Talk:Threading (epilation)

I don't get it ... the hair is removed from the follicle, but apparently this method is healthier than plucking or waxing - which both also remove hair from the follicle. What's the difference? 86.10.97.74 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All external links look like spam

There's no actual info on them, just links to buy products so I removed htem.

I just want to add that [User:65.119.188.20] not only removed this message (that the external links look like spam), but also put the external link back on the article. The link doesn't seem to have any value, and just appears to be advertising. Moreno fairy 09:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Part on it being better than tweezing promotes a product. Mbisanz 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed tweezing statement and POV tag. --Knulclunk 02:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

much obliged Mbisanz 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unfounded, opinionated statements (+editing)

(Edited by Kwazimoto69 on June 24, 2008, at approx. 8am Pacific Daylight Saving Time)

Removed statement "Some women focus particularly on the area between the eyebrows, thus interrupting so-called "unibrows"." because it is not specific to 'threading' and is a common reason for hair removal.

Statement "Threading is often preferred to tweezing because of the naturally straight lines of hair removed by the thread." is unfounded and was merged with the preceding sentence, where it is also compared to 'tweezing'.

Removed statement ", however, hair re-growth becomes finer and more sparse after regular treatments" because it appears to be opinion, is considered 'an old wives tail' and a believable report (the details of which can be found here: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1647527.htm ) state that neither waxing (plucking) nor shaving of hair results in either a thicker or more sparse regrowth. While hair regrowth may take longer to occur after threading/plucking versus shaving, this is not proof that hair regrowth is less sparse, and is actually attributed to individual hairs regrowing at different rates.

Copyright Vio

Sapph tagged this page as a copyright violation of http://www.eyebrowthreading.com/, Examination of the history indicates that the copyright violation is in fact occurring on that site. Consider this version here and this version here. Two years apart, yet the content of http://www.eyebrowthreading.com/ includes newly added elements of both. Unless someone has been copying the external site bit by bit over this period, it looks that http://www.eyebrowthreading.com/ has lifted the article wholesale and another editor (Preitycool123 I suspect) has contributed to both. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the recently added request for speedy delete. As explained above; this is not a case of straight-forward copyright violation. Either way, the solution to addition of copyright material to an established article is not to delete the entire article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bande Abru? Really?

Is that really what it is called in Persia? Sounds like pidgin English to me. Reliable source please (ie. not one of the many websites who have obviously copied text verbatim off Wikipedia since it was added 4 years ago).

Note that the article used to state: "Threading is known as khite in Arabic, but in Egypt is referred to as fatlah. It is also found to be a popular choice in India." Rubiscous (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Khite and Fatlah certainly exist, I'm adding a ref for them. Can't source bande abru, all kinds of 'clinics' seem to have copied WP. Anyone who finds a source for Bande Abru, feel free to add the text for that back again, with the source please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW Google Translate says that "bande abru" or "بنده ابرو" means "my eyebrows"! So it may not be pidgin exactly, but it sounds an odd name for threading... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Origins

There are different levels of reliable sources. A medical directory by health professionals is usually judged to be a better source of facts than a promotional website for a minor beauty spa.

If there is any dispute over what the article currently says, please provide a source that is at least as good as the existing one and explain why it should be preferred. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)