Talk:Hair removal

message: Article says "Patients' body hair was once shaved before surgery for reasons of hygiene; however, this turned out to be counter-productive".
Counter-productive how ? Jay 12:56, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: from what I understand about this issue is that the act of shaving introduces too many contaminants which is counter to the original aim of removing sources of contaminants. And I've heard anecdotal evidence that shaving an area that undergoes surgery tends to be highly irritating to the skin after the surgery is over because of the elevated sensitivity after surgery. Still, I think some hospitals still practice this, just as some hospitals clean wounds with alcohol instead of saline (the last thing you need after being hit by a car). I'm no-where near an expert though. --Qirex 09:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you add a source that backs up the claim that shaving is counter productive, and that hospitals are moving away from it? The claim doesn't make much sense to me. I know that animals are still shaved in veterinary medicine. The doctors shaved hair off the applicable parts of me when I had an emergency appendectomy on October 30th, 2006 at Baylor in Dallas, TX (one of the best hospitals in the state). If it is true (which I am suspect), it definitely needs to be sourced. BMan1113VR 10:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaving for surgery

message: Article says: "Shaving a man's scalp hair has been used as a means of stripping them of their former identity. This is sometimes done at the beginning of military training, and is done as part of a process of trying to instill a new identity into the new soldier."
It was my understanding that this was done, especially in ancient times, to prevent the enemy from grabbing your hair during combat. Also, isn't it removed today to prevent the spread of lice? --69.173.172.148
:Today, the fear of someone using a soldiers hair as a handle is probably pretty minimal, now that we try to shoot enemies from as far away as possible.  Also, there are better ways to prevent the spread of lice than shaving people's heads.  This also wouldn't explain why women's heads aren't shaved.  Don't they get lice too?  I think what the article says is pretty accurate.  I could be wrong, but lice isn't a big problem in the modern military. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
--Qirex 09:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for Shaving in the Millitary 

message: Under the heading "For religious reasons", the article reads, "To Sikhs, the maintenance and management of long hair is a manifestation of one's piety." I feel that the word 'piety' should not be used, because it could mean 'hypocrisy', or it could mean 'reverence and devotion to god' (). I'd change it myself, but I don't know which meaning the original author intended convey. --Qirex 09:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of 'piety'

message: I've edited the section relating to pubic hair and sexual context of removal as it contained utter crap. Check the diff. Borderline racist comments about african women, and bizarre asertions that upper class women are more likely to depilate have no place here. 84.66.205.215 16:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate 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. 
The result of the debate was move --Philip Baird Shearer 09:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed crap 

message: This article is entitled Depilation, yet it includes info on Epilation (which redirects here). Perhaps the name should be Hair removal, which also redirects here. Unless there are objections, I'm going to implement this (no sooner than 1 week from today). -Rholton 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move / Name change 

message: should the fact that some members of far right political groups choose to shave their heads as an expression of their political beliefs be included?
82.6.79.160 14:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a truly a fact, (i.e. verifiable then yes.  However I don't think it is true to state that it is an expression of their political beliefs; more accurately it is a sign of identification with a group or culture.  It is a subtle but important difference.  Anyway, if you can prove it, by all means include it.  The Crow 20:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  skinheads - political reasons for head shaving 

message: Hairfacts.com is entirely relevant to the topic. The website is not-for-profit and links to studies to back up claims. Hairfacts.com deals explicitly on the topic of hair removal (which is the title of this article). 87.75.129.218 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it cover anything that the current link doesn't? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's a site I own, I will recuse myself from adding it back in, but much of this article is taken directly from my "Methods of hair removal" article on hairfacts (donated by me with permission under GFDL). The WebMD link is a very basic overview that really doesn't cover all topics. Hairfacts is the top hair removal resource online and has been for many years (Google "hair removal"). It covers about three times as many methods as the WebMD article currently cited, and each of those methods in turn has numerous subpages devoted to clinical data, regulatory information, etc. It also discusses unproven and banned methods not discussed anywhere in the WebMD article. Hairfacts is cited in published medical literature  and by journalists. It was removed recently in the wake of an online detractor's ongoing campaign against me for a perceived slight. That editor has been banned a few times here for vandalism and linkspamming her hair removal practice. Unfortunately, most reliable information on hair removal is in registration-only medical articles. If editors decide to add hairfacts back in, you might also consider adding this about.com link: Hair Removal Methods. I'd also note that the WebMD and About.com articles serve more ads than hairfacts. Wikipedia allows external links that serve ads, but this article is frequently targeted by those promoting their own products and services. Again, I'll leave it to others to determine consensus on this. Jokestress 15:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Glad to see it back on the links page. 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hairfacts 

message: I believe that the links in any category should be reasonable and informative and should have the material thats authentic and valuable. Like for example in the category I find that this link should be added as the external link Hair Removal GuideAs it has really informative material and easy to understand tips that can help people who look for easy hair removing methods. And what are the advantages and disadvantages of differnet hair removing methods.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.162.253 (talk) 09:43, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
*That article is no good. It's inaccurate and out of date. --AliceJMarkham 12:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I am removing the picture of the man with his back and arms covered in thick hair. It is somewhat nauseating and adds nothing to the article. Jack324 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it right back in again per WP:CENSOR. It's not up to individuals to determine what's in the article based on their personal tastes. The image is informative and encyclopedic and belongs in the article, IMO. Just don't ask me to touch it! :) - Alison ❤ 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha. I took that photo of a friend of mine. I'm sure he'll be pleased to have freaked somone out. Rockpocket 07:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rocky, I always thought that was you!! :) - Alison ❤ 07:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Can we at least add a caption stating that the guy is unusually hirsute?  Not all guys are that hairy (me included). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the link provided to readers clicking on "hirsute," as it pointed toward "hirsutism" and seems better suited pointing toward "hair".  The use in this case refers to the overall level of hair on this male, and seems better suited to point to an article that includes a general discussion of body hair, rather than lead users to an article dealing with a condition that "affects only women" [Citing hirsutism article as of 3/2/2008].  (Personally, I was also somewhat offended to have a picture depicting what is a perfectly normal hair growth for some males, such as myself, pointing to an article that spoke only of body hair in terms depicting it as unwanted, as is often the case in hirsutism).  --Clowser (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This picture is in fact totally inappropriate for an article on hair removal. there is no indication in the picture of any hair being removed. it is entirely POV for a picture of someone with hair NOT being removed to be here, the implication being that this hair SHOULD be removed. the picture(s) are not here to argue the pros and cons of hair or lack thereof, either body hair, pubic hair, head hair, armpit hair, either removed, styled, or "natural". i would suggest this wikimedia commons pic, , as better. it shows before and after, and its the most neutral area for hair removal, ie not for cosmetic reasons. If someone can find a better picture than this, even better, but unless someone objects i will probably switch images at some point.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. Note how this article starts with: "Hair removal is the practice of removing body hair...", and if you follow that link, you'll read that body hair "...is differentiated from the head hair...". This means that a picture depicting head hair removal, as the one you've provided, is not a valid replacement for this image. --Waldir talk 08:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Objection noted. i will not replace the image as i stated. however, we still need to remove, in my opinion, the image of a person with body hair. this article is not about hair, but hair removal. i will attempt to find a better image.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps this for shaving, for waxing. not great but possibly more accurate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male body hair image 

message: When removing hair from its root you damage the hair, and deformations are possible which might cause skin problems and ingrown hair (NOT GOOD). When you shave it - you cut it and it's thick - it's like a hard brush and you get itchy and you will get some ingrown hair as well (NOT GOOD).
The solution would be a machine which by some mechanical and/or chemical action makes hairs very thin and soft and blond - almost transparent, and then it cuts it to about 1-3 mm length (so there are no ingrown hairs, no brushing, no itchiness - there are no bad side-effects whatsoever!).
Is there such machine to buy?
"in particular, for women who had 'collaborated' sexually" is beating around the bush. Wikipedia is not censored.    Jhunt47 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hair thining "depilation" 

message: It may be my own bias but at present I feel like this article gives the impression that for men removing body hair is almost entirely a personal preference whereas women do so almost exclusively to conform to social or religious expectations and ideals. It's certainly a popular view but in my experience not accurate as most of the women I've discussed it with (it comes up frequently on some forums) say it's for personal reasons. For example they shave pubic hair because it's itchy and uncomfortable for them, or because they use menstural pads and blood can get stuck to the hair which is unplesant and potentially unhygenic. Some women also shave their leg hair because they find it makes wearing trousers (jeans in particular) more comfortable.
I'm planning to add a couple of sentances in or around the section on other reasons, without removing anything that's currently on the page. In my opinion it should be a fairly minor edit but knowing the strong reactions this topic can have and given the fact that I need time to find some reliable sources anyway I wanted to put a note here to give other editors an oppertunity to comment/contribute rather than waste time on something that gets reverted anyway or causing a mass of conflicting edits while a consensus is reached. Danikat (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Addition to the Reasons for Hair Removal 

message: A merge to Hair removal has been noted there by an earlier editor but nothing done. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate (bad) article at [[body grooming]]

message: I removed this because on its face this statement basically just says that scarring can remove hair. Scarring is most certainly not an accepted form of hair removal. As far as I can tell, this statement is supposed to indicate that placing warmed wax on the skin and pulling it off can remove hair. This process is called waxing and is already listed on the page. Indeed, the link goes to a page on waxing. The edit was reverted, but it *really, really* should not have been, and I'm not sure which individual read the sentence and believed it to be in any way factual. Further, the sentence itself is not particularly accurate: "damage the cells" (which cells? hair follicles? skin cells?).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.85.65 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Burning off with hot wax can damage the cells and prevent hair from ever growing in the unwanted spot again" 

message: The statement regarding "Eastern Turkish" culture revering or respecting a beard is highly misleading and inaccurate. There is no "Eastern Turkish" culture. There are countless 'cultures' or traditions that live in Eastern and Southeastern Turkey (please also note that in terms of Turkish culture and society, the proper term would more likely be the "Southeast" of Turkey, which has a *slightly* more coherent culture than "Eastern Turkey" as depicted in the linked chart).  These include a significant ethnic and religious populations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnic_Groups_Turkey123.png which, as the following article notes, compromise around a third of the country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorities_in_Turkey. These ethnic populations - which, as you can see, vary widely in "Eastern Turkey" - also have a number of religious differences, including a significant Alevi population.  It is impossible to say that among "Eastern Turkish" Kurds, Circassians, Bulgarians, Azeris, and Arab-Turks there is a coherent idea that 'beards are respected', particularly given the ideological differences between the various groups listed. Please read this news article regarding facial hair in Turkey to understand why this throwaway comment that should be deleted would require an entire article to clarify what, exactly, facial hair in "Eastern Turkey" signifies: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=facial-hair-in-turkish-politics-a-tale-of-moustaches-and-men-2010-08-06. I am uncertain if you need more examples of why the uneducated and essentialist statement that in "Eastern Turkey" beards are a sign of wisdom, but if you require more, please let me know.  I am further deleting the phrase "Eastern Culture" because it is a term that is not accepted in cultural studies, other than to critique orientalist/colonialist views of the world.  I tend to suspect that this means "Arab culture" - but again, really do not think that an article on body hair removal should be making such grand, sweeping, and inaccurate comments about 'cultures'. I highly suspect that the criticism I have levied on the Turkish aspect of the beard comment applies to Iran as well (and note that the article I linked seems to indicate - as I have observed - a strong preference for non-bearded men), but not having lived there, I will refrain from commenting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.85.65 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eastern Turkish" culture 

message: "NONO PRO" was mentioned on The Doctors using some "thermodynamic wire" that I do not see listed in the wiki on hair removal.Glas(talk)Nice User skin 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: thermodynamic wire

message: In section 'Cultural & sexual aspects' there is a pair of pictures of women's armpits. In the picture with no armpit hair the woman is grinning, suggesting that this is a superior state. I am offended to find this statement of opinion in an encyclopedia 31.55.88.86 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  stating opinion with choice of pictures 

message: "One issue that can be considered an advantage or a disadvantage depending upon an individual's viewpoint, is that removing hair has the effect of removing information about the individual's hair growth patterns due to genetic predisposition, illness, androgen levels (such as from pubertal hormonal imbalances or drug side effects), and/or gender status."
This statement is a mess. First of all, "removing information about the individual's hair growth patterns" is not only very vague but it doesn't necessarily hold true (id est, it is implied that hair directly communicates the very long pattern of growth, as if on sight). Second, what illness outside of hormonal disorders could even be concealed by means of hair removal (as most such illnesses are barely mitigated by removal, exempli gratis, Hypertrychosis)?
And androgen levels aren't what immediately causes hair growth! GnRH and FSH have far more influence on hair growth, and pubarche well precedes pubescence proper by many years. GnRH and FSH also would obviously manifest in both sexes to quite a degree, due to where it lies in the process of steroidogenesis.
Another matter to take issue with is that this statement is very specifically worded (in far too long-winded and preachy a manner) to imply that a major element of hair removal is based around the irrelevant matter of perception of biological sex. Sure, such a thing would have a place in an encyclopedia, but it would make more sense to relegate it to an article more focused on the societal and psychological role of hair.96.231.152.137 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Statement? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hair removal. 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/20080213192038/http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1126012472670 to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1126012472670
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009040452/http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/laserhair.htm to http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/laserhair.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do not believe that Source 10 meets Wikipedia standards for sources. It seems to be little more than an opinion piece with some affiliate links thrown in for good measure.
I would like to request its removal and editing of paragraphs that cite it to use a reliable source or have unverifiable claims removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.104.69 (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenging of source 10 (and related paragraphs)