Talk:Beard

Beard was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.

Netherlands

A beard without a moustache is considered unattractive in The Netherlands.

What source is there for this statement? I live in the Netherlands and have no such idea of a beard without a moustache. And yes, i do from time to time have a beard without a moustache. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waht (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hormones

I do miss on the page of the beard what hormones cause the grow of the beard on the face of a man or not-grow of a woman. 84.30.175.153 05:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

include playoff beard

There should be a reference to, description of, or at the very least link to playoff beard in this article.

Pic for future use, to the right

Personal note

I'm a young man with a beard :) i grew mine for two reasons - to look older and also my face droops slightly from the stroke that crippled me not long after birth and the beard helps hide that.

PMelvilleAustin 18:52 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Picture

Would someone please get rid of that disgusting beard pic on the page and replace it with a picture that's more attractive? Acornlord 13:57, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As the person who took the photo, I'd be interested to learn what exactly you find "disgusting" about it. <KF> 20:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The beard is visually disgusting. It is not aesthetically pleasing to the eye. I would much appreciate a more appealing beard picture. The beard is scraggly, old, hairy, discolored, worn by a snickering geezer. Please get rid of it. Acornlord 01:40, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I certainly won't exchange the photo for a "more appealing" one, but everyone here at Wikipedia is of course invited to do so without further ado. As the photographer, I was wondering about the technical aspects of the photo rather than the object itself.

But I must add here, Acornlord, that I find your attitude rather strange. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the corresponding text definitely says that bearded men are frequently considered less refined, cranky, etc. I don't know how old you are, but I sincerely hope ageism won't get you anywhere. Also, although I don't really consider this a slippery slope, anyone could argue they find all kinds of images disgusting and repulsive and demand their removal (see, for example, the photo illustrating the psoriasis article).

Looking forward to seeing a "more attractive" picture here soon. All the best, <KF> 09:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's just my opinion. Where possible, attractive pictures should replace ugly pictures. For example, in the article human, would you rather have an old, balding, fat, cancerous, disgusting, frothing man as a picture for the article, or a pleasing-looking man instead? Acornlord 14:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please, someone, remove that hideous beard picture from the article and replace it with something half-decent! Acornlord 20:59, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Acornlord. The picture is not the best. Need better picture.WHEELER 13:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a fine example of a Garibaldi beard, well on its way to becoming a Full beard, as evidenced by the strands beginning to hang downward. The man is a distinguished looking gentleman, likely an Amish type. It is a fine picture and does this page justice. [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 23:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Acorn, not everyone looks like the millionaires you see on television. I think it's a fine beard on a healthy-looking gentleman. Not all of us want or feel the need to alter our appearances to suit others. Ralphael

I thought the picture was fine. I think the one there now might be better because it shows the whole face, but yours is not an ugly picture KF and I'm sure you aren't either.72.59.10.103

I must agree that beard is hideous and certainly does not merit being placed right at the top of such a standard article. KF, quit changing the picture back, by now several people have complained. Wikipedia is not a place to attempt to make your face famous. Drop it already. If you continue with this nonsense I will file a report with the administrators. 68.11.46.146 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source for quote?

Maybe it is just traditional, in which case a specific citation would not be necessary, but that Greek quote about being neither a boy nor a woman really sounds like it was said by someone specifically. Anyone know if this is the case? Zhankfor

Breadth of coverage

No, not of the chin, but of the topic- could the article be expanded with more discussion of the significance of beards in other places, since there's currently quite a bit on the U.S.? FZ 22:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There ought to be more discussion of of the influence of politics and religion on the hair and beard. Charles Mackay's Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds [1] is in the public domain and portions could certainly be summarized here. Gdr 17:26, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Photo of reference work

Why does there have to be a picture of the One Thousand Beards book? It looks like an advertisement. Also, there is another book by Helen Bunkin called Beards, Beards, Beards that has received very high reviews and is to be the first of two, but it is not listed. I have taken the liberty of adding it. [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 23:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Women and Facial Hair

I don't believe that this is the place to talk about women and facial hair. My reasoning follows.

A mention of women and facial hair is made on Facial hair and links directing interested readers direct them to the appropriate page, Bearded woman. Also, I have added appropriate links under 'See also' on Beard and Moustache. Before I created that page and moved the relevant information that had previously been here, the link 'Bearded woman' automatically redirected to Hirsutism. This is not fair, as what is commonly believed to be a beard on a woman is not a beard at all, but simply dark body hair. This new page allows us to discuss the subject sensitively and scientifically, before sending the reader off on a journey into disease and disorder.

The famed bearded women of the circus sideshows were usually fakes. In a few rare cases, it is a case of Hirsutism or an even rarer genetic disorder, for which a page does not yet exist (but links on Bearded woman and Hirsutism do, should anyone care to research the topic). This is not an attempt at segregation. Here we are not talking of female authors, where it makes little sense to segregate them and their works, but of curiosities and medical disorders specific to women. There are men with breasts, too (gynecomastia), but we would surely not talk about them on a page devoted to mothers and infant feeding, or to buxom blondes on the silver screen.

Furthermore, to have a natural male feature discussed in the same breath as hormonal imbalances and sideshow freaks is a gross disrespect to manhood. This furthers the distaste for things male and manly that has crept into modern society. It is often the case today that one does not refer to men as men, but as people. To be a man has become something androgynous and sexless, as if it were something freakish to be diluted, hidden and ashamed of. These pages, Beard, Moustache, Goatee, Sideburns etc ought to be done in honour of men and manhood. It is a subject of male pride.

[[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 06:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More about Men

I just happened to catch the last 15 minutes of Dr. Phil after work today. Cher was on briefly. Talk was about her still being single and the difficulties she has with relationships - being a star and all. She said that she was looking for a "person." She did not say she is looking for a man. Refer to my comments above under 'Women and Facial Hair'. This is exactly what I am referring to. [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 03:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not making much sense here. To me, you're talking lesbians and women with (normal) facial hair-- ya might be tryin' to make a connection here. Are you? Mdoc7 16:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is a French beard same as the goatee ? Jay 15:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent beard picture!

I think the picture is excellent. Who ever this man is I would be proud to meet. Of course I have quite a full beard my self. Family photo found at http://www.livethewordministries.info/modules.php?name=whoweare taken back in June. As anyone who has a full beard knows you certainly get a range of looks from poeple when they first see you. From happy to afraid and all points in between. The man that is speaking so negatively should put his own mug up if he thinks that one is sooo bad. :)
I was very happy to find another site (this site) with information on beards. This one definately goes into more detail than mine. Thanks! Gary

I would like to see a picture of what i think is one of the greatest beards in history, Karl Marx on this page. I think it really captures what a giagantic beard looks like.

Pogonology

Such a long article, I've only skimmed it for now, but it neglects the word pogonology which seems entirely fitting: the study of beards. --Elijah 02:26, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, as I came to this article specifically looking for that word! Added. Mule Man 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity?

What is a section related to christianity doing in an article about beards?

Yeah, the article only talks about beards in christianity and no other religion. That's pretty partial. Either remove that section or things about beards in other religions should also be written.

Well, then make it balanced by adding something yourself. Add whatever other religions viewpoint on beards that you find appropriate. Someone already has stepped up to the plate from the Christian perspective - what's your contribution going to be?

Boxing

Beard is also a boxing term. A fighter who can sustain powerful punches to the face is described as having a "good beard".

Heres a link to an article using it in that context: The Chin, The Beard, The Knockout

Crimean War

I have read several times that beards became fashionable in England when many soldiers from the Crimean War returned wearing them. See: [[2]] . SimonLyall 03:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That would seem about right. The English soldiers would have come into contact with many different cultures, especialy people like the Hungarians who're known for their beards. But you can't forget about the signifigant influence that service on the Indian sub-continent would have had on British soldiers and 19thC fashion in general. (many examples of amazing Indian Beards can be seen in paintings and photography of that time) OzoneO 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arf

At present the article contains the phrase "Full beards nonetheless remain a fringe phenomenon". This is clearly in error. Full beards extend all over the bottom of the head, not just the fringes.-Ashley Pomeroy 11:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysus rarely?

I've removed the mention of Dionysus 'rarely' being represented with a beard, as he frequently is. (In two of the four representations over at the Dionysus article, for example.) Arguably he is almost always bearded when he is not represented as a youth: "Artistically he was represented mostly either as a youth of soft, nearly feminine form, or as a bearded and draped man, but frequently also as an infant, with reference to his birth or to his bringing up in Nysa." (source: http://28.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DI/DIONYSUS.htm) --10:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Blorg

Added note on shaping of beard... should this be in a wikibook?

Thinking of removing the addition, as it's a howto (and may not fit with intent).

Will research and come back later. Quiettype 07:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous beards

As the Moustaches entry has a list of famous owners, why not beards?

Could also include beards in fiction/mythology.

Jackiespeel 17:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous beard list is coming along nicely. Is there a reason why it's been changed to alphabetical order by first name rather than surname? If not I'll just change it back to normal. Nick 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Biology

What might be cool is a section on which hormones in the body encourage beard growth. I'm sure something interesting could be written about it, but unfortunately I know very little about it myself. Maybe someone's interested? --Michiel Sikma 21:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beard length maximium

I was recently asked if beards keep growing indefinitely, or stop at a certain length. I couldn't answer for sure, and it seems that there's no mention of that here. It could be worth mentioning, unless the answer is obvious and I'm just missing it. --Kizor 23:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that facial hair, just like head hair, has a genetically determined length. For instance, my mother has not trimmed her head hair significantly in over ten years. Shawn M. O'Hare 16:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everybody has something called a Terminal Length. Some people can't grow a few inches from their face and others can grow down to their bellybuttons. It's all predetermined. Dynendal 08:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Beards in Halakha

To User:70.156.183.68 or anyone who questions the legitimacy of permissible shaving under halakha:

First of all, there is absolutely no question that shaving or trimming with scissors is permitted, as this is brought down in the Shulhan Arukh (Yoreh Deah, 181).
Second of all, most poskim do allow shaving with electric razors. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin are just two very sufficient examples. Indeed, some poskim prohibit their use, like the Chazon Ish, so I added a sentence to note this.

Please do not revert material without knowing the facts first. --DLand 23:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I reverted the article anonymously. However I am afraid that I will have to argue with your first point; a large number of Poskim pasken differently from the Rema and hold that trimming with scissors is forbidden.

The Tzemach Tzedek in Shaalos UT’Shuvos Tzemach Tzedek, Yoreh Deah, Tzadik Gimmel gives an 8-page teshuva on the subject, concluding that any trimming of the beard is an ISSUR D’ORAISA on the grounds of Halacha, among them: -

1. ‘Peyos HaZaken’

2. Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah

3. it violates Taam Hamitzvah

This is upheld and quoted by the Munkatcher Rebbe in the Minchas Elazar and the Sdei Chemed.

The following Poskim also held independently that ALL trimming of the beard is categorically forbidden, including with scissors:

The Chafetz Chaim on the basis of ‘Lo yilbash gever simlas isha’ and also ‘bechukoseihem lo teleichu’, as written in Sefer HaMitzvos HaKotzer. His opinion is brought down by Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky.

The Baba Sali.

Shlomo Eliezer Alfandari the “Saba Kadisha”.

Yaakov Chaim Sofer, the “Kaf HaChaim”.

Rabbi Yosef Rosen the Rogatchover Gaon - Shaalos UTeshuvos Tzofnas Paneiach, Vol. 4, teshuva 258.

All of these opinions are treated at length in the sefer ‘Hadras Ponim Zoken’ by Moshe Wiener. I have only quoted those which are quoted and sourced on http://www.koshershaver.info/ , and an explanation of the teshuva of the Tzemach Tzedek, as well as the opinions of the Zohar and the Arizal, can be found on http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=193 .

I changed the article to reflect the fact that many Jews refrain from trimming their beards on the grounds of halacha, and not in order to make a cultural statement or following the kabbalah. I agree with your second point, and hence left the beginning of the article as-is.

I rephrased the wording from ‘attributes holiness to those who wear the beard’ to ‘attributes holiness to the beard’, as the Zohar says that the hairs of the beard themselves correspond to the ‘Yud Gimmel Tikunei Dikna’, a level of G-liness. It also avoids Jews people seeing bearded Jews as being hypocritical.

I removed the reference to Chabad-Lubavitch because the practice of having an untrimmed beard is common to almost all Chassidishe Groups, based on the Teshuva of the Minchas Elazar which is mentioned on koshershaver.info

(Yair-Aaron 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding your changes:

The article already mentions the fact that some poskim hold that shaving is completely assur, at the end of the first paragraph. More than that would be both belaboring the point and giving undue credence to the stringent psak.
I haven't seen the Zohar inside, so I'll take your word for it.
You may be right that it applies to all Chasidim, but it is well known that Chabad puts a very heavy emphasis on the issur - most likely because of the Tzemach Tzedek that you quoted. As you probably know, he is primarily a Chabad posek.

Let me know if you still have a problem with this. Please discuss here before making further changes.--DLand ^TALK 15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Quality Beard Photo...

...if you do say so yourself, Triddle! :) --DLand 05:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I do - its the difference of being able to print out the photograph at 4x5 inches versus about an inch by an inch. Maybe the beard isn't as high quality (but "short trimmed beard" is also already represented) but its quite neutral to say that the photograph itself is higher quality as if you care to (and I can't see why someone can, but it is fairly remarkable to me) you can actually see each strand of hair from my beard in that photograph; now that is high quality. :-) Triddle 11:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beard color?

Does a beard's color be the same color as the persons hair? The reason why I ask is because when I let my beard go uncheck it starts chaging colors as it grows at the frame of the face and on a portion of my neck it gets blackish, but as it goes up the rest of the neck portion to the mid-chin gets orange then, it gets brown(my hair color) on the rest. Merc25 08:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's perfectly normal. My beard is much redder than the hair on my head. My father's is the opposite. Ştefan 12:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded coverage?

At what age can one determine with finality the beard coverage they will have on their chin/cheeks for the rest of their days? I have heard of people developing more beardage in their late 20s and 30s, but I couldn't find anything definite. Any idea? Am I doomed to this patchy chinstrap-only coverage for the rest of my life, at 22? --130.126.67.39 00:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 36. The only thing that's changed about my beard since my early twenties is that there are more gray hairs. My sideburn and cheek growth has always been sparse. Your ear hair will probably increase as you get older, so at least you have that to look forward to. Your mileage may vary. 209.213.216.42 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous bearded people

The list of bearded people on this page is getting ridiculously long, so much so that it detracts from the article itself. I propose the creation of a new article, ~~List of famous bearded people~~List of bearded people, to include the list, and merely link to it here in the See also section. Please comment. --DLand ^TALK 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --DLand ^TALK 06:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

beard picture

Picture of me; lots of pixels, will print well, high quality photograph. I disagree that I am ugly.

Ok lets try to figure out what beard picture belongs at the top of this page. An anonymous editor has decided that my picture is too ugly for wikipedia. All the other contenders I've seen are not suitable for print (not enough pixels). Is wikipedia here to define beauty or to provide open-content that others may use? I believe the focus of wikipedia is the later, rather than the former. Rather than get in an edit war I've decided to open the forum for discussion since it seems there is a problem with consensus. I'm going to revert for now - opinions? Triddle 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me note that I don't find you, simply your beard, aesthetically unpleasing. However, that really has nothing to do with my point and I apologize for noting so in my reverts.

Now on to my point: I've looked into the history of this page and you have switched this picture back many times after it has been removed by other users. It is arguable whether or not we even need a picture right at the top of the page as many other examples of beards are given further down the page. Yet as can be seen in earlier discussion, whenever there's been a suggestion of removal you argue that individual is attacking your personal appearence. So my question is this: Why do you think it is so important that your face be on the top of what is likely a somewhat high traffic article? :This is a clear attempt at self promotion and therefore through both this and your continuous reverts a violation of wikipedia policy (see sections on "what wikipedia is not" and "3 revert rule") I have removed the image so we can have a neutral discusion. I am not against reposting it after our discussion has concluded, but to insist on its use while it is being disputed is shameless. I look forward to your response. 68.11.46.146 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on many accounts. First, you are confusing other people's comments with mine. Second, I've reverted because in all instances the picture has been replaced with one that is lower quality; I define quality as the number of pixels in the image or the image clarity. Do you have any examples of a beard that can printed at least 4 inches wide with out any degradation of quality? Third, the comments you are speaking of are for another and completely unrelated picture. Fourth, I don't care about your definition of shameless; I care about the quality of wikipedia. I'm going to revert again, and as you so aptly point out, another revert from you will violate the 3 revert rule. Fifth, there is no need to get an admin involved here, one is already present: me. I'm not going to comment on your definition of beauty because it is pointless. You really have no arguments against the picture aside from you don't like it. Triddle 21:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bully tactics will get you nowhere. As an admin is it your reponsibility to act in wikipedia's best interest. Behind your thinly veiled argument of image quality lies nothing but shameless self promotion. If you care so much then find a quality picture of a famous beard, many of history's greatest figures have sported them. I agree, beauty has nothing to do with it and in particular individual's varying perceptions of it. However, in spite of what you may think, your beard is not a good representative of the entire history of facial hair.

Honestly, it would be a shame to lose all the respect you've gained through many good images you have uploaded in such a ridiculous arguement. However, if you decide to abuse your power and continue with this nonsense, then congrats on a life of constantly monitoring this page to make sure your image remains. 68.11.46.146 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What ever. A snippet from my user page, which is much older than my picture: I believe that Wikipedia has potential to wind up in print in the future so I'm trying to make as many photographs as possible ready to be printed in high quality. To me this means it should be 300 dots per inch and around 4 inches (1200 pixels) minimum either measurement or at least big enough that if printed it would be easy to make out the features. You can see this philosophy in the photographs I've taken and the images I've uploaded. I've replaced lots of photographs on wikipedia with ones I've taken myself. You are the first person to refer to any of them as disgusting. Triddle 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... they both look fine to me. Why not just use both? It shows two different kinds of beards. Aesthetics is beyond the question, it's all about information. --The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've been a bystander of this edit war and I have a few things I would like to say. I mean this in the nicest way possible and I have a lot of respect for you, Triddle, but I don't think that is a good photograph of you. Your other photographs are very good and I admire them, but this particular one can definitely afford some improvements. It's not a matter of beauty at all, but photographs are worth a thousand words, and if you can't stand the ridicule, then you shouldn't be pushing your photograph so much. Maybe if you improved the subject in the photograph it wouldn't receive as much ridicule and removing. Some things I would improve in the current photograph are: The baseball cap. It's not clean, and it wouldn't be so distracting if you didn't have it on. Secondly, your glasses look foggy, and they would be better cleaned, or taken off. Thirdly, you shouldn't have taken the photograph inside - using cameras inside invites artificial lighting which makes skin shiny. Speaking of camera techniques, that angle is not the most flattering you can pick. I would suggest holding the camera up more, and not a foot away from you. You remarked at one point, halfway down this page, that you can see each strand of hair in your beard. Is that really important to see each strand? Maybe I'm just thinking of the Gestalt theory, where the whole is greater than the sum of parts, but something farther away would be nicer if the "information" of the article is the beard and not each strand of beard.

I hope I'm allowed to speak my mind on wikipedia, and I might or might not have put words into the mouths of many - but again, I do not think that it is a good photograph of you. When Wikipedia is "printed" like you predict, and 50 years down the line, some 7-year-old boy finds a copy of this so-called printed version and flips to the beard section because he is interested in beards - would you want him to be frightened? At this rate I think children would be scared of the picture if you kept it as it is whether you like it or not, due to small telltale signs of standard human grooming and photography ability. Humans are fickle, and every human has the potential for attractiveness if they work at it. I'm not saying you're ugly at all here, I'm just saying the main points of the photograph could liken you to a homeless person.

Take this all as you will, and hopefully not personally. After all, this is just something on the internet, and the elevation of this situation has been ridiculous. Whether or not it gets printed, that will still be a photograph that needs improvement and, I quote for emphasis, doesn't deserve to be on the top of such a high quality article. As a fellow beard wearer, I encourage you to take my points into consideration. Thank you for your eyes. Dynendal 06:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well holy molly I had no idea I scared children! Anyway, the 3 revert rule exists for a reason. I'm out of reverts - if anyone else had ever stepped up to the plate on any of the previous attempts (or even this one) they could of out-reverted me. That means to me there has been no consensus for removing the photograph. If there is a consensus for removing it then I'll abide by it; Its that easy! Triddle 07:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beard as second pubic hair

The beard grows when the man could become in need for it, namely at puberty, for oral sex reasons.

Then, he could use his tongue on her. That way she does not get pregnant, a four million old contraception method. This kind of sex was used far more than the putitin form over the next million of years, so he grew a huge beard over the time. With a beard the man has a protection from rubbing off weakened, wet skin during long lasting plays. At some recent time, however, he lost track of why he had become the beard, and since then sex at all seems difficoult for mankind to cope with.

There are two reasons to seek sexual activity, and there are two corresponding ways to go through it.

1. To produce children. Do: putitin.
2. To have a good time but no children afterwards: Do not put it in. Use fingers and tongue. The latter made the existence of our beard to a fact.

Some sources would be useful for an argument as unique as this one. JakGd1 23:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there are no sources even if the allegation is correct. I am the source. Mankind really forgot his second sexuality on the way. That is why sex is completely misunderstood and hence problematic. KS.

Hillarious. The beard is simply an obvious sign of a sexually mature male. That's as far as it goes. Just like cheek pads on a mature male oranutang, The domed head of a mature male moutain gorrilla, a lion's mane, a deer's antlers, etc. A beard is also a remmenant of the full coat of hair which once clothed all human beings, from scalp to the toes. -Definitely NOT something we grew to accommadate a secondary sexual practice. OzoneO 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - maybe there is some other excuse we can find to put the words "become the beard" into the article? No? oh well. I have to agree, with previous posters, this "fact" does not seem to hold much merit, and is certainly the first I have heard of it. Lostsocks 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The voice defines the male. The beard is protection. You 'hilarious' and 'LOL' knowers: How come that the expectation of sex is much higher than we can fulfill? Tell me: where do these deep inner expectations really come from? We are born with a high expectation, and we are all disappointed. I tell you: This is because the expectations are correct, the official practice of intercourse wrong (for enjoyment). Try this out: For one year: stop the putitin. Men: concentrate mentally on not coming, she plays you with hands. Or whatever. Stop the stupid putitin. If you do come: next time it's easier. In one year we'll talk again. Ya? KS

KS - maybe your expectation is higher than you are able to fulfill. But unless you are able to back your opinions with some credible sources I'm disinclined to believe them Lostsocks 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KS- you do not understand male sexuality. Proverbs 30:19 Mdoc7 13:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beards in Eastern Religions

A couple of points to discuss 1) Why are eastern religions listed seperately to the others? 2) Whilst I myself have a beard, it is nothing to do with my faith as a Zen Buddhist. Zen Buddhists are really no more inclined to grow a beard than anyone else, whilst a few famous zen practitioners may have had beards, plenty more have been completely clean-shaven. There is really nothing specific about beards in Zen.

I would suggest firstly combining the "eastern religions" section with the other list of beards in religion, and also seriously consider removing any reference to beards to in Zen or Daoism lostsocks

Beard defined as a verb

Y'might provide this in the religious (Christian) section. For the definition, see Leonard Ravenhill article (search on "beard" and see the footnote); or see wiktionary definition. There are also Biblical examples. Mdoc7 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

I am reading a book on the cultural history of beards, and I can't find any proof of this, "Queen Elizabeth I, succeeding Mary, is said to have disliked beards and therefore established a tax on them." In seems that, Elizabeth I actually sent two bearded courtiers as envoys to Moscow, which Ivan the Terrible got a huge kick out of. Does anyone have a source or should we remove it?

Most of her advisers and favourites were bearded in any case. Burghley, Walsingham, Leicester, Essex, they all had beards. -- Necrothesp 20:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs references

Lots of historical facts here, only one reference for the entire page. That seem right to you? 69.94.199.146 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay healthy, grow a beard?

Under prohibition, there's this bullet that describes an exception on Israeli prohibition of beards:

The soldier requires a beard for medical reasons; this claim must be accompanied by medical documentation specifying the period of time during which his beard is medically necessary.

This naturally leads me to wonder: what medical reasons could there be for having a beard? I could imagine some sort of disfigurement the beard is supposed to hide and the patient having a psychological need for this, but is this what is meant? Can someone elaborate? 82.92.119.11 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many people with thick, curly facial hair suffer from painful ingrown hairs after shaving. Physicians routinely offer medical permits to such individuals who are employed in beard-unfriendly fields (i.e., military, police). Grahamattacks 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well, haemophilia can make shaving prohibitive and small nicks from the razor can be life-threatening. Zhankfor

clarify "allowed to pull their hair"

Quick question of clarification. Under the sentence "Roman servants or slaves were not allowed to pull their hair, or shave their beards," does this mean that the servants were not allowed to pull their hair *back* (e.g. tie their hair back) or something else, such as pulling their hair out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.137.153.136 (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

New photo

I have proposed including the photo to the right on this page.

I contend that this is a better image than the existing one, since it is an image of a more typical beard and, even if the existing one is retained, it is an image of a trimmed beard while the current photo is of an untrimmed beard, and is thus useful to illustrate different types of beards. Two users have continuously reverted it, although both have provided no response to my rationales for including it and instead have accused me of vanity posting because the guy in the photo is a law school friend of mine -- i responded to the vanity accusation by pointing out that user-created images of physical features will often be photos of acquaintances and therefore a reflexive reversion based on supposed vanity posting is irrational. Perhaps here we can have a discussion of this image that is actually based upon its usefulness to the article and that is not based upon personal attacks against me? Jaredlenowguy 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not include for the following reasons:
1. Trimmed vs. Untrimmed - not relevant to the content of the article, and thus irrelevant to the images. There are no separate article headings such as "Trimmed Beard" and "Untrimmed Beard"

This article does have a section about beard styles. Thus, it is unnclear why it is objectionable to illustrate different styles of beards. Jaredlenowguy 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Trimmed" and "Untrimmed" are not the beard styles in the section you reference. --DavidShankBone 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the list of beard styles establishes that the fact that there are different types of beards is of interest. Do you really deny that "trimmed" v. "untrimmed" is a distinguishing characteristic among beards? Jaredlenowguy 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. A "more typical beard" is subjective and meaningless as it would be to describe a "more typical haircut." typical to whom?

Throughout this discussion page people have expressed reservations about the current image, citing the fact that it is atypical. Although this may be subjective, deciding upon an appropriate image seems like a matter best left to consensus (nto two users). Jaredlenowguy 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" when it comes to an image is whether to put it or, or take it off. There is no re-wording and half-putting it up. Thus, a majority vote, similar to how "Articles for Deletion" are kept or taken down, comes down to a show of hands, if you will. --DavidShankBone 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, majority votes are never the way decisions are made on wikipedia -- see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY; see also the metawiki discussion "don't vote on everything" at [3] (specifically: "There is consensus among critics and proponents of voting that majority voting should not be the process we use to determine neutrality and accuracy of articles (though some propose it as a last resort, if consensus utterly fails after long debates)"). Consensus is. Also,you are dead wrong about AFDs -- AFDs are most definitely not majority votes, as clearly stated by wikipedia policy at: see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which clearly states that "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not." So, my friend, even if a discussion regarding whether an image is appropriate for a specific article is analogous to an AFD debate, this analogy quite clearly supports my argument: that a 2 to 1 "vote" is not dispositive and I am not violating wikipedia policy by challenging these users (so long as I do not violate the three revert rule, which I have not done). Jaredlenowguy 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that majority does not determine consensus, but majority is often a very good indication of consensus. When two more experienced editors (and we are welcoming more input from anyone who wants to take part in this discussion) come to a conclusion that goes against one editor with less than 50 edits, it bears weight in Wikipedia consensus. --DLand ^TALK 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes complete sense. But I do not see how the other editor has been involved in this dispute is justified in threatening punitive action if I participate in the iterative process of improving this page when I have provided a good faith rationale for including this picture and I am trying to work towards consensus in forums such as this, which seems like good wikipedia behavior. Jaredlenowguy 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. This User created a sock puppet for the sole purpose of propagating this image on the Beard page, Moustache page, and Sideburns page; the Bearded Lady page was vandalized with the photograph as well, allegedly by a friend. None of these actions create "Good Faith" on the part of this editor.

There were good faith rationales for including this image on the moustache and sideburns pages, as the individual in this photo has both. Where is the proof that this is a sockpuppet; either way, socks are only prohibited if used inappropriately). I did not put this image on the bearded lady page and would have reverted that vandalism if I had seen it. Someone else who knows the subject did this and told me they had done so. Frankly, I was annoyed with that person. Jaredlenowguy 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the proof that you are using a sockpuppet is that you have never edited Wikipedia with this name before, you have admitted you are not [DELETED NAME OF INDIVIDUAL] even though that is the name of the user, and yet you have an uncanny ability to edit and use Wikipedia policy and style. The proof is self-evident. --DavidShankBone 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, have a look at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry -- sockpuppets are not prohibited unless used for improper purposes delineated there. I have simply uploaded an image and linked it to three sites in which a good faith rationale exists for including it -- this guy undeniably has a beard, a moustache, and sideburns. Thus, even if I have used a sockpuppet here, this use is entirely legitimate. Jaredlenowguy 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. An editor making efforts to plaster a friend's photograph across the pages violates the conflict of interest policy and spirit. I also do not feel this user's actions merit a Good Faith assumption per #3 above, and I do not believe this is not an attempt at a vanity photograph

Images created by users to illustrate physical features (a good alternative to prohibited copyrighted images) will frequently include those users' acquaintances. Unclear how this is a conflict of interest if the picture is actually justified by wikipedia policy. All I ask is that we judge the image's inclusion on its merits and not upon what editors might think of me personally. Also, I have agreed not to seek this image's inclusion anywhere but here, so obviously I am willign to compromise, a good indicator of good faith. Jaredlenowguy 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastering an image on several pages where it is not merited and then agreeing to take it down is not "good faith" when it did not belong there to begin with. In this editor's own words per my talk page, "the individual responsible for it is literally sitting a room away from me right now and we are discussing this issue through an open door" - which makes this a vanity photograph. Again, this editor through his own admission is too close to the image subject to render him a "neutral point of view" --DavidShankBone 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not good faith when, as stated above, the guy in the imaage clearly has the features that the articles are about -- a beard, a moustache, and sideburns? Although I must admit that I think this is a pretty nice picture and would like to see it on wikipedia, this does not mean that I am not acting in good faith by posting it where it is self-evidently appropriate (because, again, the photo's subject has a beard, a moustache and sideburns!). As for the continuing vanity accusations, you should look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which makes clear that even if there is a conflict of interest with regard to article content, the criterion for inclusion remains notability (that is, there is no rule stating that all content with which there is potentially some conflict of interest can be deleted simply because this conflict exists). I argue in good faith that an image of a guy with a fairly ordinary beard is notable to the beard article, regardless of my relationship to the person. This argument is supported by the fact that an image of an otherwise unexcpetional person with an out of the ordinary beard has long been on this article. Also, though there is nothing directly on point, and since you have established an analogy to deletion debates, you should see the language in wikipedia:Conflict of interest stating "Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — such an accusation may be defamatory and is easily discouraging. Assume good faith that the contributor genuinely was trying to help us by increasing our coverage, not being "vain"." Perhaps you should take this to heart? Jaredlenowguy 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I said that the person responsible for the vandalism is one room away from me. I am against vandalism and was irritated that this person vandzlized the bearded lady page. I am personally responsible for taking this photo and I stand by it as a useful contribution to the beard article. Frankly, I also think it adds something to the sideburns and moustache articles, but I agreed to remove it from those articles as a conciliatory gesture and in the spirit of consensus-building. Being willing to compromise in the manner in which I have been willing to do so by removing the image from those other articles is the epitome of good faith and exemplifies the spirit of collegiality that makes for a better wikipedia. Jaredlenowguy 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know this already, because I sense that you are behind some of this mischief, but [REMOVE NAME] seems to be some kind of running Wikipedia-based joke. [[[REMOVE NAME]]] is a page that was deleted and recreated to protect further creation, because it redirected to douche. [[[REMOVE NAME]]] is a page that I just nominated for speedy deletion, because it nonsensically redirected to Vanderbilt Law Review. This is all very dubious and worth avoiding altogether, despite all of User:Jaredlenowguy's plaints. By the way, User:Jaredlenowguy is strangely similar to User:Ilovejared, who - on January 9th, in the midst of Jaredlenowguy's edits - created the vandalism redirect. I'm sure you'll claim nothing to do with it, but it looks pretty damning. --DLand ^TALK 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some silliness has occured regarding Jared. It is over. However, I cannot see what this has to do with whether it is appropriate to include this photo on this page. Why can't we just focus on the matter at hand? Can't a user decide to turn over a new leaf and edit constructively? Again, I have cited extensive policy here and you are still responding with arguments that do not have to do specifically with whether this image of a beard is better than the existing image, which is my rationale for including it here. Jaredlenowguy 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Two editors have expressed they do not wish to see this beard photograph used on the page, and the editor responsible for putting it up has made several reverts on each page, including the ones where it is not illustrative of the article subject, to keep up his friend's photograph.

Inclusion in wikipedia is not a matter of majority votes. Instead it is a matter of consensus. Up until now, neither of these users has responded to my arguments and even now that one has, this user also seems more interested in the image's creator than in whether this image makes the article better. Jaredlenowguy 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" when it comes to an image is whether to put it or, or take it off. There is no re-wording and half-putting it up. Thus, a majority vote, similar to how "Articles for Deletion" are kept or taken down, comes down to a majority. --DavidShankBone 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this point above -- DavidShankBone clearly has it wrong here with regard to the role of a majority vote on wikipedia. Consensus does mean reaching a decision as to whether the image will appear on the page or not ... an image clearly cannot be "reworded" or "half put up" -- I acknowledge this. However, consensus nowhere on wikipedia means majority vote. And I have cired to policy repeatedly and provided good faith rationales for this image's inclusion. The people opposing me have just called me names and have refused to debate the merits of the image. Thus, a consensus for removal has hardly been reached. Jaredlenowguy 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. This issue has come up on this page before, since many young males who grow a full beard think their beard is the beard that most represents what a beard should be. It comes across as youthful chest-thumping to me, as opposed to an effort to education and illustrate. Again, I don't believe this user's actions as outlined above merit good faith.

The issue should be whether an image makes the page better. This has been the focus of past discussions. Let's not focus on who posted the image or theories about chest thumping. The fact is, several users have expressed reservations about the existing image. I have offered one alternative. I don't appreciate being attacked for simply offering this alternative. Jaredlenowguy 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't feel it makes the article better, and I don't find it an attractive photograph. the image quality is too dark, as well. --DavidShankBone 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, an argument based on the image itself rather than an attack upon me (an attack, as you can see below, by a user who has a history of being blocked for making personal attacks). Nice start. Jaredlenowguy 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--DavidShankBone 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--DavidShankBone 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave the page alone

As a good faith gesture, I have decided to leave the page alone and not re add the image unless my position gains more support in this discussion. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused and look forward to editing wikipedia constructively in the future. Jaredlenowguy 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isreli Defense Force Beard Prohibition

Under current regulations, a moustache is allowed for soldiers. On the other hand, soldiers entering military service with a beard can not keep it wihtout explicit, written authorization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilandian (talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Beard Example

I have added this pic as an beard example to the main page(Disclaimer- it is my photo). Wanted to discuss if we should add more examples or remove this one two. I can grow some other styles and put them up too but other may also wish to volunteer as it may take me upto to two years to grow all the styles listed on the page.--rakshat 07:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I have added some pics to show how a beard transforms the visual appreance of a person. This is just to see how people would react to something like this in the main article. If you dont think it is appropriate please feel free to delete it. Rakshat 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beard Styles Chart

The current caption for the illustration says "c. 1900." I suspect it to be from a later date because it refers to a "hollywoodian" style--when did Hollywood become associated with movie-making and stle-setting?--and a "balbo," which I assume is named for the Italian aviator and fascist party leader Italo Balbo, whose fame peaked in the 1930s. 172.131.164.245 00:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)RKH[reply]

Changing the intro

Proposed different intro: A beard is the hair that grows on a person's chin, cheeks, neck, and the area above the upper lip. Beardgrowth appears with most men and with some women. It is concidered a secondairy male sex-character. When differentiating between upper and lower facial hair, a beard specifically refers to the facial hair on the lower part of a man's chin (excluding the moustache, which refers to hair above the upper lip and around it). The study of beards is called pogonology. Although naturally most men have beardgrowth, in modern times only a small percentage of them is wearing it. Those who don't, either have no beardgrowth, (which mostly has a hormonal cause), or have a clean-shaven face. In the course of history, men with facial hair have been ascribed various attributes such as wisdom, sexual virility, or high status, but also a lack of cleanliness and refinement, or an eccentric disposition. James Blond 23:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture caption?

Excuse me, but seriously, the caption "You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me" underneath the picture in the section "modern attitudes in the united states" -- is this really supposed to be it? I sincerely doubt it, but I don't know how to edit stuff, so just asking on the talk page here ... could anyone change it, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizingur (talk • contribs) 07:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I removed it. Bloodbeard 07:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more info from a biological/evolutionary perspective

What could be the (evolutionary) reason for the beard's existence? Are there any theories, etc? Would be very interesting.