Talk:Hairbrush/Archive 1

Archive 1

General comments

"[...]it is typically used on longer hair, while a comb is normally used on shorter hair, but can be still used for short hair. For an equine's tougher hair, a curry-comb is used."- say what?--142.177.126.16 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved curry comb part and added paddle brush. --The Euphemism of Life 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the spanking part necessary? I don't think that most people use it that way anymore...--Dani 00:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• An encyclopaedia should neither be limited tothe (dull) majority nor to the present. So yes! Fastifex 12:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Where Is My Hairbrush

I thought this article could use something fun and inoffensive for a change. What a radical concept! :-) --Michael Geary 02:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Provided it's true (I wouldn't know), why not indeed? Countless pages have sections as alian to me as the Suri language an such 'cultural references' as Japanese anime, but that's fine: Wikipedia caters for every taste, however childish, exotic or whatever, as long as it's true. Of course it does undo your wining about limited relevance- cartoons are never real. Fastifex 11:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Fastifex, nice to hear from you. It's funny how those Veggie Tales cartoons have sold 50 million copies even though they are "never real". But never mind that. Tell you what, shall we be gentlemen about this and let the ladies decide? It does seem like their topic, doesn't it?

Ann and Loulou, if you don't think The Hairbrush Song belongs in the article, or if there's too much detail, or whatever, feel free to delete it, edit it mercilessly, or anything you like. Don't worry, I don't get in an edit war with you! :-) --Michael Geary 21:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think The Hairbrush Song is fine. Maybe we can get more references to hairbrushes and put it under the title "Hairbrush In Modern Culture" or something like that.loulou 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Great idea—"Use in Cartoons" is too specific. I took a shot at it; see what you think and feel free to revise mercilessly. :-)

HOW DARE YOU ERASE WHAT I WROTE ON THIS PAGE.THE DANGERS OF HAIRBRUSHES NEED TO BE KNOWN!!! YOU ARE CREATING INNOCENT VICTIMS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.36.36 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanking

Why not talk about spanking on a hairbrush page? I mean it is obvious what hairbrushes are used for. But there is no doubt that hairbrushes have been used on many naughty behinds. The hairbrush played a dual role in many houses as did the razor strap when men used straight razors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.136.101 (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

why on a hairbrush page would you write about spanking?? what? it is completly unessessery. I am not happy with the paragraph below and WILL delete it if not deleted in the next 2 weeks.

The spanking part is completely unnecessary! This article is about hairbrushes, NOT how to spank your child. If you would like to move the paragraph and put it in the "spanking" article, then go ahead. Otherwise, I am just going to delete it. loulou 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I had already removed it (twice), but was reverted. My edit summary on 29 June said:

Anyone who wants sordid details of positioning (over the knee, etc.) can go to spanking. Main use of hairbrush is brushing hair. Naughty is POV, as dyslexic children were spanked for misspelling.

I was reverted with:

restore, but naughty (indeed not always true) removed; 'sordid' is your POV.

I meant to come back and explain, but was busy with other articles (although I did upload photos of hairbrushes in the meantime). Now, it's quite true that I find such details (bare bottoms, over the knee, etc.) quite sordid, and that is my POV, with which others may disagree. But I did not remove those details because I found them sordid. I removed them because I found that such sordid details did not belong to an article on hairbrushes. Should they be in spanking? Probably. Are they? I don't know; I haven't looked at that article recently. But unless positioning (over the knee, standing up, bending over) and clothing are relevant to hairbrushes — for example if people use hairbrushes to spank children over the knee, but wooden spoons to spank children standing up), it is completely and utterly irrelevant to this article. It's like saying that some children are spanked for telling lies, or for being disobedient. It has nothing to do with hairbrushes. By all means, let's say that hairbrushes are sometimes used to spank children. That's all we need to say. AnnH ♫ 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted it, so now you may write down the sentence about spanking.loulou 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to a short statement that hairbrushes are sometimes used for spanking. But when I first came across this article, the spanking part was longer than the hair part! AnnH ♫ 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fastifex, instead of just reverting, could you please come to the talk page and explain why you think the hairbrush article should be dealing with bare bottoms and over the knee positionings, etc. Those things are relevant to spanking; they should be (and presumably are) in the spanking article. But in what way is the child's level of clothing relevant to hairbrush as opposed to spanking? In what way is the over-the-lap position relevant to hairbrush as opposed to spanking? Please, please discuss this before reverting. Several editors think that long descriptions and instructions about spanking do not belong in an article. Spanking is a very secondary use of hairbrushes. I'm not arguing for removal of a simple statement that hairbrushes are used for spanking. But your edits are completely unbalancing the artice. Think of it this way: if the entire human race went permanently bald tomorrow, would hairbrushes still be available for sale in five years from now? No, they would not. If the entire human race decided permanently that spanking was a bad thing tomorrow, would hairbrushes still be available for sale in five years from now? Yes they would. Hairbrushes are for brushing hair. Mention that they are also used for spanking, but leave out all the stuff about positioning and clothing. Also, the link you added looks very much like linkspam to me. It's not about hairbrushes; it seems to be just the results from searching a corporal punishment website for the word "hairbrush" — revealing every page where the word "hairbrush" appears, no matter how irrelevant it is. I'm removing it. AnnH ♫ 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the entire section. It has nothing to do with hairbrushes. Nothing. It is spam, generic content that Fastifex has been adding to unrelated articles all over the encyclopedia. It represents an extreme, radical POV. --Michael Geary 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Geary! I've been wanting to delete it for a while. If Fastifex has been spreading this spam all over the encyclopedia, then shouldn't he be blocked? loulou 03:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to help, loulou. I don't know anything about blocking users, but there has certainly been a consistent pattern of spamming unrelated articles with spanking and punishment content. The first place I first encountered it, a couple of days ago, was the article about the TrackPoint (yes, the computer pointing device).

Last November, Fastifex expanded the scope of that article to include the traditional wooden pointing stick, as a way to include a spanking reference. Since then, other editors have deleted the spanking content, and Fastifex restored it, six times. I seem to have resolved that issue by splitting the wooden stick reference off to a separate article, restoring the TrackPoint article to its original purpose. --Michael Geary 04:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sweet Loulou, I am so sorry you have had to deal with this. You are only 12? Good Lord. Did you imagine that when you were 12 you would be defending an encyclopedia article on hairbrushes against this kind of filth?

AnnH, you are being so nice, and reasonable, explaining why this material doesn't belong here. I am afraid I rather flew off the handle when I first encountered it myself. You come across much better than I did in my comments on Fastifex's talk page. I don't know if persuasion will do any good, but you certainly have a better shot at it than I do.

I wish there were a better solution, but for the moment I'm going to just keep deleting this stuff. You can, too, and you don't have to ask. It is spam, it borders on child pornography, and it does not belong here. Hopefully, Fastifex will eventually realize that editors everywhere in the encyclopedia are deleting this filth and stop posting it. --Michael Geary 09:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and have just run into this apparent fixation of Fastifex's. I took some extraneous material out of an article and today I see he put it back. (If you're curious, see the military section of Drummer.) I was going to ask him about it, but after reading all these one-sded conversations I see there's little point. I'll just delete it. --ChrisWinter 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that is sick. Yeah, just keep deleting it... (sigh) --Michael Geary 02:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I put on the reference to using the hairbrush as a spanking implement (I don't know who this Fastifex person is). I didn't regard it as sick - simply a very traditional and well-known use for a hairbrush. No issue with deleting it if you want to, but my intentions were innocent and genuine. Kippin 16:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The fetish stuff was ridiculous, but I actually think it is worth having a single sentence about this (e.g. "traditionally, hairbrushes were sometimes used to spank children") in the Human Use subsection, since it's true and fairly often mentioned in older children's books such as Enid Blyton's. Equinox (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox: If you've a source for it being common practice, go for it. Rebbing 14:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to add them properly, but I have found mentions in two academic papers:

• 2010, Mona Khoury-Kassabri, Attitudes of Arab and Jewish mothers towards punitive and non-punitive discipline methods (in Child & Family Social Work 15/2, pp.135-144): the abstract says "one out of 10 mothers endorsed using an object such as a paddle, hairbrush, belt, etc. on children".
• 2016, Stephanie D. Block, Ashlee Burgess Poplin, Eric S. Wang, Keith F. Widaman, Desmond K. Runyan, Variation in Acceptable Child Discipline Practices by Child Age: Perceptions of Community Norms by Medical and Legal Professionals (in Behavioral Sciences & the Law 34/1, pp.95-112): here, a table of punishments includes "hit child elsewhere (not buttocks) with an object such as a hairbrush, stick, or other hard object" (p.105).

Equinox (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think either of those sources, despite being academic, would support the proposition that hairbrushes are or were commonly used for hitting children. Rebbing 01:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Got no more time for this. Thanks anyway. Equinox ◑ 02:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile...

Even the relevant text needs work. "Cushion brush: used to straighten tidy and neat hair and gives it a professional look." Huh? That's not only incoherent, but if I grasp the intended meaning correctly, inaccurate. Brushing hair doesn't necessarily make it look "neat" or "professional", especially if it's curly. And terms like "hard-to-manage hair" are right up there with "bad hair". Hair that is "hard to manage" is simply textured hair that isn't easily forced into compliance with arbitrary and/or racist cultural norms. MopTop (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)