Talk:Locks of Love

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tax Deductions[edit]

Even though actual hair donors can't claim a tax deduction, it might be worth it to add that many salons (including national chain ULTA Beauty) offer free hair cuts and services that result in a donation to LoL. They also package and ship the hair to LoL for the donor. Pcvjamaica (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Names[edit]

I believe it would be better to create a redirect from "Locks for Love" to "Locks of Love," and to remove this section. Saranary 01:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synth hair[edit]

From the article: "Wigs provided by Locks of Love are made from either synthetic hair or human hair purchased from southeast Asia."

Does anyone know what is the source for this statement? Meow House 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again questioning that statement, "Wigs provided by Locks of Love are made from either synthetic hair or human hair purchased from southeast Asia" - am asking again for a source for this, since it's in direct opposition to what Locks of Love says. They do say they make SOME hairpieces from synthetic material. I cannot find any place where they say they purchase hair from Southeast Asia and use it to make their own hairpieces. Is this on their Web site, or are there other legitimate sources that provide documentation of this? If this is a factual statement, then a source should be provided; if it is not factual then it should be removed. Meow House 15:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was also unable to find a source for this statement, and removed it. While googling, I found mentions of the statistic that 99% of human hair used in wigs comes from India and Pakistan, but that is a general statement that does not apply specifically to this charity group. Saranary 15:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed six year old comment on talk page above, by Saranary. It was unclear because of poor grammar, but seemed to say that Indian or Pakistani or Jewish people, or maybe all three groups, were idolatrous or considered hair from one of the afore-mentioned to be. It is gratuitous and unnecessary; the claim is not sourced; it is irrelevant to this article. --FeralOink (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBB/WGA edits[edit]

To the person posting under IP 129.186.159.152 who removed the phrase "Locks of Love did not meet all sixteen of its "Standards for Charity Accountability": your revision, which removed the qualifier, and which is identical to earlier versions, is disingenuous. Your version's implication is that LoL fails entirely, which is not true. Withholding the information that they failed 1 out of 16 (clearly stated on the WGA page itself) is not NPOV. You are creating an appearance of something that is inaccurate. I question why you changed this; it only fosters the appearance of bias. -Meow House


Meow House - the information you added regarding the WGA's general mission, accountability criteria, etc would be better placed on the WGA's own wikipedia page. It is not specific to this charity group. Saranary 19:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saranary - Do you mean the whole Accountability section, or just the part that explains what the Standards of Accountability are?
I would say that you may have a point that it may be extraneous to explain exactly what the Standards are (although I think it is valuable to know); but the expanded text on which Standards were failed, and what such failure means, is to my mind accurate.
It would be incorrect to revert to the previous version, which stated, "Locks of Love failed to meet the WGA's standards for charity accountability, because it does not make its annual financial statements available to prospective donors" - for one, it implies that LoL failed to meet ALL of the Standards, which is incorrect; and secondly, because the reason for the failure of that one Standard is due to LoL's not providing their financial statements to the BBB: not that it didn't provide them to donors. Does it provide them to donors? I don't know - maybe they refuse - but I believe that is not what the BBB checks. The BBB makes a request for the audited financial statements from the BBB, not as an individual donor.Meow House 20:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that a detailed description of the standards themselves belongs on the BBB Wise Giving Alliance wikipedia page, not here. The parts that apply specifically to LoL (specifically, failure to meet the BBB standards, but a high score from Charity Navigator) can remain. I have copied the information to the WGA page and will remove it from the LoL page. Sszark 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meow House - the standard to which you're referring reads "Make available to all, on request, complete annual financial statements". This would include prospective donors as well as the WGA itself. Sszark 20:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meow House - The Accountability section itself is fine with me. The WGA information seemed extraneous here, but I see it's been moved. Saranary 20:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This seems anything but NPOV to me. There are not any links that will provide sources to specific statements (only general ones to websites which do not support either opinion of the charity). I am going to give this page a couple of weeks while I try to find the information on my own. After that, I will do massive reconstruction by either adding links or removing unsupported claims.

Links[edit]

  • Here are links to support some of the statistics listed in the article. Because of LocksofLove.org's site navigation, you'll have to follow these instructions to reach the page indicated:
    • 104,000 hair donations per year: Go to Locksoflove.org, mouse over "The Organization", then click "History." This page states that "Over 2,000 hair donations are received through the mail each week." The statistic is corroborated in GuideStar's report.
    • has created 1000 hairpieces since its inception: On the same "History" page, Locks of Love states that "The number of hairpieces produced has increased significantly since its inception, from 21 the first year to over 1,000." Mouse over "The Organization" again, and click "Press Releases." On this page, Locks of Love states: "The organization, which began in 1997, has helped over 1000 children since its first year of operation." The GuideStar charity report repeats the 1,000 hairpieces figure.
    • Six to ten hair donations per wig: Go to locksoflove.org, mouse over "The Organization" and click on FAQs. "Q: How many ponytails does it take to make a hairpiece? A: Six to 10 donated ponytails go into one hairpiece because Locks of Love only uses the lengths of 10 inches and longer."
    • 2003 report by the ... (WGA) found that in the previous year, Locks of Love had raised over $150,000 by selling donated hair and had received another $213,000 in charitable contributions and grants, but provided only 113 human-hair and 39 synthetic wigs: This comes directly from the WGA's report linked under "reports by charity-monitoring organizations."
    • does not provide all hairpieces free of charge: Again, on the FAQs page, "Q: What do the children pay for these hairpieces? A: Locks of Love provides children with hairpieces and their subsequent repairs free of charge or on a sliding scale based on the financial need of those responsible for the children."
    • Value of hairpieces: On the FAQs page, "Q: What would be the cost if a child bought this hairpiece? A: Custom hairpieces start at $3,000 retail." Mouse over "The Organization" and click on "Manufacturing Process," where the value is quoted as, "..between $3,500 to $6,000."
    • Requirements for Recipients: Go to locksoflove.org, mouse over "LoL Kids" and click on "Nominate a Child." The requirements are listed here.
    • Accountability Standards: LoL does not meet the WGA's standards for financial accountability, as stated in its report.

I'd also like to see an expanded history of the organization. 209.234.66.97 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the section in the article 'Requirements for Recipients', it says that children undergoing chemotherapy may be excluded from consideration due to this being a temporary condition. However, on LoL's site, it says in their FAQ that they do help children with short-term hair loss, but that they do so by giving them synthetic hairpieces. The article makes it sound like they just turn them away. For now, I'm going to take that statement out, because it's extremely misleading. If there are specific restrictions regarding chemo recipients, can we please see a reference to that effect? (I might have missed something.) Peace; Heelan Coo 21:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, while I'm at it, are all the requirements verifiable? The instructions provided above for verification go to a form, not a list of requirements. Perhaps the site has changed since last March? Heelan Coo 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms/Accountability[edit]

Note that several charity pages include the "Criticisms" or "Accountability Standards" sections. I do not believe that the mere existence of these subheadings violates the NPOV policy. Feel free to expand the article, modify language, rebut claims, or provide citations - but as a courtesy, please discuss any deletions on this page before your "massive reconstruction." (Also, please sign your comments by typing four consecutive tildes (~)'s.) Sszark 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I tried looking at the Guidestar sight to check the facts under the Crit section, but either that link does not bring you to the report the person was talking about, or else the information was misinterpreted. The Guidestar page tells you the mission of the organization, gives the number that 2,000 donations are given in each week and that it takes 140,000 strands of hair to make a wig, but does not give the number for the amount of wigs made thus far. The Locks of Love webpage says in their they made 21 wigs their first year and now over 1000. Any objections to removing the Guidestar crit? Pnkrockr

Removed this section. If there's any objection put back, perhaps reworded. Pnkrockr 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction there is the statement "They have come under criticism for allegedly misrepresenting the use to which donations of hair are actually put." without any reference or further elaboration. Whether this is justified or not, it needs to be clarified so that prospective donors are not frightened off by unspecified accusations.SimonHolzman 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for Donors & Recipients[edit]

Well, now I'm just on a roll, so I've continued editing the page. The 'donor requirements' section wasn't a straightforward interpretation of the LoL Donor Guide, and no other source was given, so I correlated the two a little better. Finding information on the requirements for recipients is a little less straightforward, but I haven't so far been able to verify some of the material in the article. Someone help me out? Heelan Coo 22:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds?[edit]

In the article it has "weeds through the selection". 'Weeds' - a bit unkind don't you think? I'm changing it to 'sorts' right now! --Damorbel (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Locks of Love. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Locks_of_Love&oldid=1200163196"