Talk:Toupée

Renominated for Good Article in July 2007

Page is substantially cleaned up, let's see if its "good".

Nomination for Good Article in 2006 Failed

Good Article nomination has failed ==

The Good article nomination for Toupee has failed, for the following reason:

(it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles):

This article's lead, like the hair on many of its subject's head, is lacking. As it doesn't lead into the other areas it covers. The prose isn't compelling at all and is scattered with little jokes that are completely unencyclopedic. The jokes (I'm mainly remembering the picture captions) also seem to violate the rule that viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias.

(d) it contains no elements of original research No sources are cited, especially in the areas of "use and manufacture," "known wearers," and "suspected wearers." We need to know where this information is coming from, so to this I would add the citation of its sources

I'm also worrying about it being broad in its coverage; I'm personally curious about the history of toupees and their forerunners.) TonyJoe 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthewdkaufman: With regard to the critical comments, given that the article was originally three sentences long before I began work on it, so its a bit harsh to hear - but most of the material has been added piecemea. With regard to the topic of Toupee having too many jokes - well, if an article on toupees can't have a bit of accurate fun, what can?

List of known toupee wearers

Please do not include large, unencyclopedic lists, especially when 90% of it is uncited and potentially libelous. This is forbidden per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the place for large lists of trivia, even if relevant topically. VanTucky 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Even reducing it to a cited list is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate info, nor lists of trivia. This serves no encyclopedic purpose, and is simply useless trivia. A list of known toupee wearers is not welcome. VanTucky 18:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to remove my comment? Not welcome by whom? A list is perfectly relevant - you're interpretation of "indiscriminate information nor lists of trivia" is pretty narrow. As I said before you erased it, an Article on the Academy Awards includes lists of Winners - shouldn't an article on Toupees include a list of wearers, when external evidence is available?

Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~).

Academy awards and toupee's are totally different. Awards are an easily verifiable, not ever libelous, and extremely finite list. Including this info is potentially liberlous per the BLP and must be removed. 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How is recognizing that people like Ted Danson, George Burns and Howard Cosell wear Toupees libelous? These are known facts. The list of Academy Award Winning films is over 70 items long, shorter than the list of toupee wearers199.68.81.105 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's about the living people on the list (WP:BLP). Living people being called toupee wearers in the article (which uses flimsy sources), can potentially sue for libel. And BLP notwithstanding, a list of people who have worn toupees is tabloid-like trivia that is unacceptable content in a serious encyclopedia. VanTucky 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. As I said above (Matthewdkaufman) if an article on Toupee's can't have a bit of accurate fun, what can? You're taking this ~far~ too seriously. 199.68.81.105 18:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Wikipedia isn't a party. The policy supports my assertion that Wikipedia is not a publisher of interesting but useless facts that could potentially cause actual people emotional distress. VanTucky 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not bursting my bubble sonny. I'm sure Marv Albert lies awake night worrying that people will figure out he's wearing a toupee199.68.81.105 21:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this clear one last time: DO NOT ADD CONTROVERSIAL AND POTENTIALLY LIBELOUS INFORMATION. The first rule of the very strict rules surrounding biographies of living persons is "do no harm", it is not ever okay to add controversial and potentially libelous and hurtful (your approximation of the potential of hurt for a particular individual has no bearing) information. This section possesses WAY more potential harm to Wikpedia than any amusement value it might have. Furthermore, amusement value is not a factor in inclusion. This is a serious encyclopedia with clear guidelines on what can and cannot be included. Don't add info just because you find it personally amusing. VanTucky 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing it for amusement - they are documented facts. If you want to push this up for some kind of board review, fine, but until someone other than you renders judgement, your opinion is just your opinion. If the material is referenced, how can anyone be sued?Matthewdkaufman 22:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The list now includes only the deceased. Shall you now file a "BDP" complaint?Matthewdkaufman 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing the living people makes it no longer under the purview of BLP, but (in my opinion) it is still a very unencyclopedic list of useless but amusing trivia. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia nor indiscriminate information. Neither of you have cited any policy supporting the inclusion of this trivia (maybe bc there is none). There is a VERY clear admonishment to avoid trivia sections however. VanTucky 22:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not try integrating the list of (deceased) toupee wearers into the article itself? For example, take John Wayne off the list, remove the bit about him from the trivia section (there shouldn't even be a trivia section, to start with) and in a more encylopedic way, reword that and incorporate that into the movies section of the article. (I.E. " The Wings of Eagles was the first film since Wake of the Red Witch in which John Wayne did not wear a toupee." or something to that extent) CherryFlavoredAntacid 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A list of dead toupee wearers? I'm interested in that. Why not? There's a list of Tall People?24.15.208.65 01:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

trivia is often interesting or amusing, but that does not change the fact that it is still WP:TRIVIA and violation of WP:NOT and WP:L. Wikipedia has set policies and guidlines prohibiting or discouraging this type of content. I like it is not a valid argument for inclusion. VanTucky 02:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a popular notion that just "because I've got a source for a fact, I can put it in Wikipedia". This is not true. Trivia is, by definition, trivial. An encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia is), is a summation of the essential information about a topic. The Toupee article could have a list of all manufacturers of Toupees, or all materials ever used in any toupee, or number of hairs in as many toupees as anybody cares to list. All of that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. And so is a list of toupee-wearers, living or dead.

Now, in an article about a person, living or dead, the fact that they wore a toupee might rise to the level of significance appropriate to be included in an encyclopedia. Perhaps they were an entertainer and used the toupee prominently in their act, perhaps they were a politician who lied about wearing one and was caught. If so, a link or reference in the Toupee article to the other article might be appropriate. But a plain list of toupee wearers is trivia. The fact that someone is interested in it doesn't matter. I'd kind of like to know what actresses have worn jewelry loaned to them by Harry Winston. I don't expect to find that information in Wikipedia. As WP:NOT expresses, Wikipedia is not a database. Studerby 01:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the list is what caused the request for deletion, because if you look at the edit history, someone(s) has been adding Keith Olbermann to the list, and someone(s) has consistently removed it. The same kind of thing happened about a year or more ago with Joe Scarborough. The thing is, removing the list isn't going to solve the problem, because anyone can add someone's name to the article with an assertion about wearing the toupee, whether a list is there or not - see the early days of the page and how Scarborough kept popping up as an image with subtext. Having a list seems to be appropriate, as I've stated elsewhere, because often, the Toupee wearers toupee becomes nearly as famous as the person itself. When it becomes known or even strongly suspected, it becomes a part of that person's identity that the can't sweep under the rug (sorry), and therefore, deserves comment. Having a list at least allows a place for the inevitable future editor to put a name, rather than just dropping it wherever they wish. People will add names, no matter how many times one reverts the page, so give people a place to put them. Matthewdkaufman 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've alphaed the list so hopefully that makes it easier to find names added that don't fit the requirments. Although Olbermann's continues to be the most popular to add--Eion (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Two concerns

First, I question the relevance of the list of toupee wearers, and second, I don't think the mug shot of that US politician is 'fair use', which is the license of the photo. Anchoress 22:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the non-fair use. It is not directly adjacent to anything mentioning him. Generally I think the rule of thumb is that it has to very clearly be related to the detailed contents of the image (i.e. info about the person). It's not just relevance at issue (though you're right to question it), it's that the list is ripe for the kind of gratuitous expansion that was there when I removed it the first time, the kind that makes it into a huge, rambling, uncited and libelous list. Relevant encyclopedic information would be statistics on the number of toupee wearers by country, or cited sociological research on the attitudes towards wearing one. A list of every dead celebrity to wear a toupee is demonstrably trivia of the most useless kind. It can only serve to embarass and potentially even anger those included on the list. VanTucky 01:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that any of the dead celebrities are going to be angry about it, but I don't think it's encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion. Anchoress 01:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the Traficant photo - his career may be dead, but he isn't24.15.208.65 01:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a direct violation of WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA is what it is. VanTucky 01:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so24.15.208.65 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think so" is not a valid reason for inclusion. please reference policy, not personal opinion. VanTucky 02:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of reference policy is merely personal opinion with a bit of arrogance mixed in. I can certainly go through the site and the policy and debate you seven ways until Sunday, but in the end, your opinion on what is Trivia and mine are going to diverge. 24.15.208.65 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, calling people arrogant is a direct personal attack and will not be tolerated at all. That is the only good faith warning you will recieve for that kind of behavior. Second, you're of course perfectly welcome to disagree on whether the policy fits here. But just saying "no it isn't" is not ever an argument that is accepted on Wikipedia. You have to provide evidence. VanTucky 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you saying "Sorry to burst your bubble", is acceptable, while recognizing arrogance when it is displayed in post after post is not? What precisely can you *possibly* threaten me with that carries any weight at all? My position on both what constitutes policy, and my opinion of the character you're displaying in your replies stands. 24.15.208.65 03:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"sorry to burst your bubble" is not a personal attack bc, unlike calling me arrgoant (the veracity of the statement is of no consequence), the phrase is not applying an offense label to you. I did not call you anything. And calling people names will swiftly get you a block. I'd rather putz around arguing with you about a list of toupee wearers than see you not contributing, so don't make personal attacks, okay? If you can't adhere to an elementary level of civility you don't belong on Wikipedia. VanTucky 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Incredible - the tone you've taken in all your commentary has certainly been that of a person who believes that they are completely and utterly right, while anyone disagreeing is wrong. Yet you're the one complaining about a lack of civility when a label is applied to your tone. I'd argue that you deserve a block more than I. 24.15.208.65 04:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, may I remind you to comment on content, not on the contributor. This talk page is not a forum for discussing your opinion of my character, it for discussing the article at hand. Further off-topic comments will be refactored per NPA and WP:TALK policy. VanTucky 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracious, whatever will I do? 24.15.208.65 04:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think both of you could afford to be a little bit more civil. For the sake of improving Wikipedia, could you both agree to:

1. Can the sarcasm;
2. Stop accusing each other of incivility while being incivil;
3. Leave threats of blocks out of it;
4. Consider that if someone accuses you of incivility, they may actually feel that you've been incivil - regardless of whether by some WP 'rule' they have been - and just apologise, withdraw the comment and move on?

BTW I agree about commenting on the content, not the contributor, but that old saw isn't to be used as a cudgel against less adroit editors. Anchoress 13:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But just for the record, I did not ever mean to say that I would be doing any blocking. While saying that you might be blocked for personal attacks wasn't a thing for someone involved in a personal dispute to do, I didn't realize that not everyone understood that only administrators can do any actual blocking. And just as a little "FYI" Anchoress, he may not like being called "less adroit" very much... VanTucky 17:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, it's not an issue of whether or not YOU would be doing the blocking, it's bringing the issue of blocking into the discussion period. Neither of you has been uncivil enough to warrant blocking, and bringing it up has the tendency of escalating, rather than defusing, the situation. And I used the word 'adroit' to describe your facility with skating closer than 24. to the NPA line without crossing it; in that instance, being maladroit isn't an insult. Anchoress 17:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said, "saying that you might be blocked for personal attacks wasn't a thing for someone involved in a personal dispute to do...". And I was joking about the adroit thing. VanTucky 17:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, no probs, and sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers! Anchoress 17:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to RfC

I have come here from the RfC page. I would say that it is a good idea to have a list of toupee wearers, that it should include all the known deceased wearers and those living wearers where there is a reliable source and the fact is not disputed. It even just might include a case where the fact is disputed, so long as the case is notable (i.e. not just that the alleged wearer is notable, but also their alleged toupee-wearing is an issue that has come to public attention), that there is a good source such as a mainstream news report, and that the difference between allegation and proven fact is clear. Itsmejudith 15:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think any list of toupe wearers could end up being a joke that makes Wikipedia look silly. (On the other hand that might not be a bad thing. ;-) ) Steve Dufour 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination review

hi some comments

1. Toupées, chemotherapy, and injury has a list of external links, better to link to the wiki articles on these charities.
2. not enough pictures - this article would benifit from several pictures illustrating the item and its benefits and differnt kinds.
3. The introduction is too brief and needs expansion.
4. red link for media buys is not helpful, so remove it or add in a stub that explains the meaning and significance, or redirect it to a suitable article.
5. Toupées in Popular Culture and subsequent headings have captials not meeting WP:HEAD

GB 10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I found the following issues with this article:

• The lead is not a summary of the article, as it should be.
• There should be images to represent the various types of toupees. (There are no
• The Toupées and wigs section needs wikification.
• "It has been stated that many men often know they are fooling no one with the use of the toupée" - It has been stated by whom? Sentences such as these need to be sourced.
• There are far too many one sentence paragraphs.
• There is unnecessary spacing between sections.
• References should be directly after punctuation with no spaces.
• References should also be formatted per WP:CITE with all available information included, and references that are used multiple times should be named.
• The entire article could use some additional wikification. That of countries, US$, etc.
• Dashes between years and centuries should use the mdash.
• Under Toupées in the 19th century, why is the second paragraph indented? If that's a quote, it should be a block quote or, at the very least, include quotation marks.
• By the 1950s, it was estimated that over 350,000 U.S. men wore hair pieces, out of a potential 15 million wearers. - Really? How do you know? (see the Time Magazine Article that's referenced 199.68.81.105 19:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

I can go through and place fact tags where needed. Let me know if you'd like me to do this. LaraLove^T/_C 06:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This article talk page should utilize {{ArticleHistory}}. I don't have time to do it right now, but it would improve this page. LaraLove^T/_C 06:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some responses:

• There should be images to represent the various types of toupees.

(There are none that are really in the public domain. Celebrity pictures keep getting knocked down and the "humor" ones on the pop culture page aren't neutral enough)

It looks like the author or an enthusiast needs to go down to a wig shop with a camera and get some photos themself, then the pictures can be released under a suitable licence, and will not be an embarrassment to someone. GB 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• "It has been stated that many men often know they are fooling no one with the use of the toupée" - It has been stated by whom? Sentences such as these need to be sourced.

(If you really need a statement that broad to be sourced, I'll find one for it. )

• The entire article could use some additional wikification. That of countries, US$, etc.
• By the 1950s, it was estimated that over 350,000 U.S. men wore hair pieces, out of a potential 15 million wearers. - Really? How do you know? (see the Time Magazine Article that's referenced for the other nearby sentence199.68.81.105 19:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

You should also cite the reference at the end of this sentence. Any sentences that make claims should be sourced. Also, be careful when using words to avoid. LaraLove^T/_C 06:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical question: if "toupee" comes from French "toupet" rather than from a past participle, is the spelling with the acute accent a hypercorrection? Should the accent be taken out?

Caesar reference

not a very reputable source for Caesar's inclusion is it? Surely an ancient source is needed.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.84.234 (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

living wearers

Many living people who are well known wear or have worn toupees.

It is a well documented fact that Sean Connery wore one for all of the James Bond films. He no longer wears one though.

Maybe we can include living people IF they longer wear one.--24.218.8.95 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Everylastingpiece.jpg

The image Image:Everylastingpiece.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune incident

I remember seeing a YouTube clip after the "toupee" moment that Pat Sajak explained that it was an April Fool's gag, even going on to show what they did with the makeup. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)