Talk:Brazilian hair straightening

Advertisments
This page appears to have a link as an advertisement at the bottom. I have never come across this before in all my years of using the wonderful Wikipedia. Maybe I've just been lucky up until now, but it seems to me this needs to be rephrased to loose it's blatant 'selling style' tone at the very least. Total removal is probably not necessary but it can't be left as is surely? 58.145.148.3 (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree completetly - added a POV-check template. 85.226.59.234 (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ads removed Dec 26 2008. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.111.170 (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, advertisements on this page appear to be a recurring problem. A different IP address put an ad for commercial products on this page. I just deleted it again. Perhaps we should keep an eye on this page? --38.98.88.24 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ad removed again 7 June 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonrose (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yuko system
The reference to the Yuko system in the body of the article refers to a specific commercial line and system sold to effect "Japanese Hair Straightening" and the wikilink is dead anyhow. I'm investigating further prior to changing this. Tkotc (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the unsourced claims comparing the merits of the two system, but left the mention of their similarity. Siawase (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

brazilian kerattin and Yuko system are two different things / should not be included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.105.92 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Forbidden in Brazil
This article neglects to mention that this "treatment" is actually forbidden in Brazil. I don't know why this is still handled as a "controversy". Everybody in Brazil is well aware of how toxic this is, which is why Anvisa had to ban any use of formaldehyde in hair product (since they original limit of 0.2% was not enough to straighten hair, anyone getting their hair straightened was obviously getting exposed to much higher levels). Would you do a "Norwegian Perm" on your hair had it been banned in Norway?

Want a source? Contact Anvisa. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.181.89.147 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on the naming of the "controversy" section, and I changed it to "health concerns" to be more descriptive. However, references used on Wikipedia need to be previously published in reliable sources. Does Anvisa have a website where this information is available? Or has this been mentioned in any newspapers? It's completely fine if it's not in English. Siawase (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Health Concerns
I believe several changes are necessary to reflect accuracy, remove irrelevant information, and provide further neutrality.

Change heading to "Alleged Health Concerns". As noted below and in other Discussion posts, questionable science is being used, and is not reflective of other accepted viewpoints.

'''Propose the creation of a new introduction and 3 subheadings ''' Intro: Identify 3 areas of controversy concerning health concerns

Subheading 1: Nomenclature Discussion of the differences between methylene glycol and formaldehyde, citing Chemical Abstract Services. MG is a liquid, Formaldehyde is a gas. They exist in dynamic equilibrium with 99.96% weighted towards MG.

Subheading 2: Method of Concentration Measurement Discussion of NMR Spectroscopy vs. HPLC, the former being more reliable.

Subheading 3: Incorrectly Reported Formaldehyde Concentrations As a result of Subheadings 1 & 2, concentrations reported under various studies are higher than actually exist. LookingOutForYou (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proper independent Testing Shows Formaldehyde Exposure Negligible
Propose new Heading above.

Propose 2 subheadings:

Subheading 1: HSA Study shows exposure within limits

Discussion of HSA Study with citations.

Subheading 2: University Study Proves No Safety Hazard from Brazilian Blowout

Discussion of USC Study with citations. LookingOutForYou (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oregon's Occupational Safety & Health Administration Advisory on Brazilian Blowout
Propose change to headline:

Controversy Regarding Oregon's Occupational Safety & Health Administration Advisory

Change necessary to reflect neutrality, as Oregon OSHA's science has been challenged and is not considered standard.

Propose significant changes to text to reflect neutrality and more complete information.

Present entry does not provide discussion of Oregon OSHA study's results, in which air sampling results fell below state and federal limits. Present entry does not indicate that HPLC method was used on bulk sampling, considered at the least to be in conflict with other methods, and at most to be inferior compared to NMR Spectroscopy. Present entry does not include letter from independent scientist challenging HPLC method, which will be provided via citation. Present entry does not include that GIB LLC sued Oregon OSHA for gross negligence, presenting company's case. Citation with Complaint provided. LookingOutForYou (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Brazilian Blowout
Propose addition of discussion of GIB LLC's 10-page rebuttal to FDA, linked via citation. LookingOutForYou (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Investigative Series
Propose addition of discussion of investigative series, with links to the series, that provides in-depth examination of all aspects of the controversy. LookingOutForYou (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Health Canada's Advisory on Brazilian Blowout
Propose deletion of this subheading.

Information provided distracts from factual nature of controversy.

Section could also be altered to reflect other changes.LookingOutForYou (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

California Attorney General's lawsuit against Brazilian Blowout
Propose deletion of this subheading.

Does not provide neutrality by offering company's defense.LookingOutForYou (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Class action lawsuits against Brazilian Blowout
Propose deletion of this subheading.

Content lacks neutrality by not providing company response or defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LookingOutForYou (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Major issues with POV
I deleted a paragraph that seemed to be derived entirely from a site called BigGovernment.com, which very clearly does not meet Wikipedia's qualifications for a reliable source. If references to the study can be found in respected news sources, the material can perhaps be readded.

Frankly, though, this seems to be only one of many issues on this page. This entire article is terribly POV, stating baldly that all allegations against the procedure are completely unfounded, as if this was unquestioned fact, and comes across like an advertisement for the procedure. Much of this seems to be because of recent edits by a single-purpose account that hasn't edited any other articles. I don't know enough about the matter to do it myself, but someone knowledgeable should probably take a look at the article and see if it can be made more balanced (and possibly scrutinize the other references... I don't think the paragraph I material is the only material here relying on unreliable sources, but I don't have the time to go through them all in detail myself). --Smeazel (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The page has become a forum for rebuttal of the objections raised to the product and its contents. It no longer has no balance whatsoever. I notice said single-purpose account removed all mention of the lawsuits because the manufacturer's point of view wasn't stated, but the fact of the suits should have remained. At this point it would appear from the article that any opposition or complaints about the chemical composition of the product have been overcome, but it would seem that many of the regulatory objections obtain. No mention is made of the nature of the recent California settlement. Of course, before the single-purpose account whitewashed the article, it had an appearance of not being balanced, but that was because the manufacturer had not made it's point of view available. So, bottom line, I agree the article needs a major re-writing and balanced presentation, assuming the article should exist at all. Lest I appear at all biased, I know there's a great demand for this product and a number of happy customers. Still, there should be no whitewash, just as the subject of the article shouldn't be tarred and feathered by a lynch mob.Tkotc (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag.
I read this article out of curiosity when linked from Octomom, and I can't help but notice the blatant advocating nature of the article and the advertisement feeling. While I don't know enough about the subject to make corrections myself, I feel marking this as NPOV will get the ball rolling. Please remove once someone brings this article up to standard. The Exiled Fighter (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In an industry handling this & other products who protects the stylist who handles & inhales various products said to be toxic or dangerous?
Health & Saftey for Hairdressers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.126.177.62 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Its a method a technique

I was hoping that the section about Nomenclature would explain the name given to this treatment.

Aisteco (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

= Nomenclature = Its a method a technique one follow to get desired results. Hair is a material like cotton... It needs to be tamed into shape. Formaldehyde its one of the most widely used preservative in the world.

Should we preserve the food to feed the world? Its another question??