Talk:Bikini waxing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bikini waxing. 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:80/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1126012472670 to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1126012472670
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bikini waxing. 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  tag to http://www.essortment.com/different-types-bikini-wax-application-techniques-59434.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023074402/http://blogs.ajc.com/better-health/2009/03/19/a-ban-on-brazilian-bikini-waxing/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/better-health/2009/03/19/a-ban-on-brazilian-bikini-waxing/
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) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I know Wikipedia is not censored, and I don't like censorship myself. But, can we just tone down the image part a bit? We can do that without losing the informational value, of course. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We only need at most one image for each style. I have spaced out the images as well because the layout was atrocious. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little toned down may be? 

message: This page is seriously messed up. Why are there a billion images of female genitalia? (I think we all know the answer to that question.) They serve little to no informational purpose, with the exception of those in the style section. I'm going to remove all of the others, and suggest a discussion here about which, if any, should be put back in. 
If you think I'm overthinking this, look at the equivalent page for male grooming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_waxing. There is NOT ONE IMAGE of male genitalia on that page. So please do tell me: if graphic images have informational value when it comes to personal grooming, why are there NONE - not a single one! - on the male page? Could it be because Wikipedia editors are predominantly male and apparently can't get kicks for their pr***s elsewhere? It's a bit pathetic, frankly, and, more seriously, it potentially creates a toxic and off-putting environment for female readers of WKP. 
UPDATE: I noted, when removing the gratuitous images, the comments about WKP and censorship. This has NOTHING to do with censorship. It is about the impact that informationally unnecessary imagery has on the overall environment of Wikipedia, specifically for women (and those with female genitalia). When such imagery has no true encyclopedic value, it serves only to objectify the subject. That is potentially discomfiting, demeaning and toxic for female readers (I'm female and this page creeps me out), and in an open platform like WKP, accessible by anyone anywhere in the world, that IS a problem. Just because you CAN post graphic images of genitalia according to the rules, does not mean that you SHOULD. I'm actually a bit amazed that I'm having to explain this.
UPDATE #2: Please see this stipulation in Wikipedia's Image Use Policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy):
"Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable:
Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject"
Let's clean this up and grow up, fellas.Zedembee (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an article about bikini waxing, the nature of it, the methodology and the different styles. It is completely reasonable to include images. They do not seem to gratuitous to me: there is a single image to illustrate each style, a single image illustrating the technique, and an image in the lead to convey the content the article. The Hairstyle article has far more images, and your objections have everything to do with censorship IMO because you are using words like "graphic" and "gratuitous" to justify removing the images. The simple question is this: are these images helpful to readers in understanding the content? I would argue that they are. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETHICAL REVIEW REQUIRED: Gratuitous images of female genitalia