 |
Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding objectionable content. |
 |
Pubic hair was one of the good article nominees, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. |
| Article milestones |
| Date |
Process |
Result |
| January 26, 2004 |
Peer review |
Reviewed |
| September 10, 2007 |
Good article nominee |
Not listed |
| Current Status: Former good article nominee |
|
|
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. |
|
|
|
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Images
Yet again, one of the images has been changed (this time the female pubic hair img). This regular changing whilst usually harmless is also quite unnecessary. Could we perhaps agree a consensus for the 2 images, then put a notice in the article warning against modifying the images? I believe for the male img, File:Penisflaccidunc.jpg is ideal as it shows the location and extent of male pubic hair in a normal way on a normal-appearing penis, but the female img is regularly changed, I believe File:Female pubic hair.jpg was entirely acceptable and ideal until the most recent edit. Tbmurray (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like User Tbmurray has taken over the ownership of this article from the community "Could we perhaps agree a consensus...". Bad practice.
-
- I have hardly taken over this article. According to the records I've made just seven edits to it! I imagine that this article is visited by a significant number of young people in their teens who are interested in learning more about what is happening to their bodies, and that's why I believe this article should contain appropriate images. On the human penis article there is a consensus over lead image and a warning within the article not to amend it without prior discussion. I am merely proposing we do the same here on this important and popular article. (Not signing your comments, that's bad practice; and please avoid personal attacks in future). Tbmurray (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You should REMOVE these. You don't need pictures of ding dongs and hohos to show in the article. You should have a warning at the beginning of this article so parents can censor it. Wikipedia isn't a porn site and you've made it into a child porn site. 99.184.223.190 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Erica Davidson
-
- Wikipedia is not censored and the two images in the article are hardly pornographic. --TBM10 (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that Wikipedia should not be censored as far as content, however, I am astonished as to the amount of attention given to pubic hair, as well as related subjects, such as pubic waxing, etc. I am not surprised that young teens visit this site, however, I think they are more interested in what is happening to the bodies of the other gender than their own. When I was a teen, I figured it out without resorting to an encyclopedia - I think the education was "Yeah, dude - those are pubes, everyone gets them, get over it." Hardly needed the attention we see here. In my opinion, giving this amount of attention to pubic hair when so little is needed gives credence to this, and related articles being a parody on society's views and so lessens the credibility of Wikipedia in general. Certainly, pubic hair depiction in art is a serious subject, and should be given a page specific to that topic and not thrown in with pubic hair in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.178.217 (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There is defiantly a lot of variety. Two pictures is the bare minimum. I agree with the above that the article could easily be the portal to more content and sub pages. And censoring is absurd. If you really didn't want to see pictures of pubic hair don't look at the article. It really doesn't happen by accident. 184.175.5.220 (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Male Image suboptimal
The image of the male pubic hair is suboptimal, showing trimmed pubic hair. It shows not naturally grown and uncut pubic hair; a reader with no background may think the actual image shows the typical reality, which it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.48.81 (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- The current image is fine. We don't need to find the hairiest photo possible for it to be legit. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Ohnoitsjamie. It isn't "obviously" trimmed, and the image depicts the common extent and location of pubic hair well. If a user wishes to see variations in pubic hair, they can view many images at Wikimedia Commons. Tbmurray 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the weird argumentation: The male image is neither typical (trimmed hair) nor acceptable (unsharp poor image->should be nominated for deletion). What is the reason to insist on unreasonableness? GMOGR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.6.72 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it really part of an encylopedia to show different styles of Pubic hair? I would expect it on a cosmetician site or s.th. like that but I don't think that styles of pubic hair is really a topic worth mentioning. Oh yeah and stop fighting about the pictures.
[edit] Evolutionary purpose?
The article could use an explanation of why hair grows in adults' pubic area (or if there's no known/specific reason, then a statement of such). The general mechanics are of course described, but there doesn't seem to be any reference to its ultimate purpose. - Vague | Rant 18:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: not checked
