Talk:Pubic Wars

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Who used this term?

This article could really use some references that document use of the term in the media. Eloil 04:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I believe the term was used by the mass media. This needs verification indeed. Why do you think the tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia? The Ogre 05:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because of this: "Eventually Playboy decided to take the high road (providing more artfull nudity) while Penthouse and Hustler (even more so) decided to provide even more explicit images." I'm new to this; maybe I was going overboard with the tags. Do you think that one should be removed? Eloil 05:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User User:Velho has already removed it. I also think it is not inappropriate for an encyclopedia, even if it can be better phrased (why don't you try?) and it certainly needs verification. By the way, the best way to reply is in the talk page of the specific article. On another note, why don't you star your user page? The Ogre 05:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I've never seen people respond so soon to edits here before. I'll try to be a bit less liberal in my use of those tags; I'm a bit tired and perhaps getting a little trigger-happy. Eloil 05:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Eloil. Enjoy the Wikipedia! The Ogre 05:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ploc! Velho 06:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the reference irony of the term of nude models shaving their pubic hair, as shaving of the pubic hair did not become a commonality until the 1990s. Sadpph 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance

Where did this info come from?? I can state for a fact that Playboy did not show pubic hair (at least in the U.S editions)in 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.132.146 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]