "spamming" to do and can't be bothered with little things like this. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the link. WP:UGC is for reliable sources. Absolutely nobody is treating RationalWiki as a reliable source for the claims put in this article, it is simply an additional piece of information. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. Ritchie333 09:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, the issues isn't WP:RS, the issue is WP:ELNO. Rational-Wiki is a user contributed website like Conservapedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anything on Wikia. FuzzyCatPotato is on the board of directors of that site, and although he may not wish to harm Misplaced Pages, that's his reason for linking to it. The link needs to be removed again. PCHS-NJROTC 10:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The specific issues at hand are Links mainly intended to promote a website and Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Misplaced Pages should not be linked. Go to Rational-Wiki and look up "headless chicken mode." The wiki is far from stable with a long history of edit wars, wheel warring by administrators, vandalism, squabbling over policy, and sometimes outright immaturity, and the person who added the link has a blatant conflict of interest as a board member for the RationalMedia Foundation. PCHS-NJROTC 11:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a good idea myself - see comments I made yesterday about how thinking even The Sun might be useful for sourcing minor-league football results, though I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole for BLPs. Just because some RationalWiki pages are problematic, doesn't mean all of them area. I suppose if you were concerned about accidentally linking to a page that happened to be vandalised at that point in time, you could link to a specific revision. Ritchie333 11:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Still, WP:ELNO strictly says that the wiki must have substantial stability and a substantial number of editors, and counting only active users, Rational-Wiki fails both. One can't even accurately judge the latter because there are serious sock-puppetry issues at Rational-Wiki (even by respected established users), and because of the sites lack of CheckUser abilities, there is absolutely no way of verifying how many active editors the site actually has. See this incident where one of the site's once most respected users is suspected of sock-puppetry and rigging a moderator election. PCHS-NJROTC 11:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I generally don't care about shenanigans like that. By the same analogy, one could point to Essjay and OrangeMoody, and conclude that Misplaced Pages should not be read under any circumstances. Mind you, I've publicly declared enjoying some of the Wikipediocracy blog posts, so maybe I'm just out of whack with things around here. Ritchie333 11:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't care if someone "likes" the link to Rational-Wiki, I care about policy, and this is no case of WP:IAR. Rational-Wiki fails WP:ELNO, and if our own article doesn't have enough information, expand it (and that doesn't mean copy from R-W because their neutrality policies are incompatible with ours). Conservapedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica cover certain topics with more detail than we do too, and some of the content is pretty good (referring to the baby with the bathwater analogy), but it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, re-adding the link is encouraging disruptive behavior the same way readding Microsoft links added by a member of Microsoft's board of directors would be encouraging disruptive behavior. If we can't agree on policy here, perhaps we should bring in a third opinion? PCHS-NJROTC 12:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think RationalWiki (of which I'm a regular reader, if not contributor) should be used to source anything, per WP:UGC, except when linking to a specific revision to claim "On the second Tuesday of last week, RationalWiki said..."

I don't, however, have a problem linking to it as an external link, if it has articles offering more in-depth coverage of a subject than our own, provided said subject is one which is of interest to skeptics and debunkers (the target audience of rationalwiki.com). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Alternative medicine articles
• C-Class women's health articles
• Unknown-importance women's health articles
• WikiProject Women's Health articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles