Talk:Toothbrush moustache

message: The history of the toothbrush moustache in this article is complete inacurate. This type of beard was known long before Charlie Chaplin or Adolf Hitler. Take a look at the german Wikipedia Article for Schnauzbart (moustache). The first carrier of this type of moustache are Frederick I of Prussia (1657–1713) and Philip William, Margrave of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1669–1711). It became popular with the invention of the Safety razor with disposable razor blades by King Camp Gillette in 1901, because it was easy to groom.--MBelzer (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article actually is unclear on the origin of the style or why it became popular, so it's not "inaccurate" it just "isn't". The links you provided don't say much but I can use this information to research further and flesh it out, the notion of the safety razor is intriguing if I can find reliable sources to back it up. It looks like what happened was the safety razor (1901) allowed for easy daily shaving, so many people got rid of their facial hair, but for some reason the curves of the top lip made it dangerous with this type of razor so many just left that section unshaven. But I'll need to find reliable sourcing before adding to the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gillette

message: I just removed James Joyce from the list on this page, since the man had no toothbrush moustache at all! -The Bold Guy- 12:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised to see that this article is relatively unaffected by vandalism. I half-expected to see George W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc. in the list of people wearing this type of mustache. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little bit disappointed, though. :P 76.95.40.6 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some 

message: Have you seen a recent portrait of Mugabe? Would you clasify his facial hair as a "toothbrush moustache?"  Can we put him under the list of noteable wearers of this style?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.105.189.2 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems perhaps a little too narrow. BodvarBjarki (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Mugabe? 

message: Is Richard Herring and his "Hitler Moustache" routine worth including in this article? It's relevant, and  sourceable -- Bobyllib (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so, just add it and see if anybody objects.82.17.231.193 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that it is being given too much prominence.  Herring is not widely known outside of the UK (all tours and Radio/TV appearences are UK only) and as the show was fairly recent (2009), we do not yet know if it will still be remembered in future years.  It might be more appropriate to rename the section "Fictional characters" to "Appearance in popular culture" and include it here as a line such as "Richard Herring in the stand-up show, 'Hitler Moustache'".  If people are still talking about this show in years to come then it can be revisited 87.113.140.107 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Herring 

message: Having seen photos of all three José Morales (see disambiguation page) I cannot see evidence of a moustache in any of them. The two living Morales are easy to find, here is a link to a group photo showing the Peruvian fooballer, fourth from left at the front, he does not appear to have a moustache. I suggest "Jose Morales" is removed. Richard Avery (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  José Morales? moustache? 

message: I've added citations for verification, and removed any names without pictures. Also removed some where the length of the moustache is somewhere between a "long toothbrush" and a "short moustache" - given the negative reputation of the toothbrush (Nazi's), I believe it needs to be unambiguously a toothbrush to be included in the list. So if the picture is ambiguous, it will either need a different picture, or text from a RS. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of notable people 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Rally to Restore Sanity Photo 2010 Shankbone.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I added the following inline note in the list of people with a toothbrush:
:Note: People on this list should have an [image] link, or otherwise the person should be removed from the list due to lack of verification. Don't remove this notice or image links (as has already happened before), thank you for your help in keeping this article verifiable and accurate.
I'm repeating that note here since inline notes are often deleted. Someone today tried to delete all the image links. Please keep an eye on that list and make sure they all have image links for verification. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  People with toothbrush mousatche 

message: In regards to the picture :File:Rally to Restore Sanity Photo 2010 Shankbone.jpg. I believe the smiley-hitler is a political statement. Please see the book cover of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left. It would make sense to see the smiley-hitler as an anti-protest at that particular protest rally: the author of the book, Jonah Goldberg, was a recent guest on the Jon Stewart show, who was the host of the rally where the sign is being displayed. A Google search of 'smiley hitler' overwhelmingly ties back to Goldberg. I think we should be careful how the image is used and its context, so as not to be dupes spreading a seemingly joke picture that is actually an offensive political message (ie. liberals = fascists) and/or marketing the book and extremest ideology of Goldberg. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Hitler smiley' image 

message: The below list of toothbrush moustaches in fiction (popular culture) is unsourced and indiscriminate to have every cartoon and fictional character. If someone wants to write a prose history of significant characters and works in relation to the toothbrush, that would be great, here is the raw data:
* Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp
* Fred Kite (Peter Sellers), Trade Union leader in the satirical film I'm All Right Jack
* The Dad of Dennis the Menace in The Beano comic strip
* Mr Bronson in the BBC children's series Grange Hill
* Fred the Baker
* Bartemius Crouch Sr in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
* J. Jonah Jameson in the Spider-Man comics
* Inspector Cyril "Blakey" Blake, in the British comedy series On the Buses
* Monty Python's Flying Circus' Gumbys
* Mr. Kurtzmann (Ian Holm) in Terry Gilliam's film Brazil
* Hitlercito, the main character of the eponymous webcomic.
* Roderick Spode
* Girl Hitler, in The Venture Brothers
* Sam Waldron, mobile shop owner in Postman Pat
* Sergeant |Hans Schultz in the television series Hogan's Heroes
* Hen Broon from the Scottish comic strips The Broons
* Mr. Hutchinson (Bernard Cribbins) from Fawlty Towers episode "The Hotel Inspectors"
* Gruber, in the film The Ninth Gate
* Cosmo Spacely from the Jetsons
* Lucky Piquel from Bonkers
-- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture 

message: I noted above a source that says:
:"positioning the headline 'Person of the Year' in a panel that mimics Adolf Hitler's moustache over Putin's upper lip."
This is a phenomenon our article does not discuss: depicting a toothbrush on someone for whatever purpose (humor, political cartoon). It has surely been done countless times since WWII when comparisons are drawn with Hitler. -- GreenC 04:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! UpdateNerd (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depiction of a toothbrush 

message: It's too many images even in gallery mode it distracts from the text, doesn't display well on all browsers and is a lot to download when loading the page. Suggest to have a sort of comprehensive gallery to use the Commons categories mechanism and link to the Commons category from here, that is typically how its done when there are a lot of images.  -- GreenC 14:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reverting, I can see how that shows too many images even after "combing" through them to eliminate poor-quality examples. However, I don't know what you mean about using a "Commons categories mechanism"... ? Also, I see Template:Gallery has a collapsible option which may help, but I can't figure out how to enable it. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is  and an example is Category:Toothbrush moustaches which would be  in the External links section. The number of images in the article should be limited and not interfere with the flow of reading or crowd the text. -- GreenC 15:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already there but so buried at the end it wasn't too visible. I moved it up to the notable wearer section. Also made a gallery section. Now we have images inline in the article. Images in a gallery section. Images in a list of notable wearers. Images via the commons link. I'm pretty confident other users will begin piling images into the gallery section, and we will end up with a wall of images again, which is what the Commons link is supposed to solve. -- GreenC 15:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it works pretty well as is. I've been extensively categorizing over at Commons, so that link now has a more beneficial use. (We can add a hidden note or whatever to prevent the gallery from being extended too much.) Also, I think the list of notable wearers can be sorted into subsections for Nazis and Soviets, then everyone else. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galleries 

message: The phrase "the style" appears 21 times in the article. Often when you see this kind of phrase repetition it is due to information that is not necessary. See also Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. I'm going to try and remove some. -- GreenC 16:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The style" 

message: re: diff I tend to agree with the IP this section could be misinterpreted ie. why highlight a Jewish association with a Hitler association? Sure it's surprising and unusual but it could also be seen as possibly antisemetic. It's not worth the controversy IMO. Why pick Israeli's and not people from India. -- GreenC 01:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The names could be moved into the prose or list of "other notable wearers". In this case, the gallery should be removed entirely as there's no reason to have one just for satire and protest. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the previous version until the conversation is done taking place. Another solution is adding to the gallery rather than subtracting. There are plenty of other examples of notable individuals or interesting variations that would be worth highlighting. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO the gallery is not needed, we have example pics in the article, and there is a list of pics at the end. Slicing by theme is also better done at the end list IMO. Because it's either all gallery or none, otherwise the reader will wonder why special treatment for certain themes. -- GreenC 20:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought I agree there's no reason to include a gallery here. The Commons page is pretty well organized and the reader can go there if they want to see the full array of images. I will go ahead and delete for now.  did you have any specific thoughts on this or did you just revert the IP based on unclear/poorly explained reasoning? UpdateNerd (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the poor reasoning. Whole thing should go; we have enough examples. Thanks for asking. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish gallery 

message: @GreenC I did not join Wikipedia to argue whether Levi Eshkol has a toothbrush mustahche or not, darn it! All I thought is that it makes for an interesting illustration. Implying that you need a source on whether or not someone has a kind of mustache is a slippery slope towards so much more ridiculous potential arguments that I have to grab my chair in order to not fall under the weight of my own imagination. I'm pretty sure there is a clause on here such as WP:USEYOUREYES or something similar.
And I will not argue whether the authors of jewornotjew.com are Jewish either. Feel free to instead recycle the time you had allocated to a prospective argument for your own research on the question. Synotia (moan) 15:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you are upset ("darn it!"), I am not here to upset you. I've never seen the essay "WP:USEYOUREYES or something similar." It actually doesn't look like a toothbrush to me it fades a lot on the edges thicker in the middle. Given the sensitivity of this moustache and Jews it's more than just "interesting" it's potentially insulting so you need to get some good sources so as to not appear to be agitating. Jews can be racists also, and a website that calls people out based on their perceived racial looks if that's not racist what is, anyway it's unreliable.     -- GreenC 15:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eshkol 

message: The post-WWII section is starting to take on the appearance of an "In popular culture" section with every mention of the tootbrush where someone (almost)famous wore it. For example the recent entry about a WWF wrestler. People are going to wear this thing to garner attention, or simply because they are acting badly, but is it always notable or influential? That's the key difference, was it influential in culture because of how important the topic is (The Beatles) or controversy it created.  There has to be some underlying justification why we are shining light on it here. I don't want to see this article tagged as some kind of crypto-Nazi propaganda piece, like look at all these people who wear Hitler's stash who think it's cool. We need to be careful with the subject matter. -- GreenC 00:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nash example is only included as support of the moustache's continued association with Hitler. There's little reason that could in good faith be interpreted as pro-Nazi. Additionally, there are countless Hitler portrayals from more recent years that include the moustache (but not uniquely); those aren't listed here. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'll refactor. Basically post-WWII section is pretty wordy with examples and little analysis. Thus the feel of a list of popular culture examples. The question is, why are we including these examples, when does it end? Eventually someone will come along and want to delete the entire thing. So you have to be careful about listing something merely because it exists. There needs to be an understanding why it is important to note. For example the paragraph on bands could start off.. "Popular music, particularly in the 1960s, saw a renaissance of the style with bands like the Beatles, The Who, .." and somehow if possible tie that to a larger theme of Nazi symbolism which was more common at that time (eg. biker gangs, etc..). I bet there are academic books/papers on Nazi symbolism in relation to the youth revolution of the 60s. I recall Nazi symbolism being less serious back then, more like a symbol of resistance and rebellion to the status quo like giving a finger to the man, not so much supporting fascism per se. Thus the moustache had cultural influence that way.  -- GreenC 15:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, need to keep this article scholarly (even though it involves the strange adjacency of both comedy and fascism). It would of course make sense to provide an introductory line of prose before just listing examples. At one point I think that paragraph only mentioned the Sparks example and John Lennon's reaction. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I'm going to try and reduce the number 'style'. It is used about 45 times. This sort of repetition of article subject-matter is a common problem on Wikipedia, more often with 'film' and 'game', see this diff. The fundamental problem is writers forget their audience, who already know they are reading an article about a moustache style, it becomes overkill making it hard (repetitive) to read. -- GreenC 20:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  'style' 

message: Yeah there's a relatively small number of people related to The Beatles who are very specific about this usage of "the" being lower case, they even managed to get an RfC passed and it was bloody, people left Wikipedia over it, so I can't fight that but in practice it's definitionally a minority usage on Wikipedia and honestly it makes no sense, it looks terrible and illogical and inconsistent with how we do everything else. All this stuff is guidelines anyway your not required to do it. -- GreenC 14:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what lower case t in the Beatles has to do with a toothbrush moustache. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was addressing the recent edits by a different editor. -- GreenC 19:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I always use The New York Times. But that's quite different to The Who and the Beatles. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There's rarely any reason to display TNYT any differently as it's an italicized title. But the articles related to the Who all seem to prefer lowercase (e.g. Who's Next) so I don't see why a non-rock-music article is the place to make the case for doing anything different. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The" 

message: I sometimes wonder what this article is fundamentally concerning eg. If one were to write an academic paper on the TM, what kind of scholar and discipline would be interested in the topic. It reminds me of another article I worked on years ago, Bloke. It was a dab page for years, and I had to initiate an RfC to get a full article, there was a lot of resistance. People argued there was nothing to say about the word, it was only a dictionary definition, and examples of use. I searched and searched for commentary about "Bloke", and could only find examples of use. There was no material to write an article with. Finally, I found an academic book that discussed the concept of bloke. It was by an Australian professor who works in gender issues. Of course! That is the fundamental issue of bloke. So I suspect that is also the issue with this article. Like Bloke, it's a male thing, a sort of fashion, that has had historical meaning, consequences, influences, etc.. as a club for "bad boys", men only, since obviously women don't "sport" mustaches. This "bad boys club" gender thing is an aspect our article currently demonstrates, but is not aware of. Until we have sources for it. Surely there must be something written about it somewhere. -- GreenC 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See also mullet, etc., etc.? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  TM as a gender issue