Talk:Gorilla Glue

Strength

Weak due to air bubbles? I'd like to see some data. This sounds like an opinion. Honeycomb is 94% air but it is stronger than the same amount of solid plate for the weight ratio. From my experience, the stuff glues anything. Even when I've glued two 2x4's together then later tried to separate them, the wood splintered and failed before the glue joint did. I literally shredded the two 2x4's with the crowbar rather than separate the glue joint. I intended to re-use the 2x4's but they were so chewed up as to be worthless after I finally got them apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.206.206 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

What is the typical temperature service range of the cured adhesive? -69.87.200.177 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Logo

how about a logo and a picture of the glue? UNIT A4B1 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"incredibly strong"

stuff like that should not be in an encyclopedia. that is really unprofessional — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.3.212.213 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Gorilla glue doesnt work on envelopes

Hello. I tried using Gorilla Glue on an envelope I was mailing. It developed orange stains. Dont use gorilla glue, it doesnt work. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

WHO owns it and WHO invented it?

Wouldn't that be basic to any article like this? Starhistory22 (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

See also

Why does the see also section contain a reference to cyanoacrylates? There should be some mention in the content of the article if the reference is relevant, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.62.77 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Tessica Brown" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tessica Brown. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Tessica Brown until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CUPIDICAE💕 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Tessica Brown

I would recommend that people stop adding the Tessica Brown story, especially under lawsuits/controversy as it's neither for Gorilla Glue. No suit has been filed and if we included threats of lawsuits on every company's article, well, they'd be even worse than they already are. She has not filed a suit. It has nothing to do with Gorilla Glue aside from the fact that some attention-seeker decided to ignore warnings and proceeded to use industrial strength glue on her head. It's way undue and this is just a 15 minutes of fame-meme type moment. CUPIDICAE💕 20:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I second not adding it. Per the woman herself, she has been very vocal that she is not filing a lawsuit. That was something that TMZ apparently made up in order to stir up public outrage and increase clicks. She's also stating that she didn't do this for internet points either, FWIW.

On a side note, Essence wrote a very good article about the entire incident and the resulting media circus, as they state that she's an example of how black women tend to be dehumanized when they make mistakes and of how black women are also expected to style their hair a certain way, particularly “bone straight". They make a very good point about this. However that's just an aside, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I also want to note that if the manufacturer does change the exposure warnings on their product, it's unlikely that this will need to be recorded in the article without some substantial coverage that includes them stating that it was in response to this incident. Even then, all that would need to be added is a single sentence along the lines of "In (year) the Gorilla Glue Company changed their exposure information on their products to include warnings against exposure to human hair after media outlets reported on a woman experiencing difficulties after using Gorilla Glue in place of regular hair product." No name or other details need to be given and even then this sentence could be shortened more. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Are you opposed to adding it under Lawsuits, or you opposed to adding it to the article at all? I ask because it has now been reported by CNN, The Guardian, and the Washington Post, so it's definitely due to add something to the article.--JBchrch (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I am opposed to it being included at all. We would not include, say, someone using Clorox instead of contact solution in Clorox because it has nothing to do with the subject. People do silly, dumb things that inexplicably get minor media attention as a short lived fad/meme, we don't include that in every notable subject because it's trivial, undue and off topic. As is the case here. If, say, I used Crisco spray instead of my spray sunblock and got third degree burns, it would not be included in their article even if WaPo or TMZ covered it because it has nothing to do with the company itself. CUPIDICAE💕 13:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Same here, I'm opposed to it being included. When it comes to people we have to look at whether or not the coverage is a blip in the pan or not, which is where establishing notability for a person differs from establishing notability for say, a movie or book. The reason BLP1E exists is to prevent Wikipedia from including information on individuals who the media covers for maybe a couple of days or a week before the coverage drops off as someone else gets their 15 minutes of fame/infamy. A large part of this is because there's no lasting importance, however another part of BLP1E is to ensure that it reduces the real world harm on the individual and ensure that they have a right to "vanish" as far as Wikipedia goes. The woman in question has already been vocal about wishing that she'd never posted the videos and that the reason she posted online was because she was scared. She's also reported that she and her family have been the focus of harassment both online and in person. Is she 100% genuine about wanting this all to go away and regretting posting this online? Dunno, but that's not Wikipedia's concern. What is our concern is that the coverage spans an extremely short time, multiple media outlets have reported misinformation about the lawsuit, and the woman herself has made statements wishing that the attention would go away. All of this together shows that we shouldn't have information about her in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree wholeheartedly that this isn't of encyclopedic importance. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's been over a year since this discussion and the start of the whole incident happened (so the dust from then has largely settled). Even after all of this, coverage about the incident still happens sometimes: ex. https://www.klfy.com/louisiana/one-year-later-gorilla-glue-girl-tessica-browns-life-is-transformed-for-the-better/ from a week ago. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? wizzito | say hello! 06:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging ReaderofthePack for their thoughts on this. wizzito | say hello! 09:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure, honestly. I'd say this: if she could pass notability guidelines for her own article then she could be included. Initially a good chunk of the issue here was that the coverage was a passing flurry over one event and that the person herself pretty much wanted to have it all go away. Given that she's still participating in the news a year later the concerns about her not wanting the coverage are far less. However I'm still not seeing where this is really all that notable as far as the company goes. It looks like the coverage is more or less pretty sporadic. I'd bring this up at WP:BLP/N and see what they think. I just don't think that the coverage is really heavy enough as a whole, as it's pretty sporadic and feels a little tabloid-ish for the most part. I will say that I'm mildly surprised and disappointed that there wasn't more coverage along the lines of Essence's article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Gorilla Glue girl" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gorilla Glue girl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Gorilla Glue girl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Since the page has attracted some vandalism, as well as attempts to re-add the content about the woman who glued her hair without discussing it on the talk page, I've semi-protected it for three days. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm going to ask an uninvolved admin to do this since I'm involved in the discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. I am an uninvolved administrator who is watching due to having noticed this at a noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)