Talk:Pubic hair/Archive 1

message: Did someone seriously purpoted to write a statistic ? Let's be serious.
Ericd 22:24 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Can the contributor of the table cite their sources, please? -- Karada 16:01 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Yes, a citation would be very helpful.  Personally I find it hard to believe that fewer than 25% of Europeans do as much as trim their bikini lines.  My friend (European) is has commented on the untrimmed pubic hair she sees in the onsens here in Japan -- she says she's never seen any evidence of trimming here, something that really surprised her at first.  Her findings corroborate my own limited experience.  This is of course purely anecdotal, but I seriously doubt that Japan and Europe have similar pubic hair trimming/shaving habits. -- Tlotoxl 09:20, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics discussion 

message: I'm from India. I'm male. I don't think, most of the women in India do shave pubic hairs. I really doubt the validity of the table. May I know where did you get this table?
:Sigh. Looks like Wikipedia will have to give someone a science grant and they'll have to go to India and find out. I volunteer me :)
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubt over the statistics 

message: Just unremoved the Eric's table as it is useful to know the cultural differences. --Rrjanbiah 10:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also added the alert message for the table. So, if anyone find it any mistakes, they can make changes. --Rrjanbiah 10:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Please refer the previous discussions.--Rrjanbiah 05:33, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous discussions do not document a source.  RickK 05:36, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're in hurry... Anyway, look at the previous explanation about Eric and how he approximated the table info.--Rrjanbiah 06:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read and re-read this discussion four times, and I have yet to see ANY source cited.  Instead of just pointing me back to the top of the page, cite ONE source.  RickK 14:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table and cultural differences 

message: This sounds like original research to me.  We should probably can it. PlatinumX 05:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. Currently the article have info on female alone. So, we should also add male cultures too. I have also collected some info on Indian cultures on shaving and will bring to the talk page sometimes later. --Rrjanbiah 06:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving Table 

message: At the site SexEditorials.com, I found a fairly extensive page entitled Confidential Male Sexuality Poll .  One of the poll items was entitled Men's experience on shaving pubic hair.  The results are below, expressed as a percentage of the responses for the question, with n in brackets:
* I shave all my pubic hair entirely (1268): 16.2%
* I shave a lot of it, but leave some (1944): 24.8%
* I only trim the excess hairs, but leave most (2156): 27.6%
* I leave it grow naturally and do not trim or shave at all (2021): 25.8%
* I do not have any pubic hair to begin with (72): 0.9%
* None of the above describes me (364): 4.7% 
The source of the poll data is the site itself (the site motto is "We depend on you for the content of this site").  Therefore the sample is representative of the visitors to the site, a large proportion of which is likely made up of those seeking such statistics.  I would say that the sample is at least roughly representative of those of us discussing this topic here.
The site appears to contain a fairly large amount of information and seems relatively serious in tone, but I cannot vouch for its overall credibility.  There is an accompanying female101.com site  that is less extensive. : Wrongbutton 07:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. Currently the article have info on female alone. So, we should also add male cultures too. I have also collected some info on Indian cultures on shaving and will bring to the talk page sometimes later. --Rrjanbiah 06:52, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: SexEditorials.com survey on shaving

message: This is about Indian practices. I was collecting some info on this subject. The data is much informal and non-scientific.
* Practice of shaving (both armpit and pubic hair) is on increase among both men and women
* Girls who shave armpit also shave pubic hairs and vice-versa.
* Armpit and pubic hair shaving is high among elites and urban than ordinary people
* Shaving is not forced as cultural values. But, there are some exceptions--it is being forced to few barathanatyam dancers and cinema artists.
* Media and pornographic material forces shaving practices. It means, people see it and found it is important than told by someone else to shave. Hence, the internet and globalization increases shaving practices. It is not common couple of years ago.
* Urban men shave their armpit and usually trims and rarely shaves pubic hairs. And they're very less in numbers
* Girls who have been going to "beauty parlours" are told to shave as practice of beautiness. "Beauty parlours" are increasing because of beauty consciousness fever among girls and women--though it is still considered as urban culture
* Many girls especially village girls use turmeric as hair removal solution. Usually it is applied to body of female children. Anyway, it can't controll the growth of adult hairs.
* Many men are still alergic to pubic hair shaving. Especially they don't like a girl to shave.   Some men even have the idea that only prostitutes shave pubic hairs
My approximation is 20% shave, 10% trim, 70% not modified. But, Gillette India survey says 27% women shave; even if it is true, the modifying population is still less.
So, final approximation (if Gillette survey is true (not padded)): 27% shave, 10% trim, rest not modified. But, the current table shows Indian subcontinent--which includes Pakistan, etc. So, the numbers may slightly differ.
Couldn't get more links from internet. Here are few links related to the topic:
* Says Sujatha Viswanath, product manager, Gillette India, "Our research shows that 27 per cent of women shave, but most of them use men's shaving systems. And most women use razors for underarms and bikini areas; for exposed parts of the body they still wax." 
* "Indians gals hv bushy Pubic Hairs" 
* some insults against the practice 
--Rrjanbiah 13:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Data on Indian practices and sources

message: I think the listed advantages and disadvantages are almost entirely POV despite being expressed in the 3rd person.  Take Some sexual activities can appear sloppy at best (for that matter, aren't most sexual activities (between interested parties) sloppy by definition?)  I think this list should be removed or rewritten, but I have to admit I'd rather just point out how bad it is then actually rewrite it myself.  -- 133.5.120.130 12:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if you tell what you refer as POV. We can then rewrite for NPOV. (Personally I think, it is informative) --Rrjanbiah 13:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on advantages Vs disadvantages 

message: The table is a complete joke and should be removed. It is unscientific, incomplete, based on a few user's perceptions, and just plain pathetic.
Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia, not this.
Remove.
Support (remove)
#Cantus 10:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plea to remove unscientific, ridiculous table 

message: Out of mercy, I have just sliced this entire section. It is embarrassing in terms of quality. Badly written, no attribution, and it admits to be speculation by a few. Holding back laughter and tears.... (147.8.224.157)
:Discuss your "specific" points. Don't spoil others work. And see the talk page and discuss the issue. Don't be moronic. --Rrjanbiah 10:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks, but I don't think removing the table without consensus is going to be any help. Someone will just revert you. Please vote in the above poll I have made so we can reach an agreement. Thanks. --Cantus 10:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: What is your points? If you can't help, leave the article. There are many people working on this article. --Rrjanbiah 10:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have attempted to re-edit the whole article, trying to keep the most important points in there, and only what is provable and able to be sourced. There was so much speculation and personal opinion that was kept out. Thanks. Foiegras 01:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No more discussions with sock puppet. *thread plonk* --Rrjanbiah 05:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Too bad you won't discuss the changes. However, you'll see that every edit made is indeed justified and reasoned out. It's a much more acceptable article now. Fuzheado | Talk 06:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Too bad that you jumped here without knowing what is going here. Whom didn't discuss? What was reasoned out? What is wasn't accepted? What is accepted now? Who is trolling? --Rrjanbiah 06:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's quite easy to see what's going on - lots of statistics with no citations, and complaints by many folks going back exactly a year ago (July 16, 2003) about this exact issue. Hopefully you see there was consensus about problems with this article. Fuzheado | Talk 07:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: What is the source or citations or research page for the current article? If you look at the talk page and the history, you can find that the questioning of the table is very old; no one did questioned recently as it is much improved/improving by many people. As for the table is concerned, it is much informative to understand the cultural differences. Somewhere I read that many American women believe that all the people in the world shave their pubic hairs--which is not true. If you look at the edit history, you can find that many previous contributors believed that pubic shaving is "cultural" in India and 80% women did that---which is again wrong. So, eventually the content is more informative to the international audience. If you have any solid statistics or better research then you could have fixed it than removing it. If everybody start deleting things that they don't like, there won't be any articles in Wikipedia. This really questions about the future of Wikipedia. --Rrjanbiah 07:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, wrong and wrong. Dead horse, dead horse. There is no justification for keeping that embarassing table in the article. Deal with it. --Cantus 09:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: *plonk* --Rrjanbiah 09:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVED SECTION 

message: I added this stuff at request of user:Rrjanbiah. Much of it is already in puberty article, with a bit more detail. I leave the discussion of cultural aspects of pubic hair to the rest of you. If you think I added more than people want to know, or if you want to keep this article mainly cultural, feel free to delete or modify. Alteripse 12:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work. If you can improve the article in anyway, please do that. The discussion on cultural aspect is about shaving as it make some senses. --Rrjanbiah 13:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human development 

message: can you slide the picture down the page below a screenfull please?  i clicked on it at work accidently.  phew, no one was looking.  i'm not being bold in case this is a contentious issue. - Omegatron - How do you look up a section on pubic hair accidently? 01:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
*It's a lovely piece of art -- L'Origine du monde by Gustave Courbet, which I had the pleasure to view a few years ago at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris. It's also about as sexual a picture as can be imagined; I don't see any discussion regarding the appropriateness of this recent insertion, though -- and the pubic hair isn't what I really notice first when I look at that picture. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  slide the picture 

message: The image at the top right of this article appears to be a photograph of the American Pop Singer\Actress Madonna.  I believe that it is one of several published in Penthouse magazine in the late 1980's.  I am not a copyright fanatic, however...?
68.57.196.39 18:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted photo of Madonna? 

message: Is there some citation that anyone can give which evidences that the shaving of pubic hair became popular in the 1990s, as opposed to, for example, the 1980s?  If not, I'm going to revert it again soon.  I don't think that claim is accurate. -- Dpark 00:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1990s 

message: How exactly is shaving one's pubic hair during menstration (or any other time) a valid substitution for let's say.. bathing regularly? I would really like to see some *scientific evidence* or some good, logically sound opinions to support "shaving for hygiene." If some feel it helps to reduce "odor," then we can clarify the point. However, I think the the current argument as it stands is misleading and not at all helpful. If there are no objections I will eventually edit or remove the point.
J.H 07:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "hygiene, especially during menstruation" 

message: Is there some source for the trivia at the end...about the word "taxi" being the collective noun for detached pubic hair?  Joyous | Talk 12:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is obviously someone's idea of a joke. I've removed that section. Flapdragon 11:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxi? 

message: Someone left this comment on the article page:
:This may need to be checked for plagarism. An almost identical explanation exists here --TaO! 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An extremely rubbish version of it appeared in the article (possibly from an anon). I reworked it into its current slightly less rubbish state. If it constitutes a copyvio then by all means delete it because, to recap, it's rubbish. Soo 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyvio 

message: No references. --SeizureDog 05:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Aww, it failed the good article nomination?  Ok, I will try to find some references.  Thanks for reminding us to look for references.  --Starionwolf 03:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: [Paul Barlow (evolution is not "highly debated" by scientists. Even if it were, it would not matter. Humans are included in this category.) ]
And scientific theory has been wrong and reverted how many times? Once evolution is a scientific law and not a theory will it become NPOV. The aim of the article is to educate, not interject someone's own POV.
Classifying humans as apes is POV especially since evolution is a highly debated topic. To say  “Humans have the same number of hair follicles as other apes” is injecting the writers own POV on evolution and adds nothing to the article itself, where as editing the sentence to say “Humans have the same number of hair follicles as apes” is just a scientific comparison, is NPOV, and does nothing to hurt the validity or substance of the article. 
3 reverts  to add humans to the ape family sure looks like an insistence to inject someone’s own POV on evolution especially since the original edit did nothing to change the point or accuracy of the article.
This only proves my point that in reading this article it distracts the reader needlessly to the debate on evolution. I donated to Wikipedia twice because of its NPOV policy and would like to see it up held in this and all articles!
For instance, I personally recommend Wikkipedia to friends and acquaintances and I’m sure my evolutionist friends would read that sentence without a problem, but a creationist (or someone like me who is indifferent but knows evolution hasn’t been proven yet) may stop there and question Wikipedia solely due to someone’s point of view being expressed in an article. It would be drastic, I agree, but Wikipedia’s NPOV is what draws many people here and I would hate to see someone throw out the baby with the bath water. LOL, especially if it was due to one word that puts humans in the family as apes in an article on Pubic hair!! --Egill 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evolution has been proven to the satisfaction of all serious scientists who specialise in the area. But in essence, that's beside the point. Evolution nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter whether Cheetahs and Lions evolved, or were both created separately by God, or even artificially manufactured by space aliens. The fact remains that they are both members of the cat family. These families were constructed by taxonomists quite independently of evolutionary theory. Cheetahs and Lions are still cats whether they evolved from a common ancestor or not. Humans are categorsed in the ape family, whether they evolved or not. Paul B 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Humans are apes. They share common DNA, and they share many more obvious signs of relation. "Orangutan" comes from man of the forest, and in 1640 "Scientists who examined these rare specimens were baffled, and described these first chimpanzees as "pygmies" (see chimpanzee). This is not a new realization here.--Prosfilaes 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ....as "other" apes. 

message: The section Pubic Hair in Art seems a bit cluttered with photos... Maybe they should be thinned out a little to improve the look of the article? The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife while a good illistration seems a tad out of place, and may disturb some people veiwing the article. While I have no problem with it, I know some people may veiw it badly in this article since it deals with beastiality.
:I don't know why it's out of place, but this shunga shows "straight" sex, if a rather strained position. Any preferences? Paul B 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: who gives a fuck if it is "disturbing" WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSURED and if someone does not want to be disturbed they should not have sex, go in a locker room, watch movies, leave their house, take off their clothes, look at their own genitals, or LOOK UP ARTICLES ON PUBIC HAIR. Qrc2006 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pubic hair in art cluttered 

message: User:Bob O'FLYNN loaded an image of a dog over the image that used to be in this article. His only other history was to vandalize three articles. If someone still has the original image, upload it again. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shaved.jpg image 

message: I have switched :Image:Pubic hair.jpg for :Image:Poilspubiens.jpg because the new image is a personal shot done by a wikipedian  rather than a photo with writing on it attributing it to another website (which doesn't currently say its license conditions). Fishies Plaice 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Changes 

message: A couple others suggested as I agree that there should be a gallery (or group of smaller thumnails) that show the large variations in pubic hair patterns. Both between ethnicities and within them. Caucasians for instance are composed a many sub ethnicities with tendencies for different pubic hair patterns. Most people are mixed anyhow. So I think it would be limiting to say "well there is already a picture of a caucasian (white), negroid (black), mongloid (asian) etc.. person" when in reality there can be as much variation within these "races" as in comparison to others.
There should obviously be a limit on submissions, but up to a few different pictures for each "race" (which is composed of many ethnicities) sounds reasonable to me. If the gallery seems to be overwhelming with that amount of pictures, it could be then moved to a seperate sub-article. But I think for the time being the gallery should be left here to encourage different looking people to submit. Just my opinion, and I'll be understanding if the consensus says it goes.  --Wits 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should also try to get some better-looking pictures too. Most of the ones on the current page are poor quality and blatant exhibitionism. Soo 12:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete. The gallery at the moment is just exhibitionism. Genuine visual evidence of ethnic variation would be fine, but at the moment it looks like people showing off their assets. Paul B 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree that the exhibitionism of the many of the photos detracts from the article, it is customary to discuss a proposal before calling for a straw poll (see Wikipedia:Straw polls). -- Donald Albury 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, what would you like to discuss about it?  Rather then just going in and deleting it, I'm trying to get a dialogue going so if people ARE in favor of it they can chime in.--Lepeu1999 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I am in favor of removing most of the images in the article. But as soon as you do remove one, editors will be pouring to defend their right to post any image they want to, no matter how ugly and inappropriate. Even you do get a consensus here to remove images, I suspect it won't last long. -- Donald Albury 00:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with having a gallery here, as we do on many articles. I would resist deletion, but would not be against improvement. Referring to exhibitionism in regard to these people who have freely donated intimate photos to illustrate an article that many find embarrassing seems to stretch WP:AGF, unless there is any actual evidence to suggest that. --Guinnog 01:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no problem with the images per se, my issue is what's the point?  We need to illustrate there are visual differences in pubic hair?  Don't the photos already in the article do that?  Frankly the photos there don't show much difference - they all appear to be from caucasians with brown hair.  Photos should support and enhance the article, not just be posted for the sake of posting photos. My issue has nothing to do with modesty, prudery or anything like that at all, I simply believe the photos there now are not necessary and do not enhance the article.--Lepeu1999 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lepeu1999, I don't see any pictures illustrating differences besides in the gallery. Like I said initially, my idea was to start a gallery which would get different looking people to submit, and thus show the variations. Although the gallery initially comprised of only caucasians, more variation is gradually being introduced via submissions. Read back if you want more of my thoughts on the gallery. Wits 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but what is the point of doing it? This is an encyclopedia article.  I don't believe the gallery idea enhances the article itself.  It's nice sure, but any photos added should only illustrate the points being made in the text.  Pubic hair looks different on different people, fine, but is that a major enough point to warrant a full set of photos? I don't think so.  What WOULD be nice is something on the different stages of pubic hair growth - illustrating how it prgresses from vellic hair to full fledged mature growth.  For various reasons I don't think that could be done in photographs, but there are diagrams out there.  Finding a non-copywritten one would be the issue.--Lepeu1999 13:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with previous comments - keep but improve.  PL 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: I'm going to attach an original research tag.  It proposes several theories without giving any sources. 199.126.137.209 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for pubic hair 

message: What do people think about including an explanation as to why pubic hair is present in humans from an evolutionary perspective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.172.131 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 December 2006
:I feel that it would be very tricky, you are running into POV problems. But if you feel that you can write it from a NPOV and properly reference it then go ahead and put it on the talk page so we can see it. It could be possible. Mathmo Talk 15:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  evolutionary POV= 

message: Why has the first female photo been repeated at the top of the article?  We certainly don't need the same photo to appear twice in the same entry. Please delete the first occurrence.  Xandergr8 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. However I was reverted when I removed, and the next editor to remove it was also reverted. To avoid a revert war, we need to decide here on whether that photo should be at the top of the article. There was a defacto consensus a while back to move the images down from the top of the article to avoid a "shock" effect on first loading the article. I would like to see if there is still support for that. -- Donald Albury 16:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like have a lede photo, but the duplication doesn't seem useful. I'd say keep the first, replace the second with another photo. Fishies Plaice 18:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Dalbury that moving photos "below the fold" makes sense given the history of this article and previous responses to having a photo front and center. An extra photo above the rest serves no useful purpose. Xandergr8 22:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't need a picture at the beginning of the article, it will only be deleted anyway. And its repeat of a photo already on the page. Remove. Latinflava 02:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The gallery is fine the way it is. Just need to delete the first photo up top.  P 06:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't need to put a picture at the top of the page to illustrate the article. -- Donald Albury 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Most other articles have such an illustration. Anyone following a link ending in "Pubic_hair" is unlikely to be all that shocked by, erm, pubic hair. It's hardly the most shocking image to found on Wikipedia. I agree that the duplicated photo is bad, so we should find another one. Soo 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the optimal solution is to replace the first image on the gallery (to avoid duplication) and to move this image to the intro (like I did). Unlike most of the images on this article this image is only about public hair. --Haham hanuka 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Dalbury that we just don't need an image at the top of the page to illustrate the article.  There are plenty of wikipedia articles that reserve imagery for further down the page.  I object not only because of the duplication but also for pragmatic reasons:  we are basically trolling for all the censor types to have at it.  Xandergr8 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like most of your edits here are about censoring this article. --Haham hanuka 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith. This discussion is not about censorship; it is about how to improve this article. Personally, I think that this article is over-illustrated, to the point that it detracts from the article. Fighting censorship is not about seeing how many pictures of naked people you can stuff into this article. We need to be talking about how to improve the article, and I must say that adding more amateurish photos of people showing off their pubic hair is not my idea of improvement. -- Donald Albury 12:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated photo 

message: Reading the article, I am immediatly struck with the notion that the gallery in the 'variations' section detracts from the article as a whole.  There seems to be no reason for it other then as an excuse to include more photos of genitalia.  The other photos of the article more then support the contention that there are myriad variations in the amount and look of pubic hair.  Further, any variation in the photos included in the gallery is due to the way the hair's been trimmed, not from and genetic diversity.  While I believe the article would be better without it, I would like a consensus before considering removal.--Lepeu1999 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. I shrunk the thumnails from 200px to 150. Doesn't sound like much but it fits the page much better. Wits 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, as anyone could have predicted, someone has taken the additional available width on the page as an invitation to post another photo.
Oppose: keep and improve. Maybe a 4-pic-per-gender maximum? It did make it fit much better. Fishies Plaice 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Support  Excessive and unnecessary in my opinion.  CPAScott 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support (remove). One image of male and female would be plenty - why have eight? Totally unnecessary and merely gratuitous titillation. I like nude pics as much as the next guy, but they have no place in an encyclopaedic article like this. In fact, it reduces Wikipedia's credibility - AND it attracts vandals like blood to a shark. Nick Michael 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Nick Michael, that should be "like a shark to blood."  Just sayin.' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.112.50 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Support (remove). Cut gallery down to one male and one female example. RJASE1  Talk  13:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The only reason I got involved was because of the vandalism going on with the images...I figured someone would be unhappy no matter what I did. Hopefully the two images remaining (along with the others further down) are an acceptable race/gender sample. RJASE1  Talk  18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a very good link already mentioned in the article, viz: Pubic Hair Distribution which does exactly what you want. However it is admittedly limited to female patterns and distribution. This is really much more useful than the photos in the article, and if a male counterpart of this site can be found, would you agree that it be substituted for the multiple photos? Nick Michael 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather have it in wikipedia. I'm always wary of relying on external sites to do our work for us, as they can disappear and aren't bound by all our guidelines. But still, that would be better than nothing. Fishies Plaice 11:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot me. 'OPPOSE' (Keep). Mainly because you cannot rely on external link to stay up for a long period of time before finally going away and disappearing. I recommend a maximum number of images and removed some of the unneccessary ones (ie: the artwork depicting a japanese woman with a squid on her) that doesn't contribute to the article itself. Yoryx 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variations 'gallery' - Poll for removal 

message: Really ppl...we get the idea.TNTfan101 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the first gallery (voted for keeping it). But since then another gallery has been added for shaved hair which goes way overboard. It contains some voyeuristic photos with spread eagle legs (probably cropped from copyrighted porno pictures), obviously bad photoshopping (in one pic), semi-erection with semen dripping down his leg, etc... Totally inappropriate. Wits 16:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it shows you clicked on the pic to see the semen, ha ha! But I agree with you wholeheartedly: it's totally inappropriate, and unnecessary gratuitous titillation. What's more, the caption of the picture to which you refer mentions the word 'balls' - very encyclopaedick, don't you think? Perhaps you could add your vote and comments to the poll for removal at the top of this page.Nick Michael 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, having all those pics also seems to attract the vandals like blood does a shark... Nick Michael 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well RJASE1 actually took it upon him/herself to delete all eight pics a day or two ago, in spite of no consensus having really been reached. I hoped no one would see, but we were caught by Fishies Plaice, who has an eagle eye for disappearing pubes, and reverted it, as is indeed his/her right. I must say, I'm fed up with having to scroll past these pendant dongs. How about having eight female photos and no male? Cheers Nick Michael 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So sign the poll below! Nick Michael 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need THAT many pics 

message: The above discussion is months old now - I count 6 signed votes for gallery removal and 4 signed votes for retention (plus a couple of unsigned retention votes and some additional support for removal in the other thread). I was hoping to consolidate consensus into a new thread (this one) and close it out within a couple of weeks.
I'd like to put forward the following two options:
Option 1. Keep the gallery as is, limited to four male and four female images.
Option 2. Eliminate the gallery and reduce images in this section to one male and one female example.
RJASE1  Talk  00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 2. And I'm not a prude either. In fact, rather the contrary ;-) But these photos do not lend credibility to Wikipedia and attract vandals like honey does bees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Michael (talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good. — Omegatron 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You have an interesting interpretation of what "consensus" means.  5 for and 2 against is not consensus. (Thanks for the compliment about the pic.) Xandergr8 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most important factor is that the gallery as it was was ugly and actually acted against illustrating the topic it was in support of.  I think it's fair to describe the discussion above (all of it, not just the last "vote") as a rough consensus.  But the net result is that the article is now more readable, and the illustrations more useful. Nandesuka 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo gallery - options 

message: Option 2. I'm no prude (I even supported the current image in the Ejaculation article) but having an open gallery of this type is vandal-bait. God knows we already have enough self-made images of male genitalia. I think one each archetypical male and one female image are enough to get the encyclopedic point across, when combined with all the other examples shown further down in the article. RJASE1  Talk  00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 2. And I'm not a prude either. In fact, rather the contrary ;-) But these photos do not lend credibility to Wikipedia and attract vandals like honey does bees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Michael (talk • contribs) 07:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good. — Omegatron 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You have an interesting interpretation of what "consensus" means.  5 for and 2 against is not consensus. (Thanks for the compliment about the pic.) Xandergr8 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most important factor is that the gallery as it was was ugly and actually acted against illustrating the topic it was in support of.  I think it's fair to describe the discussion above (all of it, not just the last "vote") as a rough consensus.  But the net result is that the article is now more readable, and the illustrations more useful. Nandesuka 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: Per the consensus here, I cut the gallery down to 1 each, male and female.  I also took the male image I selected and cropped it to just the pubic hair and the base of the penis.   Not out of prudery, but because I personally find the penises distracting when what we're trying to illustrate is the pubic hair.  The best picture was probably the first one in the gallery, but I deliberately chose the second image because it was of an African-American male, and there has been a long-running complaint that Wikipedia's body part images tend to be almost exclusively caucasian, and I think that's a fair complaint. Nandesuka 13:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. — Omegatron 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You have an interesting interpretation of what "consensus" means.  5 for and 2 against is not consensus. (Thanks for the compliment about the pic.) Xandergr8 03:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most important factor is that the gallery as it was was ugly and actually acted against illustrating the topic it was in support of.  I think it's fair to describe the discussion above (all of it, not just the last "vote") as a rough consensus.  But the net result is that the article is now more readable, and the illustrations more useful. Nandesuka 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action Taken 

message: Needs some information either here or in androgenic hair about why we grow hair in only certain places and what evolutionary purpose it is theorized to serve. — Omegatron 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: Caution Wikipedians,
Since this article has a picture of people's penis, anus, and testicles in it, a lot of anonymous users could come here and vandalize this whole page by making fun of those pictures. I'll say to suggest that disable editing that article.Pro Game Master87 09:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution 

message: The tentacle porn picture is kind of irrelevant to the article. Just because the woman in the picture just happens to have pubic hair, does that mean we have to include every kind of weird sexual fetish porn just because it features some pubes? --124.180.65.165 14:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article discusses the depiction of pubes in art. The image demonstrates that at the time it was made, at least some Japanese art did depict pubes. 21:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tentacle porn 

message: A user keeps adding an image replacing the previous "afric am tightcrop" (which he claims, for no apparent reason, actually depicts a "latino" individual). While there is some good reason for preferring "white" bodies in this case - since they allow the hair to stand out more sharply, I think this is overidden by the preference for racial diversity which has been several time proposed here. Can we have some consensus to avoid silly edit warring from competing exhibitionists again. Paul B 12:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for misunderstanding, however "latino" just means south/central American. It's not really a racial concept. It's a linguistic one. We have had longstanding problems with exhibitionism, so I make no apologies for mentioning the fact that we need to work wth consensus to avoid that problem David Shankbone. Paul B 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should apologize.  First, I'm a long-standing contributor and leveling charges as to my motivations for putting a photograph up is completely irrelevant to the discussion page for this article.  You neither know me, nor my motivations, and instead of making charges that I'm trying to get my bush up on a page you should perhaps contact me first.  It's called, Paul Barlow, WP:CIVIL and No Personal Attacks.  --David Shankbone 12:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your tiresome sanctimony is simply evading the issue. I said nothing about you wantinmg to get your "bush" anywhere. I said, David Shankbone, "Can we have some consensus to avoid silly edit warring from competing exhibitionists again." Paul B 13:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm the one involved, I'd be the exhibitionist.  Perhaps you should use language more precisely and in its commonly used ways.  You are first equating the problematic word Race with African-American.  The model I used is from Ecuador.  Second, we are here for quality, not to get African-American pubes on the pubic hair page.  The model I used could be Asian - you don't know.  It's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.  --David Shankbone 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Vote away! Paul B 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: a photo in which the hair has not been shaved or trimmed would be more representative.  Race is not important, just use a good-quality photo that shows pubic hair in its natural state. P 68.162.124.47 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Shankbone photo is obviously better quality and therefore is the most appropriate at this time. I don't see how the racial issue has any bearing whatsoever.TAnthony 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The older one is a better picture (Pi 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: David, please stop reverting your own photographic work back into the article.  I've no objection if some other editor wants to do it (as long as they're participating on the talk page), but for you to be obdurate in this way regarding your own creation is a clear conflict of interest, and is quite inappropriate.  Please stop. Nandesuka 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no conflict of interest, you are unable to cite any policy or guideline, and right above this discussion consensus was reached to include it.  The COI argument is ridiculous and you are using it to get your way, but are unable to find anything to back yourself up.  Your behavior is very inappropriate.  You are edit warring, without consensus.  --David Shankbone 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the photographer 

message: Just to establish some base principles: 
#Wikipedia-wide policy is to use "tasteful" pictures of anatomy. 
#A picture is preferable to other media (e.g, paintings) 
#It is not a conflict of interest for a photographer to want his pictures used in our articles. Unless someone can establish David has some motive in getting his photos used in our article that goes beyond simple pride in seeing his work used, there is no conflict of interest for David here. 
With that said, I think the debate should be focused solely on the merits of David's photograph versus any other candidate photographs. On this point, I'm going to remain neutral, because I'm at work and I really shouldn't be looking at such things ;) Raul654 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would even go farther and suggest that it might be acceptable for a professional photographer to post a link to his professional web site and his name and contact information along with the image description.  There was a discussion on one of the admin noticeboard about how to get celebrities to submit GFDL-compliant high quality photos of themselves, and there was favorable response to the suggestion that the photographers could professionally identify themselves (on the image upload but not the caption in the article).  If we are willing to do this to get a better picture of some actress or model then why not for pictures of more mundane subjects. Thatcher131 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to note that I share the surprise that COI has come up as an issue here. Are we to ban professional biographers from writing biographical articles? Professional programmers from writing scripts and Bots? Surely we should be glad that those with expertise are willing to assist us as volunteers. If someone has good quality images they are willing to license freely - that's great. The GFDL (or a compatible Creative Commons license) contemplates that they will be credited for that work - as text contributors must be credited for their work. To suggest taking pride in one's work is self-promotion is a bit much. The day Wikipedia has such prestige that we have hoardes of public hair image brandishing professional photographers squabbling over whose image should go in this article we can afford to be more discriminating - though I still suspect the only criterion should be quality/representativeness of the image. But the idea that David should be anything other than thanked for being willing to upload his wide ranging images is astounding. WjBscribe 06:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Base principles and David's photograph

message: The female picture appears to have heavily trimmed pubic hair.  Is this appropriate for an encyclopaedia article documenting human anatomy? Oh dear, I do feel picky. Vashti 11:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never liked to say so, for various reasons, but now Vashti (who is in a position to do so) has brought up the subject, yes, I think an article on this subject should be illustrated with pics "au nature". That includes the male one too. On your camera, David... Nick Michael 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Nick, although I probably have about twenty to fifty images for almost every person I have photographed, I don't actually have a treasure trove (as it were) of bushes waiting to bust out all over like spring.  Because I was busy reviewing and editing Lawrence Weschler (my third person this week - I'm tired) I didn't have a chance to review my repository of Ernesto photographs last night.  I could probably have him come back in for another shoot, but contrary to perhaps popular belief (?) I don't have a harem of disrobed males with full bushels lying around my apartment.  I would also need to ask him to let mother nature run its course.  I may drop him a line...the things I do for the cause of free culture.  If anyone knows of a New York-based female willing to be photographed, please have her drop me a line.  Nobody responded to my Craigs List ad.  --David Shankbone 13:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hair: trimmed or not? 

message: Really doesn't come very close to the GA criteria at all. Few citations, and there's lots of hazy information here.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No way is this GA 

message: Look back at the several pictures that were on here several months ago (before gallery was removed). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pubic_hair&oldid=106637928 Most of those pics were better. Pics were non-trimmed or minimally trimmed, better lighting, etc... Why not pick one of those old pictures to replace the current one. 
More context should be shown (such as with the female pic) so you can see how far the pubic hair spreads (in relation to body). Such as the "happy trail" many guys have. I don't see a problem with the penis showing, as pubic hair is also on the scrotum of most men and sometimes the lower shaft of the penis. Wiki isn't suppose to be censored you know.  
208.252.179.24 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this editor. It's fine to have just one picture of each sex -- the old version with eight pictures was excessive. But the pictures should both be clear and show what natural pubic hair actually looks like, which the current male version  does not. I'm going to try replacing it with one of the old ones. Llajwa 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more interesting is that these comments presuppose that it is "natural" for a woman to trim her public hair, but not for a man.  That sounds like POV to me.  --David Shankbone 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, on the contrary, I think both pictures should be untrimmed for this purpose. Subjectively, to me the male image looked more closely trimmed than the female one. But I think they should both be full bush. Llajwa 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what we are trying to show.  The location?  The texture?  How people handle their bush?  What's the point of the photos?  Everyone has their own perspective on what should be shown and why.  One person's "full bush" argument is met with a "Many people don't keep a full bush" (it's probably evenly divided).  Then the argument comes down to showing different ways people handle their bush, shave it, trim it, etc.  In the end, it's not a very important argument as long as the two photos shown are quality images.  Quality images of some bush should trump one POV or another in the the bush debate.  --David Shankbone 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty much everyone agreed that dick pics are not what is wanted, even before I put my photo on there.  The previous grainy greasy bush I replaced was cropped to take out the dick pic.  There are umpteen arguments, as I mention above, about what photo should be used, that in the end the only way to really decide the issue is on quality, which includes clarity.  But if this issue is to be taken up again, then before any edit wars over photo ensue (and seriously, I'm not beholden to my photo, I just think it's the best based on quality), then these questions should be decided:
#What is the purpose of the photo?  To illustrate "pubic hair"?  To show its location?  To show what people do with their pubic hair?   To show the texture of the hair?  To show all the places it covers?  
#Are these questions equal for men and women?  If a woman shaves and shapes her bush typically, and typically many men do as well, is a natural "full bush" preferred for both, one or the other?  If so, why?
#Is full genitalia necessary or preferred.
You were correctly reverted, Wits, because these issues were hashed out recently and you should have expected as much considering the entire purpose of your User name is to make controversial edits.  Regardless, the editors of this page haven't figured out what the photos should do yet, and that needs to be decided before any more edit wars take place.  --David Shankbone 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And he reverted me again. <sigh>. Is it just my imagination, or was there not a Loooooooong discussion about this and consensus about not adding dick pics achieved? Jeffpw 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, consensus was reached.  I'll allow Wits to read everything above; I'm not going to do his work for him.  --David Shankbone 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Highly understandable. It is tiring to debate (pubic hair photos). I will probably RfC later (assuming no one else does). Wits 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old male photos were better 

message: :Pretty much everyone agreed that dick pics are not what is wanted, even before I put my photo on there.  The previous grainy greasy bush I replaced was cropped to take out the dick pic.  There are umpteen arguments, as I mention above, about what photo should be used, that in the end the only way to really decide the issue is on quality, which includes clarity.  But if this issue is to be taken up again, then before any edit wars over photo ensue (and seriously, I'm not beholden to my photo, I just think it's the best based on quality), then these questions should be decided:
#What is the purpose of the photo?  To illustrate "pubic hair"?  To show its location?  To show what people do with their pubic hair?   To show the texture of the hair?  To show all the places it covers?  
#Are these questions equal for men and women?  If a woman shaves and shapes her bush typically, and typically many men do as well, is a natural "full bush" preferred for both, one or the other?  If so, why?
#Is full genitalia necessary or preferred.
You were correctly reverted, Wits, because these issues were hashed out recently and you should have expected as much considering the entire purpose of your User name is to make controversial edits.  Regardless, the editors of this page haven't figured out what the photos should do yet, and that needs to be decided before any more edit wars take place.  --David Shankbone 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And he reverted me again. <sigh>. Is it just my imagination, or was there not a Loooooooong discussion about this and consensus about not adding dick pics achieved? Jeffpw 15:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, consensus was reached.  I'll allow Wits to read everything above; I'm not going to do his work for him.  --David Shankbone 15:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I've already read all the discussion Shankbone, thank you. We interpret things differently. The consensus was that you're photo was better than the previous "afric am tightcrop". I would agree with that consensus because of the poor quality of the previous photo. But you can't draw from that consensus (or earlier ones) on other's issues that weren't even being voted on. Although a few related comments were made. 
A couple people stated support of cropping or censoring the penis, one doesn't want any real photos at all (I don't consider 1 or 2 people a consensus). A few people (including myself) thought it seemed inappropriate to be cropped so much. Most people said a better photo would be preferable (even those voting for your pic). You yourself say the best quality photo should be used. So when I do so out of good faith, your free to disagree (with it being better) and revert. But that doesn't mean it was wrong of me.  
That I registered this user name for the purpose of editing locked articles (which are inherently controversial) has no barring on the merit of my edits. I don't attempt to make my edits controversial, only try to do what is best for the article. Shankbone, I'm surprised that you would twist the words of my user profile, seemingly in an attempt to discredit me. You seem to be a credible and genuine person, so I'll attribute that comment to reactionary oneupmanship or misinterpretation.
It's ok, only natural. But please stick to debating the merits of the article (and not assuming bad faith of me). I say this all only in explanation of my viewpoint, and I don't find you be wrong (although I may disagree) or in bad faith either. Obviously, your contributions to wiki have been of great use. I made the edit with the purpose of the photo better illustrating what was said in the wiki article.
The needed criteria you state for deciding on the photos are reasonable in my opinion. Since these criteria aren't decided on yet in consensus (1 or 2 people don't count as such), I saw no harm in making a good faith contribution on what I believe to be a better photo. But since both of you have vehemently opposed my doing so, I will leave the photos alone until there is a consensus on the photo criteria. I understand this is a collaboration and while I stand by my opinion, I won't try to force it on the article if the majority disagrees. I suggest we start a discussion topic on the reasonable criteria Shankbone gave as being needed to decide upon the best photo. Wits 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Highly understandable. It is tiring to debate (pubic hair photos). I will probably RfC later (assuming no one else does). Wits 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-response