Talk:Pubic hair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Pubic hair was a good articles nominee, 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:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article 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.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.
 
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article 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.
 

style[edit]

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.

Diversity[edit]

It would be cool to get some non-white photos, and I suggest this for all the genitalia related articles. I'm not sure where to fund such photos, but having only white photos re-enforces that white is the standard- that White is Human (Example from other parts of society: band-aids, make-up, 'ethnic' hair products having their own tiny and hard to find section, etc) But humans came in all colour, shapes and sizes!

Transitional (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)transitional

No evidence suggests that the photos in the genitalia articles are all from white people, they're just not dark-skinned. If you check the Commons, you'll find that there're very few qualified dark-skinned photo available. Days ago I tried to promote this photo (which was uploaded from imagefap.com to Commons) to be used in the penis article, but it gets copyright trouble and has already been deleted. Anyone who owns good quality dark-skinned photos please donate, it will be a great help to improve the articles. Moscowsky-talk- 10:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
80% pics in Commons are blurry with poor taste and nothing of worth, more better photos are needed from whoever. Hope more black dude can upload nice dick photos65.49.68.188 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Diversity and unrelated to photos, in the second-to-last paragraph in the Development section, the wording "In the Far East, however, straight black head hair is matched by pubic hair that has been described as 'black, short, straight and not thick but rather sparse...'" is objectionable. The "Far East"? I thought this was discarded an an uninformative, archaic term. And the quote is rather generalizing, not including many populations that would fall under the "Far East" such as South East Asians, Mongolians, or Ainu. Frankly, it's a little creepy and hints at the objectification of Asian women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.169.84 (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate Images[edit]

Please use an illustrated diagram as opposed to an actual THING!!!Grathmy (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not going to happen. Real-life images are being used proportionately for educational purposes, whereas diagrams would give lower-quality information. If you're really offended, click the links in the big message boxes at the top to find out how to hide the images. BethNaught (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Grathmy (talk · contribs), I'll go ahead and be the one to state that you should see WP:Not censored and WP:Offensive material. If there were, as WP:Offensive material states, equally suitable alternative images that are less offensive than the real-life images, the alternatives would be fine to use. And by "equally suitable alternative" in this case, what is meant is that the images will be as educational as the real-life images. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

'Hair does not contain...'[edit]

What does 'Hair does not contain intrinsic value that automatically attracts the opposite sex' mean? And if it means anything at all, why does the person who wrote it think it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.180.12 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No idea. I've trimmed that paragraph. --NeilN talk to me 15:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)