Talk:Hair coloring

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vickyvsm22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Correction
The article begins by stating that 75 percent of Americans dye their hair. After checking the cited source (How Stuff Works) it is clear that the article stated 75 percent of American WOMEN not PEOPLE dye their hair. I edited the page to reflect information in the referenced source.

66.61.70.84 (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Feedback
MY LORD! Who wrote this article?! I am new here but I had to register just so I could express my HORROR at how poorly this article is written. The "Permanent Color" section is simply NOT ENGLISH.It is broken English, and grammar and spelling mistakes are rampant. I am sorry to say that this article has single-handedly shown me that Wikipedia is NOT the professional, reliable source I thought it to be. :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krivk (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The poorly written section (originally included spam which someone else deleted) was added on Sept. 6th. It has been removed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Better! Another problematic section, Types of Color, last sentence; quotes and punctuation are used incorrectly. Actually you should not have quotes at all here:
 * The four most common classifications are 'temporary', 'semi-permanent', 'demi-permanent' (sometimes called 'deposit only') and "permanent".

Thanks. Krivk (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Advertising?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but this article sounds like it is pushing this "ShoHan Japanese Powder Hair Dye" a bit too much. it even gives a website. I think someone should clean that part up or remove it altogether. Saying permanent color damages your hair is one thing, but pushing an alternative by saying it is "economical" and stuff isn't relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GMexcellence (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Death and toxicity
This page states a radical idea (that hair dying kills) as though it were established and accepted. --Brianbeck 04:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been established. Products damage your hair with chemicals which later on leads to breakdowns

It needs to be cited. Daniel Case


 * There are now some references to the cancer claims. -- Bovineone 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also claims that if you leave a tooth in a glass of coke, it will disintegrate, and we could find references to back it up, that still doesn't make it true. Meanwhile, there are much more respectable sources making statements that contradict just about every opinion expressed in this article; I think this article is so POV it hurts.--Plavalagunanbanshee 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Color or colour
Why is this article hair colour instead of color if hair colour reirects to hair color? 84.173.35.231 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * British pride 4lyfe yo. Strange how only the title is spelled "colour". I think it should be "color". Sabertooth 17:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is that the type of English in an article should be consistent. It does not matter if it is American or British so long as it is uniform throughout the article; if there is a discrepancy then it should be fixed. Musiqueue (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Men's versus Women's Hair Color
Could someone enlighten me as to why there are some hair coloring products that are only for men? It seems that a shampoo-in product could be used by women with dark hair who want to hide an occasional gray strand. Also, could someone comment on the use of lead in these products? -Z 19 February 2007
 * it's all marketing. Women could use that, just like guys who want to change their hair colour could use hair dye targeted at women. TrevorLSciAct 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * it's true that there is no reason why both women and men cannot use the same products, but I wanted to add a little clarification into the answer of "marketing" - in general, or at least recently historically, it was more acceptable for women to colour their hair than men. The idea of men's hair colour was born out of the idea that it would be more discreet than going to a salon to have it coloured. Men's hair colourings are also usually not permanent colours (hence being able to shampoo them in and not having to allow as much of a processing time).Tiaera (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is just marketing. I am male and back in the early 1980s I'd bleach my hair from a packet with a woman on the cover. The chemicals work on the hair strands the same way and don't discriminate. it was a pretty big deal for a (non-celebrity) guy to bleach their hair back then, even though quite a few guys did it. (And it was bleach, because blond was the colour to have in the 1980s.) Plenty of men's colour products to cover grey are purportedly permanent (I have used a few of these too, and say purportedly because while they permanently alter the colour of the hair, the original tone does fade after some months.) Format (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Deposit only/demi
A type of dye called "deposit only/demi" is mentioned in the first paragraph of this article but the article never explains what it is. Also this article doesn't discuss hair color levels at all (there are numeric codes 1-10 for darkness/lightness of hair)


 * I'll get right on it concerning the levels. :) Spazure 08:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhmmm this article sucks?
like the guy above me said, this article mentions nothing about demipermanent coloring... wait a second--it doesn't even dabble permanent color, which is kinda weird, since that's the kind of coloring that most people prefer. gee, i wonder what that says about this article... --Plavalagunanbanshee 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

i like how this arctile advises ppl what to do if hair colouring goes wrong but IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Lukemia
And how exactly do you get lukemia from dyeing your hair? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.171.101.125 (talk • contribs).

Agreed, somebody needs to add a section about the suspected cancer link.

Special effects
the special effects section appears to be discussing the brand of hair dye. shouldn't that be moved to its own article or deleted? 24.74.141.22 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Change of "chemical" to "industrial"
I've just changed a number of phrases in the article from "chemical" or "chemical-based" (or "chemical based" [sic]) to better words like "industrial". I did this because I think that "chemical" is misleading; it implies that dyes created through chemical synthesis rather than extraction from plants are less safe because many "chemicals" can be dangerous. In fact, all dyes, including natural ones, have a chemical nature and, to make myself more clear, many organic compounds can be as dangerous, or more, than inorganic compounds with the same effect.

I don't mean to imply that a "natural" hair dye could be more dangerous than an industrial one or vice versa, but that simply being "natural" as opposed to "chemical" is a non-distinction that should be avoided in the article. If one is referring to an industrially-synthesized dye, then please call it by an appropriate name such as "industrial dye".

If you disagree with my analysis, feel that it is biased one way or another, or have a comment, I'm open to what you have to say. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychological consequences
This article doesn't pay any attention to the question, wheter or not there has been any research already concerning (eventual) psychological consequences of hairdying. (One might get the impression, that there are a lot of women, who have/had dark hair, but wore it bleached for many years, and from a certain age on started having serious psychic problems. A logical explanation for this could be, that with this unnatural look, they had contacts and/or relationships, they wouldn't have had with their natural look. As they didn't really have the qualities, that naturally were demanded in these relations, they constantly had to play another kind of person, than they are/were. Maybe in this way they reached certain purposes, they wanted to reach, but then came the psychic bill, that couldn't be payed, because all by all they reached something, that wasn't meant for their type, so that they couldn't have foreseen all the consequences involved). VKing (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Find a reference (a research paper, news article, etc) that supports the possibility of such consequences and then it can be added. -- Bovineone (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, undoubtedly others are more in the opportunity to do this, than the user, who spent his time and energy available, to bringing this matter under the attention of others. Isn't Wp a cooperational project?VKing (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, some six years later there has been some opportunity to search for "a reference that supports the possibility of such consequences"; this was found within ten minutes:; "Such chemicals can cause allergic reactions and perhaps even neurological problems", it says. VKing (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Needs Reform
This article needs some heavy reforming. Aside from issues involving the damaging/harmful aspects of hair colouring, there are little to no references. And much of the information is misinformed or misrepresented. The best example I can give is the section on permanent hair colour. The name "permanent" comes not because the colour is permanent, as suggested in the article (it does wash out, or else it wouldn't fade as the article suggests) but because it causes a chemical, rather than physical, change to the hair strand that is a permanent change. It's the same reason that Permanents (as in curling the hair through chemicals) are referred to by such a name. No colour is permanent. Stripping and recolouring does not change the permanent aspect of what was done to the hair and it is misleading to say that it gets rid of what it's done.

Its references to "natural-looking" hair colour are also misleading. Dyes of any type will look natural as long as it contains all of the primary colours (red, blue, and yellow) because all natural hair contains these three colours as a base. It just so happens that most temporary and semi-permanent dyes do not use a base colour containing all three pigments because natural colouring is not the desired effect. There are demi-permanent and permanent colours which also do not contain all three base colours.

Sadly, I lack references online to any of these things, which is why I haven't changed the main article. :(

Also nothing has been updated in terms of tones and levels of hair colours. Tiaera (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Kool-Aid used to dye hair!?
The end of the article mentions that Kool-Aid can be used to dye hair. This seems ridiculous—could somebody cite an example? 69.171.160.206 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Red hair
Why is red hair (aka. ginger) absent from the list of natural hair colours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.138.111 (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Revisions of April, 2011
The basic chemical reactions that are involved with modern hair dying are being introduced. We noticed the following features of the article: --Smokefoot (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * many .com sites support statements
 * most of the article is (well-intentioned) hearsay, or original research
 * redundant emphasis on health problems with phenylenediamine. I guess this material is easily googled.  Would be nice to have a review or book on hair dying.


 * This article might make a good reference or source of further information: Chem. Rev. (2011) 111, 2537–2561. --Ben (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Article lacks a history of hair colouring
It would improve the article no end to have a history of hair dyeing - did the ancients, the medievals, do it, and if so with what? Unfortunately I am no expert on the matter and must leave it to someone more competent... Nick Michael (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Plant-based dyes section needs reliable references
Unfortunately, I'm not sure where those would be. The internet is rife with misinformation ("natural" hair color enthusiasts versus traditional hair stylists), and I know of no studies by chemists. I've resorted to using myself as a guinea pig, and I can relay my own experiences, but that's about it. Subseti (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Environmental Impact
I plan to augment this article by adding an environmental impact section to the hair coloring wiki page. This page contains a section on the adverse effects of hair dye on humans, so I think it should also contain a section for environmental impact. If I were to create a new page about these effects, a lot of my topic would be overlap with this existing page. In this section, I'd discuss some more of the chemistry that is occurring and the effects these chemicals have when washed down the sink or thrown away. Many women and men color their hair every day and I think that the effects that these chemicals could be having on the environment should be known.

Klope15 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)klope15

Blacklisted Links Found on Hair coloring
Cyberbot II has detected links on Hair coloring which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-safeguards-18312-new-european-hair-dyes-directive-201221-eu-a4-en-12.pdf
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Natural...Alternatives Should at Least Be Near Plant-Based
The topic "Natural hair coloring alternatives" should at least immediately precede, if not be the header for a sub-topic called... [Adverse effects Skin irritation and allergy Hair breakage Skin discoloration Unintended results Health concerns Chemistry of permanent hair coloring] "Plant-based dyes". If a plant-based dye is a kind of natural hair color (I'm assuming it would be), I'm puzzled as to why they ended up so far apart.

Bonus thought: I realize, as has been mentioned, the normal reaction to a complaint about poorly written contribution is to suggest one makes the corrections ones self. However, since this article has gotten so long and is still rife with grammar and other mistakes, while I am busy like many of you, I encourage all those who read this to be so kind as to join me in continuing to make occasional fixes to this article in particular as time permits. I hesitate to use the term nauseating, but realize it's an eclectic group effort.

I wish you all the best for learning. Wikchard (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hair coloring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217124038/http://www.schwarzkopf.international/sk/en/home/schwarzkopf/about_us/history.html to http://www.schwarzkopf.international/sk/en/home/schwarzkopf/about_us/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Katam
The link "katam" leads to "Lake Katam". There are no article about Katam (Buxus dioica) on wikipedia at this day (17/04/18). This link should be removed / or updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.15.215.49 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅  General Ization Talk  15:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Potentially toxic/dangerous "alternative" methods being promoted?
Under Section: Adverse Effects Subsection: Skin Discolouration

In reference to removing dye stains from your scalp the last sentence states:

"Acetone and nail polish remover are not considered effective; laundry detergent may sometimes work as may moist cigarette ash rubbed into the stained area.[17]"

I understand that the the citation is from:

"Harper's Bazaar is an American monthly women's fashion magazine, first published in 1867 as the weekly Harper's Bazar. Harper's Bazaar is published by Hearst and considers itself to be the style resource for "women who are the first to buy the best, from casual to couture"."

But I don't believe Wikipedia should be appearing to promote this.

Hi everyone. I'm very new to editing, so seeking advice.

Should the 2nd half of the sentence be removed; or should that subsection be reworked to expressly state that those methods are only stated for reference (aka "do not try this at home")

Thanks in advance Liamnoblenz (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Graphene hair dye
During research for section Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, which I created due to research for 2020 in science, I quickly looked up who Jiaxing Huang is as he received a $200,000 grant by the United States' National Science Foundation to innovate face masks: it looks like the same person also created a novel form of hair dye which has several advantages over common hair dye including being more durable and better for the individual's health.

It was reported on extensively ca. 2 years ago which is why I find it strange that it's not mentioned in this article. Could you please add some short information on it? It could go into the section "Types" or into a new section and maybe also into section "Health concerns".

Here is the paper: Multifunctional Graphene Hair Dye Reports:, ,

It's graphene oxide and could be used for brown and black hair dyes.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)