Talk:Bikini waxing

Objection to the picture

The picture that is repeatedly placed upon this article is not identified as a picture of a brazilian wax or of any kind of waxing. Do we know that the picture was of a waxing? Could it be shaving? Could it be a hormonal or pharmacological issue that led to a lack of hair? Unknown. Does the lack of hair extend throughout the area described by the article? The picture does not show. Does the picture show how it is done? No it does not. It is original research to declare that this picture is of brazilian waxing.

It may be of prurient interest, but the picture is also unnecessary to the article. It does not contribute any helpful or useful information. It is really of no encyclopedic value.

Since it is both Original Research and Unnecessary, it should not be included. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 5Q5 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted an image that was neither educational or descriptive.

I agree!!! Let's delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.221.66 (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have already deleted it about half a dozen times. But, it keeps resurfacing. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There was no warning for these pictures at all. None. How does wiki even know these "women" are legal age or that these pictures were taken with their consent? And I have to disagree. These are not "tasteful" photos--since when is a spread-leg layout tasteful? Perhaps to a person used to reading porn.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.155.59 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 

Let's talk about this picture....

Pros: It's a relatively tasteful nude photograph

Cons: It doesn't obviously, unquestionably show the results of a "Brazilian" wax. A similar state could have been achieved through shaving, or merely a frontal wax. We would need a far more graphic depiction to see the full results of the article's subject.

IMO, the most encyclopedic option would be to see a somewhat clinical depiction of a Brazilian waxing being administered, but I think the image in question is a reasonable compromise, in the absence of such a picture. Whether you or others find it of "prurient interest" is neither here nor there. Consider the subject of this article for a moment and ask yourself what sort of picture were you expecting to see?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the description of the image says it not an image of waxing, Brazilian or otherwise. Is it really necessary to put an image of a bald "pussy" in the article, especially if it fails to depict the topic, and also represents WP:OR to an extent? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The description[1] does claim the image shows a "Brazilian waxing." There are concerns here--but the image file description is not one of them.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I support bringing back those great pictures. Those pictures were a very good demonstration of brazilian waxing. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(reduced indent) Don't worry. Any porn site would most obligingly provide pictures of loads of bald pussies. Those "great pictures" are not really necessary, and are not even wholly representative of a Brazilian (if the article is to be believed). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be necessary to prove that a particular image was from brazilian waxing in order to include it. As long as it looks like brazilian waxing, there should be no objection to including the image to this article. One thing that's now missing after the images have now been removed is that the previous image added value to the article in that showed that brazilian waxing removed hair from the bung as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says - It can be thought of as a more extreme form of bikini waxing. The majority of types of Brazilian waxing leave a small line of pubic hair above the vulva, commonly known as the "G-Wax." If that is to believed, the images only portray an "extreme form" which may not be the right approach in depicting something. Like, would you prefer to portray a Siamese twin when depicting a human being? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The image was just put back in, I undid it. -Zeus- 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is this picture back? I was searching Wikipedia for "Brazilian", and I didn't even know what "waxing" was about. And then all of a sudden there's a "bald pussy" on my screen - on a Wikipedia page, and for no reason at all! I don't care about nudity, but I guess I would care if I had children, and anyway people who may see my computer screen do care about it. Basically, (almost) everyone here seems to agree that the picture shouldn't be there, but it keeps coming back (note the anonymous edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bikini_waxing&diff=240264800&oldid=238845511). I think it's just unacceptable and, under these circumstances, I'd call it plain vandalism. (BTW: just removed it.) Eumedemito (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it again. I don't have a problem with some kind of picture illustrating the results, but it seems to me that the latest picture that keeps coming back is a bit too prurient. Surely there are many other images that would illustrate the subject without being pornographic? The former "pool" picture was much more appropriate. If you are one of the people who keep bringing it back, at least be up-front and discuss it here on the discussion pages instead of just getting your jollies with this picture. 98.118.253.194 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:CENSOR and WP:NOIMAGE. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what the people that are complaining about expected when they went to an article about bikini waxing. Wikipedia is not censored. If these were fair-use images, I'd agree with their removal, however these are free images that are exactly what the article describes. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 13:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the removal of the image today associated with this article

I have to disagree with the action taken today 20080927 with the removal of the photo. The poolside photo of the female showing the upper portion of her pubic region. I came here looking for a good description and visual of a brazilian waxing. This photo put all doubts aside I had and helped me to grasp the understanding of what I was looking for. It is obvious it was removed because it was a nude photo. Well, I think the photo had the utmost taste to it. It did not show an open "crotch shot." It showed just enough of what you needed to see to compliment the article. When the penis page can have 3 or 4 penis pictures posted all over it, I find it very unkind to this article to remove that photo. It was very tastful, accurate and fitting. I say we place the photo back up that was removed today 20080927 with a partial filename of poolside. And BTW I was not the one who posted it. I just found it informing and when I was sharing the article later in the day, found it had been removed. I say we should put it back.

I'm gonna have to agree here. This article seems to demand the information that that image provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.144.68 (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had to restore the image for a second time. It is entirely consistent with other articles on body modification such as the tatoo article or genital piercing to illustrate the article with images that show examples of such processes. Even though the image doesn't explicitly state it is the result of a wax the results are consistent with those that are. The only legitimate reason for removing the photo would be if the effect clearly couldn't be produced by waxing, or clearly states that the effect was not the result of waxing. Neither of those criteria apply to the image in question. The case for replacing the photo would be if one could be found that clearly stated it was the result of the waxing process or better illustrated the process. In this case it would be appropriate to remove the current photo and replace with another. However, the recent changes to the article have been clearly to remove the photo without making any attempt to replace it. This can only constitute a censorious agenda and consitutes vandalism to the article. If it persists then article protection will have to be applied for. Betty Logan (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what

I think all the images on this page should be removed. Naked pictures on a waxing page are gratuitous. There are not pictures of shooting victims on the murder page now is there. Learn some taste. People ( including teens ) should be able to reference this page without embarrassment. I can see a curious teen getting caught by their parents right now. Want to prove me wrong? That these pictures are here for information and art? Replace all these pictures with fat women. You won't do it. 99.69.59.64 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Refs

One editor is diligently tagging it for refimporve and such, without explaining or pointing out anything on the talk page. Since I have reasons to believe he would not make use of the talk page, can some one lend some hand there? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is very well referenced - probably overly referenced if anything. The editor should discuss the issue on this talk page or he should add a 'fact' tag to the actual statement which he thinks is unreferenced. By just saying the section is poorly referenced isn't constructive and if he adds in any more of these tags they should be removed unless they are specific. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is not probably overly referenced except Different types section. Some handful references cover the Process section. Other statements in this part are still unreferenced which lacks verification.--NAHID 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not go against a third party decision. The article is well referenced. If there is a statement in the article that you think is unverified then list it here so it can be discussed. Saying the section is poorly referenced when many references have been provided is not a satisfactory reason for tagging the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The article might be well referenced but not the particular section itself. Can unreferenced statements be verified? Most of them lacks citation which is essential for verifying its content. If you go through the second paragraph:

The procedure starts with baby or talcum powder being spread liberally over the area to be waxed. This prevents the hot wax from sticking to the sensitive skin. Then, as in other forms of waxing, hot wax is spread over the area from which hair is to be removed. The wax is allowed to harden briefly, then one edge of the wax strip is pulled up and used as a tab to quickly pull off or zip the rest of the wax, in the direction of hair growth. Then it progresses to systematically removing the hair from the genital area, buttocks, and anus. This procedure removes the wax, hair, and any dead skin cells lying on the skin surface. The person performing the wax will then finish with tweezers to remove any stray hairs that the waxing missed. Finally, the remaining pubic hair (the so-called "landing strip") is either trimmed with scissors, or waxed off. The remaining hair may even be in a particular pattern (hearts are a popular option), or dyed.

And American wax section:

For a regular American wax strip wax is preferred over hard wax, and is used all over but the labia. Any bikini or similar undergarments worn by the client is tucked in and covered with paper towel. A small applicator may be used on both sides of the bikini area to create a clean and even line. Using an antiseptic cleaner and using the are with powder after the cleaner dries up is standard. Wax is applied with a large spatula in the direction of hair growth, which is downwards. It is applied in strip 2 inches wide and 4/5 inches long up to the femoral ridge. Since the hair on the pubis is coarse and grows horizontally and inward, a second application wax is often required. The all the wax strips are pulled away when the wax is set but still pliable. It is pulled against the direction of hair growth while keeping the skin taut. The pulling ideally is done as swift as possible.

None of them contain any single citation except the last statement of "American wax". Not so many references available there. The purpose of that template is to get attention form other editor in order to improve the section.--NAHID 20:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The American waxing part has all the reference it needs. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A single reference is enough since the American Wax section describes a single process which is described in the cited book. It is not covering lots of individual facts so each statement doesn't need a separate citaion. However, I agree that an extra reference might be beneficial for the second paragraph of 'Process'. It is not clear which reference it draws its information from. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, a more constructive way would not be to tag the whole section, but to identify which parts of that second paragraph may be challenged or something. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So, you wanted it on the talk page?

First you complain against a certain paragraph and it's reliability, tagging it all over with "citation needed" tags, and also posting it as of dubious verifiability. Then when it is removed, you go all out to reinstate it, reverting two times already. The second time I requested in the edit summary "can you explain on the talk page why did you restore material that you have identified as unverified, and is already mostly present elsewhere in the article?". But, you decided not to go for the talk page, rather you just reverted with an edit summary that says "can you explain on the talk page why did you remove material, and in which part they mostly present".

Alright. No problem at all. Here goes (I am going sentence by sentence of the part I removed, if you don't mind):

• Sentence 01: The procedure starts with baby or talcum powder being spread liberally over the area to be waxed. (tagged by you)
  • Corresponding sentence in the article: Using an antiseptic cleaner and using the are with powder after the cleaner dries up is standard.
• Sentence 02: This prevents the hot wax from sticking to the sensitive skin. Then, as in other forms of waxing, hot wax is spread over the area from which hair is to be removed.
  • Corresponding sentence in the article: No corresponding sentence, but that's implied already.
• Sentence 03: The wax is allowed to harden briefly, then one edge of the wax strip is pulled up and used as a tab to quickly pull off or zip the rest of the wax, in the direction of hair growth. (tagged by you)
  • Corresponding sentences in the article: Then all the wax strips are pulled away when the wax is set but still pliable. It is pulled against the direction of hair growth while keeping the skin taut. The pulling ideally is done as swift as possible.
• Sentences 04 and 05: Then it progresses to systematically removing the hair from the genital area, buttocks, and anus. This procedure removes the wax, hair, and any dead skin cells lying on the skin surface. The person performing the wax will then finish with tweezers to remove any stray hairs that the waxing missed. (tagged by you)
  • Corresponding sentences in the article: A pair of scissors or an electric razor may be needed first if the hair is curly or long it needs to be trimmed down using. Isolated hairs can be removed by using a tweezers or by electrolysis.
• Sentences 06 and 07: Finally, the remaining pubic hair (the so-called "landing strip") is either trimmed with scissors, or waxed off. The remaining hair may even be in a particular pattern (hearts are a popular option), or dyed. (tagged by you)
  • Corresponding sentence in the article: No corresponding sentence, but not notable either.

You have managed to waste time of another Wikipedian successfully through this bickering. But, if you are satisfied, this little editor is happy. I am removing it again. Please, state any problem you have here, before your start an edit war. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any statement tagged by "fact template" should not be removed. Because they are still helpful and it is backed by policy. Please be civil and no anger mood whenever you go through any discussion.'this little editor is happy' - let other editor to edit. Entries should not be taken care by one editor.--NAHID 18:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, let other editors edit. Shouldn't be too difficult. Right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

With all the above fighting, the article had been left in a poorly edited state, with repetition & bad grammar. I've done a quick cleanup. (Of the English kind, not the Bowdler kind).65.32.236.156 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, fighting seems to be a way of life for this article. Just take a look at the archived discussions. Aren't we just cool? Jokes apart, some more copyediting help would be highly helpful (this one area of work always floors me bad). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures showing human female pubic nudity

Can we PLEASE permanently remove all the pictures that depict pubic nudity? This is a public encyclopedia which people of all ages and backgrounds can access. A diagram will do the topic justice without offending those who do not wish to view it in graphic detail. People may disagree but this is a public site and respect should be shown to all viewers. Those who wish to gaze at hairless pubic areas can seek the enjoyment from pornography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creamriceking (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, in that I feel "innocuous" pages should not contain nudity. But this is a page about how you shave your crotch, so I don't think it's a stretch to expect there to be pictures of it. This is an encyclopaedia, you should expect relevant images on a page. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There also is an option of not viewing an image. It is there to help people who are offended by some picture or other. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? What is the purpose of the pictures? Aren't some sketchy drawings, for instance, NOT enough to illustrate the topic? I highly doubt even a single drawing at all is necessary, but it's surely unnecessary to show a few pics where labia minora (and thighs... They're not even properly focused pictures) are totally visible. The pictures are missing the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femmeseule (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are not missing the point. Lot of work has gone down in choosing the right images with a lot of editors involved. But, apparently you are missing the point. Wikipedia isn't censored, and if any user has a problem with any image he or she can turn the image off at his or her end. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding A diagram will do the topic justice without offending those who do not wish to view it in graphic detail.

Well, if you make a diagram, we might consider replacing the image with the diagram. But, since I can't find any diagrams of this subject, I see no reason even to discuss removing the image. --78.3.73.184 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Combine with male genital waxing

How about combining this article with the one on male genital waxing and then add some photos of what that looks like? I don't see why there should be two different articles. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.226.241 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is male genital waxing covered by the term bikini waxing? If so, it would make sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is very little overlap between the different types, methodology, and cultural significance of bikini waxing and male genital waxing. You'd end up with two completely separate sections so may as well keep them as separate articles. Betty Logan (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I think both are very different.--WiseCrow (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

wasn't there a video here before

There was a viedeo of waxing being carried out and it was later taken off .Can someone link me to it ? 124.157.173.102 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the history around the time you think you saw it. Biofase ^flame| stalk  00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it was deleted for violating copyright: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Brazilian_wax.ogg. I remember the video though and it is widely available over the internet - a google search on "bikini wax video" brings it up on several pages: http://leenks.com/media359.htm. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(Moved in from Talk:Landing strip (hair)) Dicdef

This is seriously just a dicdef. I've rewritten it, but unless it expands more, I think it might be best if it were moved to Wiktionary. I'll nominate it myself if I don't forget. -- Dpark 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree - entirely a Wiktionary candidate. Tim Pierce 13:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been moved to Wiktionary by now? It's annoying for people interested in aviation to be sent to an entry regarding pubic hair styling!T.E. Goodwin 10:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is nonsense It should be deleted.--Pensil (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Avoid useless references

This reference is useless:

Joannides, p. 233.

I wouldn't know where to start in trying to figure out what it refers to (I can't even check if it exists!), and I'm sure no one's going to go to the effort to find this publication and read page 233.

Good references can be written by using the "quote" value, like this:

Some companies make examples.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://example.com|title=Homepage of Example Inc.|quote=We make examples}}</ref>

That way it's easy for anyone to verify the source has been accurately represented and anyone can see what part of the sentence is backed up by this source. Gronky (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Example

There's this sentence:

Some critics of the procedure believe that Brazilian waxing can contribute to making an adult woman look underage, citing this as one reason for its popularity in the pornographic industry.

There are four references given. Only one can be consulted online, and it doesn't contain any statement from any critic making the claim that Brazilian waxing is popular in the pornography industry because it can contribute to making adult women look underage. Either the person who added this reference didn't understand what references are for, or maybe the sentence has been changed since the reference was added.

What about the other three? Are they also all wrong? Well, verification is hard (more effort than we can expect anyone to go to) and there's no quote, so it's quite possible that they are also nonsense references. Gronky (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

All the sources were listed, they just hadn't been properly page referenced. With minimal effort I was able to scan down the list and see with book "Joannides, p. 233." referred to (which incidentally you would have to do if it were a hardcopy). Page references have now been consolidated into one reference. Also, there is no requirement on references to directly quote their sources, or for them to be verifiable online. Quoting isn't done in academic referencing unless you are directly repeating what someone has said. Providing the reference details of the text and the page number is adequate for offline texts, since enough information has been presented for you to verify the content. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Quotes aren't always necessary, but can be requested if an editor thinks they're necessary in a particular instance. There's a tag for doing so: . I suspect these references are being incorrectly used, so I'll add that tag. Gronky (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)