Talk:Safety razor

Gillette-heavy
This page is extremely Gillette-heavy. Perhaps someone could tone it down and add some references to other manufacturers? 24.207.239.224 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I say we should let Gillette have it. I mean, it's a razor, who cares? You spend more time per day on the toilet then you do shaving. Which means that a toilet is more interesting then your razor. Nobody will read this article anyway, cause its a razor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.175.237 (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is Gillette heavy, but my guess would be that's an accurate reflection of razor history. Most everything I've read describes the market as one dominated by just a few companies. JayDee (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is an encyclopedia, so the "who cares" argument doesn't hold much water and is somewhat annoying. If personal interest were the standard for information storage, we wouldn't have algebra or astronomy or basic chemistry or any number of other essential scientific disciplines. Okto8 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The real question is whether Gillette invented all these things, if they really did make all the major innovations then why not, but if other people deserve credit they should be included. 71.132.195.251 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Some content on the blade material strength would be useful. Why is it that an electric razor blade can last for 4-5 years without sharpening yet a disposable has such a short lifetime ? 59.167.244.218 (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that discussion of the American Safety Razor company (Gillette's biggest rival) is probably called for here. The article reads too much like an advertisement for Gillette, especially the Fusion razor. jlking3 (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Schick also had a major contribution with the injector type razor head. Dirk Chivers (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this page to find out something about the Ace Razor blade company which operated in England and in the Empire/Commonweath from 1925 to 19451. I know that it was founded by C.T. Money but more than that I know too little to make an insertion. I was surprised that there is no mention of it. Roger Arguile 09:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, this is a good criticism. What about Merkur???  The entire economy of Solingen, Germany is based on the production of safety and straight razors.User:JCHeverly 17:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Men's and women's razors
I don't believe that disposables differ only in color. In my experience, women's disposables are really rough on facial skin, while a man's disposable won't even last for one leg, much less two. I suspect differences in materials and design. Anyone know for sure? Warren Dew (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know for sure, but here in Australia, many disposable razor brands are not marketed in a sex-specific way. Speaking of sex, the article neglects to mention the phenomenon of the combination vibrator-razor (the Venus razor, an obvious nod at its intended dual purpose). Plus some clarity about the M3Power Nitro would be good; is it akin to nitrocelluose or nitrogylcerin, i.e. will it blow your face up or make it go 200 miles per hour? --118.208.214.44 (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In the section regarding current manufacturers, "Although they are no longer manufactured in the United States", is wrong. It states citation needed, well here is some citation. ClassicShaving (.com) manufactures the Cobra Classic razor, and WeberRazor (.com) manufactures an all stainless steel razor. 173.19.46.37 (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, 21 December 2010

Weasel wording
In the section where we start discussing the transition to cartridge razors: "However, few of the companies who were making blades when Gillette introduced the Trac II razor are believed to still be in business today." Are they in business, or aren't they? It's not like they're terrorist cells that act in secrecy; it should be verifiable whether these companies still exist or not. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article makes the claim that safety razors are no longer manufactured in the United States. This is disputable, there is at least one website (http://www.classicshaving.com/catalog/item/7217694/7427626.htm) that markets safety razors that claim US origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.152.243.117 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This page is a mess
The name of the article is Safety razor, but it gets into other topics such as cartridge razors of various types. This isn't a "history of shaving tools" page. I'm tempted to rewrite this and excise most of the non-safety razor content, perhaps move it into the Shaving article. For text which remains, there's a lot of POV and unreferenced content. If we remove all that, this article will get very short indeed. - Denimadept (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Personally, I'd put a short blurb about how safety razors have become less popular in favor of cartridge and electric razors. I might take a crack at it in the next few days. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I came here to suggest exactly the same thing. Cartridge razors are not the same as safety razors, but the article doesn't make that clear. Cartridge razors really don't belong on this page except as an aside to offer a link to a different article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.6.20 (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If the definitive attribute of a safety razor is a safety bar, cartridge razors cannot be categorically excluded from this article. Whichever way that is argued, it would be perfectly reasonable to move the material about them into a separate article. I've set up the present one to make that division quite easy but am of two minds about it being worth further effort. If this comment triggers no discussion, I'd guess it isn't. Otherwise, I'll wait for a consensus to become apparent before taking further action (unless another editor beats me to it). --Futhark|Talk 16:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of Shaving101.com references
As Shaving101.com is a blog and is not recognized as a reliable source (and having rigorous editorial oversight) they should not be listed as references to assertions. Please discuss inclusions of this site here before adding it to this article. Hasteur (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Edits I made removing the links were readded without comment or discussion. The anonymous editors should take a look at WP:SPAM and make an case here for the inclusion of these links. Ignoring other editors' input and edits doesn't usually have a happy ending. Flowanda | Talk 06:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just gave it another try. If it is not blindly reverted I'm going to restructure the article so that it makes better historiographic sense, correct factual errors, and turn the PR wording into more objective terms. --Futhark|Talk 11:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Butterfly Razor
Isn't it true that the butterfly design was invented so shaver's could air dry their razor blades more easily, instead of disassembling the whole razor after each shave??? Before Wilkinson came out with the coated double edge razors, the blades would rust or corrode if left inside the head with moisture.User:JCHeverly 18:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your best bet is to find a reference which answers that question and add it to the article. - Denimadept (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

How to dispute/remove "Unreliable Source" designation?
How does one dispute the labeling of "Unreliable Source"? In the 2 contexts where it was cited, I would suggest that the shaving forum, open-wiki reference is the single best source available.

http://wiki.badgerandblade.com/Modern_Double-Edged_Safety_Razors_Ranked_by_Aggressiveness

Two contexts cited: 1. Cited as evidence that DE razors vary in aggressiveness. This is really not disputed by anyone who has tried a range of DE razors, and I know of nowhere else where the modern razors are clearly mapped along a mild to aggressive spectrum according to a series of X vs Y polls.

2. Cited as evidence that "Often different models of razors within a brand share the same razor-head designs, differing primarily in the color, length, texture, material(s), and weight of the handles."

From research across many forums and even emails with some vendors, it is widely agreed that Merkur manufacturers only 4 razor heads (solid bar, open comb, slant, and Bakelite) across many models. Edwin Jagger manufacturers just one head, sold under many different models where only the handle varies. I believe other brands do this too. And as B&B's wiki is open for editing to any member ... if the information is wrong, I suspect it would have been corrected since it's first posting around July 2014.

If we remove the information used from this source, what we have left is a very Gillette centered article (as mentioned above). While the B&B wiki is not as rigidly scrutinized as Wikipedia, nor are the polls as scientific as Consumer Reports ... this cited source is the best and least biased source available. Remove this information, and in my opinion you do consumers a disservice. There really is no other data available except for what is funded/promoted by manufacturers and vendors in the industry....

UPDATE: it looks like the badgerandblade wiki page may have new url: http://wiki.badgerandblade.com/Modern-Double-Edged-Safety-Razors-Ranked-by-Aggressiveness

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnsel (talk • contribs) 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in that the shaving forum and the Badger and Blade open wiki may be (and are, as far as I know) the most complete and arguably the best sources available for those sections. I haven't found better online sources for those statements but haven't done any research on printed sources since English-language material on the subject of shaving isn't readily available in my country.
 * However, the problem here is that the sources can't be considered verifiable. We don't know if the people who wrote the wiki article and forum post are established experts in the field of double-edged safety razors, and if they've had their work in that area previously published by reliable third-party publications (which is the requirement if we want to treat these self-published sources as reliable). The lack of better sources for the statements in question doesn't mean the current sources are good enough, or even acceptable at all.
 * I'm not advocating for removal of any information as of yet. The article has so much unsourced information that if we removed everything unsourced we wouldn't have much left. I'm hoping to find reliable sources we can cite, and since most online sources I can find are wikis, blogs, and discussion forums, looking for books and other printed material seems to be the best course of action. I found some sources that might be useful in some parts of the article and added them to the to-do list at the top of this talk page. If you or anyone else finds something potentially useful, feel free to add it to the list. --Veikk0.ma 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate your response, and I agree that this entire article is not up to medical, legal, or academic standards. However, I don't think any publicly available sources exist. I genuinely believe that all studies and data that would meet these standards are confidential, proprietary knowledge within the industry ... which is part of the reason why I would like to see what information is available to the public documented here.


 * The Badger and Blade Wiki article that I cited was compiled by me. The 40-ish forum-member surveys (note: where membership is free) were organized and promoted by me. Each of the surveys is listed at the bottom of the page under "Closed Polls". Each of the hundreds of survey responses is attached to a publicly view-able username. It is not scientifically accurate by any means, but I do think it is the best objective evidence that the currently manufactured DE razors vary significantly in aggression levels. This doesn't seem to be a statement that would fall into the "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" category. I also suspect the Wiki article might pass at least parts of the "Wikipedia Search Engine Test"?


 * Before these surveys, I do not know of any other scientific-ish effort to measure the difference in aggressiveness between currently manufactured DE razors. Am I an "expert"? ... it has nothing to do with my profession, and I've never published in a journal ... so I guess not. However, how could one possibly be objectively considered a shaving expert unless they were a (presumably biased) scientist funded by a manufacturer?


 * Also, I suppose the only objective source that company X sells 30 models of razors that all share an identical razor head design ... would be company X ... and generally speaking I don't think they are sharing this information (at least not usually in a verifiable way). However, this is common knowledge among DE enthusiasts ... and is also information that could help save consumers from having to purchase multiple models before they find this out for themselves....


 * Thoughts on this? Is there a way of sharing this knowledge in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia? Is there a way to feasibly create a verifiable primary source with this information?
 * --Shawnsel (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I share your desire to have detailed knowledge about DE razors (and shaving in general) available to the general public. However, I don't believe it's possible on Wikipedia to the extent I would like mainly due to the lack of verifiable sources. Historical information about the early years of safety razors we'll probably be able to source, but detailed information – such as razor aggressiveness and razor head designs – we probably won't due to it being confidential or in any case unavailable from verifiable sources. As per Verifiability, forum postings and other self-published media aren't acceptable as sources most of the time. As far as I know, there are no exceptions for cases where the only source for specific information is a self-published source. A rule of thumb for Wikipedia is that if there isn't a verifiable source for it, the information doesn't belong in Wikipedia, no matter how important it might be.


 * As it stands now, Wikipedia isn't the best medium to spread information about traditional shaving. This is mainly because of the weak situation regarding sources. Even though Wikipedia contains loads of unsourced information, the policy still states that all information should be verifiable and that original research is not allowed. In my opinion the source situation is unlikely to improve unless manufacturers (or experts in the field, if they exist) start publishing more information, which I can only conceive happening if traditional shaving gains significant traction and/or attention from the mainstream media. Traditional wet shaving today, even though much more popular than it was ten years ago, is still very much a niche, and most information (books included) is published by bloggers, hobbyists, and entrepreneurs/retailers. If there was more demand for information, I'm sure we'd eventually get sources that met Wikipedia's requirements.


 * It's a chicken or egg problem of sorts.


 * About creating a verifiable source for the statements we've discussed. Considering how strict the requirements for reliable sources are I don't see a feasible way of creating one. However, if you want to have information about this subject publicly documented, you could look into creating a book on Wikibooks, which is another Wikimedia project. Wikibooks doesn't have a sourcing requirement like Wikipedia and you don't have to be an "expert" to write or edit books. You can even order printed versions of wikibooks, which is pretty neat. Links to wikibooks and specific pages of wikibooks can be included in the "External links" section of Wikipedia articles with Template:Wikibooks. If there was a book on traditional shaving or DE razors, it could be linked to from related Wikipedia articles, which would give it some exposure. It still wouldn't qualify as a verifiable source, though, but at least the information would be available. --Veikk0.ma 03:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The http://amasci.com/freenrg/tors/drbl.html source failed verification, but at least some scientific articles and other websites reference the original patent (through some quick searching) - I couldn't find an archive of Czechoslovakian patents (at least going back that far) though. What would be the best course of action to strengthening the sourcing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:96 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement for wet shaving
I'm all for wet shaving, but this is not the place. Everything under "variants" seems to be out of scope for Wikipedia. Writing up some opinions on the advantages of DE shaving and then referring to another wiki as your source? Really?

Skunkfunk86 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Source for info on Gillette Adjustable Double Edge Safety Razors
I don't want to get into your battle over what is a reliable source and what is not. I mean this is not a medical article or a feature article; but whatever. I am a long time world class collector of Vintage Gillette Adjustable Double Edge safety razors and I have assembled a lot of great great information on these razors. I offer this information free of charge on a website with no advertising and there is no benefit to me other than cataloging and increasing our knowledge of history. If this information was in a book, would it be considered a reliable source? But, then again if I put the info in a book and published it for sale, I would again be open to the charge of being a dirty profiteer. It doesn't really matter to me one way or another. The editors of this article can duke it out if they want to. I won't edit this article. But, here is the website address: A Complete Reference to the Gillette Adjustable Double Edge Safety Razors You are free to use the info here. Glennconti (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Single edge Gem blades
I would like to suggest a edit the page says that Gem blades are no longer produced. But I know for a fact that they are because I work at the Verona facility and we make them every day They are know as Personna Gem blades they are coated for shaving any more questions please feel free to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B855:C2A4:A1B1:47A3:A54A:E112 (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't comment on the current production of single-edge blades. It says that Gem single-edge razors are no longer being made. The section on SE implements is certainly worth further editing but there is no underlying error about the blades. --Futhark|Talk 07:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Was this written by Gillette corporate?
I am just noticing the total lack of any mention of the resurgence of safety razors in the marketplace thats been occurring for well over 7 years now.

Definitely think some mentions of the recent market trends are warranted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjohnson1775 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

First use of the term Safety Razor
The claim that the term Safety Razor was first used in the 1880 Kampfe patent is not correct. See The First Use of the Term "Safety-Razor" for a discussion and links to other sources. Riverrunpast (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)