Talk:Hair washing without commercial shampoo

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Health and fitness Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I suggest to add noshampoo.org/com/net links on this page as no shampoo guide for people who have interest in. And the three links are from three different organisations/individuals, one is US, and another is Canada and last one is in Austrlia. It's not advertisement or promotion. --Matt.yang (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You own noshampoo.net and are likely affiliated with at least one of the others. Adding them will result in reversion, which I have already done once. I really don't have time or patience to spare for spammers. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I forgot to add, I could provide proof that you own it, but that would be outing you, including your address, which is something I don't do and wouldn't do since it isn't kosher. Anyone can run a whois anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know that.--Matt.yang (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What you might not know is you should avoid articles where you have a
  conflict of interest. At the very least, it is expected that someone with a conflict announce it ahead of time. You adding this talk page note AFTER you already added the links doesn't really qualify as disclosure. Reviewing the websites makes it clear they don't belong on Wikipedia at all. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This article is ludicrous. It is clearly not NPOV, engages in multiple fallacies, and fails to cite sources for many of its claims, trying to pass them off as fact. It should be stricken entirely as clearly biased and original research. I have attempted to place citation requests at all possible locations in the interim, but I move it be stricken entirely, or until edited to include peer-reviewed research providing evidence for the claims herein. 202.179.229.176 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please calm down? This isn't a

WP:BLP so there is rightfully some leniency regarding sourcing (which is not to say it shouldn't be improved). Also, if you take a moment to look upwards on this page you will see that the article was nominated for deletion in April last year, however there turned out to be no consensus to delete. Accordingly, you would do better to respect the community's wishes, and try to improve the article (e.g. not insert text such as "How is this relevant?" as if it was article text). It is always going to be difficult to find sources since this topic is outside of the mainstream, however that doesn't mean that WP should become devoid of assistance for those readers wanting to learn more about this topic (as happened to me). But yes, things do need improving, so I will try to help. GFHandel ♬  19:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I spent considerable time today improving the writing and properly attributing citations. I believe the article is now much closer to the neutrality required by WP (however the silicone stuff still needs work). I'm happy to discuss the removal of the POV tag. GFHandel ♬  23:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting better. The article now better factually and from a third party perspective reflects the positions and claims. Thank you for the time you have spent researching and editing the article. I don't mean to be a stickler, but I believe the last sentence in the first paragraph should be further cited, rephrased, or removed, as well as this: "by people wishing to avoid chemicals". Water is a chemical. Air is a chemical. Everything around us, us included, is composed of chemicals. 202.179.229.176 (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been above. I meant the last 2 sentences in the Theory section ("Some shampoos... ...eventually drying it out") should be referenced or removed. 202.179.229.176 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a problem removing the NPOV tag now? I think GFHandel addressed the issue.Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for references for the assertions in the last paragraph in the "Theory" section. 202.179.229.176 (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the POV tag should be removed. This isn't a BLP and the three "Citation needed" templates give ample warning to the readers (while further work is ongoing). Certainly it no longer warrants the template slapped on with the comment "It should be stricken entirely". :-) GFHandel ♬  08:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the tag can be removed in my opinion. The article still needs work though. Mythio (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charming, GFHandel. Silly me, expecting an encyclopedia to contain supportable facts rather than bald, unevidenced assertions with the tone of a marketing brochure. I still believe the last section in the Theory needs to be sourced, removed, or altered to present the statements therein as claims of supporters. However, I'm not intimately familiar with the policy surrounding these situations, so if you feel that argumentum ad populum is sufficient, go ahead and remove the POV tag. 202.179.229.176 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might have missed it, but I didn't see the term "no poo" referenced in any of the sources. If you see one, please let me know. Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Melissa Dahl article mentions the phrase "no poo". GFHandel ♬  21:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I'm trying to think of a way to move that ref up to #1. The title should have a reference ASAP I the article (IMO)Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GFHandel ♬  22:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit introduced a section called "Scientific basis". I read the text and looked at the source and must admit that I doubt the benefit this new section has to the article. The study only compares the effect of various anti-dandruff shampoos, and does not have a control case of not using shampoo (the topic of this article). Accordingly, I can't see how the conclusion drawn from a study that only uses shampoo can be relevant? What do others think? GFHandel ♬  00:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it to reflect the actual findings of the study, which were inconclusive or supportive of the reactive sebum theory. However, it's a poor article and not very well relatable, IMO.173.29.133.74 (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section purporting to be "Scientific basis" because the study only considered shampoo use (which is the antithesis of this article's topic). GFHandel ♬  20:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a wider array viewpoints. In addition, the article seems to rely rather heavily on two sources:

• "Ditching shampoo a dirty little beauty secret". msnbc.msn.com.
• "When It Comes To Shampoo, Less Is More". npr.org.

Before removing the tag, please ensure all parties feel this issue has been satisfactorily addressed. Regards -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 21:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the addition of the "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag. Apart from one paragraph (which has been well-covered with "Citation needed" tags), every sentence is referenced. There are actually seven references—which is quite varied for an article of this size.

Regarding the "viewpoints" tag: please remember that this is an article about No poo. It is not pushing a product (quite the opposite), and editors are free to add other viewpoints (of course supported by reliable sources). I notice that you tried that, however the source you picked actually demonstrated the opposite of what you intended (and it is worth stressing that the book makes no conclusion about the greasiness or cleanliness of the astronauts' hair after an extended period of time).

I'm curious about something: have you thought about applying your rigorous standards to the Hair care article? I notice that the Hair care#Hair cleaning section cites no references, and does not include any viewpoint other than using shampoo is the way to go to get hair clean. When you get a chance, could you please address the problems there with the same standards that you are applying to this article? Thanks.

GFHandel ♬  21:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF: I'm not singling out this article for special attention, so there's no reason to be "curious about" my motives here or question why I haven't applied "rigorous standards" at another article (one I haven't even visited). I came across the "no poo" article and felt that it has several issues which need to be addressed. Regards -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 22:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expressing those concerns. Now that I've pointed out the problems at Hair care, and since the the types of issues you identify as problems include unreferenced material, could you please spare a little time to address the problems at Hair care? I guess you could start by applying a few Unreferenced tags on the large amounts of text that have no supporting citations. Thanks for any help that you can provide there.

Regarding the issues here, I'm going to wait a week and if no other reasoned support is forthcoming for the "This article needs additional citations for verification" template that you added today, I propose removing it.

GFHandel ♬  22:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect large portions of the Hair care article are copy/pasted from other sources, as is usually the case when a large amount of well-written text exists with absolutely no referencing. I'll do some digging and see what I can find. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for starting the process. I'm not blaming you for any of this, however I find it incredible that the section you just applied the tag to at

No poo article. The difference in standards applied to various articles never ceases to amaze me. If you need someone to help with support at Hair care, please let me know. GFHandel ♬  22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This article includes a blatant misuse of research. A couple years ago I added the section about Soviet space research. The full quote says that sebum production stops after seven days *if* The follicles are blocked by sebum and dirt, which means washing your hair without shampoo will keep you producing sebum. Some zealot truncated the quote to "Soviet research shows sebum production stops after six seven days of no showering" to make it look like it is in favor of "no poo" theory when it actually says the opposite. I'm appalled someone could be so academically dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.97.96.221 (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a misuse or 'academically dishonest'. Please see my earlier talk page post on this matter, with quotes from Packing for Mars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shampoo#Theory_section:_dubious_use_of_reference

Can you explain, preferably with respect to Packing quotes and not your own bare assertion, what is incorrect about the summary? --Gwern (contribs) 19:09 4 July 2014 (GMT)

Because the point is, as the article says,No Poo "is a collective term for methods of **washing** hair without shampoo". Emphasis mine. If you wash your hair *at all*, shampoo or not, your body will continue to produce sebum. Because there's a natural five day level of oil and this natural level doesn't decrease over time, the research clearly only supports washing your hair with shampoo if you don't want to be greasy, or not washing with any method at all if you want five days of grease on you at all times. It does *not* support the idea that not showering will somehow end up with you not being greasy, which your weasley edit implies.

As far as I'm aware there is no mechanism in the scalp or sebaceous glands for identifying the amount of oil (or lack of oil) on the scalp and reacting to it by adjusting sebum production. All of the science I've read suggests that sebum production is determined entirely by genetics and hormones- possibly diet to some degree.

With no source or scientific support for said claim I think it's necessary to categorize this article under Pseudoscience since the whole idea is predicated on reactive seborrhea being a real phenomenon.

If someone could provide a citation for said reactive mechanism that would really clear things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brbmorgan (talk • contribs) 12:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says

> Current science does not substantiate the belief that sebum production is stimulated by use of shampoo.

And cites a single study from 1979 that has 8 people in each experiment. Given what we know from the replication crisis, this seems like weak evidence for such a sweeping claim. In any case, calling a single, tiny 44-year-old study "current science" is not accurate. Itwastrees (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]