Talk:Toothbrush moustache

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

Hitler's mustache[edit]

This could be fake beacause everyone can edit.

Who was first wearing this type of moustache? I always thought Chaplin used this style to ridicule Hitler not the other way round. See "This moustache is most famous for having been worn by film star Charlie Chaplin and later by dictator Adolf Hitler." It would be nice to see some facts :-)

  • Chaplin was wearing his moustache in character on film as far back as 1914, long before Hitler became a public figure. I also rather doubt that Hitler chose his mustache after Chaplin. It is true that Chaplin used the similarity to great effect in The Great Dictator.--Pharos 09:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hitler did choose his mustache after Chaplin; on a TV show featuring several well-known comedians (dead and alive) they said Hitler was a fan of Chaplin and deliberately shaved his mustache in the ame way. Jerkov 20:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also read that Hitler deliberately modelled his moustache after Chaplin's. Can't recall exactly where I read this, but it was likely a primary source such as one of Albert Speer's books. In any case, Hitler was known to have been a fan of Chaplin—he had a print of The Great Dictator (which was otherwise banned in Axis territories) sent to him for his own private viewing. It's recorded that he saw the film twice. —Psychonaut 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HItler's fascination with "The Little Tramp" during his days in Vienna, to the point of copying the moustache and trenchcoat, etc, is talked about in William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Rifter0x0000 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very likely that Hitler modelled his mustache after Gottfried Feder. --84.149.249.32 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources that say this, or that clearly establish that Feder adopted the style before Hitler did? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been under the impression that the style was not unusual in the 1920s and 1930s. In photos from the late 1920s and early 1930s, I've seen quite a few moustaches that look like less-bushy versions (i.e. narrow but not as dense); the version made famous by Adolf Hitler, Charlie Chaplin, and Oliver Hardy is denser/bushier than most. Brianlucas 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reported in The Telegraph and UKTV History that Hitler wore a fuller moustache prior to 1915, and had to trim the ends off so it would fit under the gas masks worn by troops in the First World War. Apparently he left the bushier bit in the middle intact. Brianlucas 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis M Giangreco, a noted military historian at the United States Army's Command and General Staff College says (in reaction to that Telegraph item):[1]
I have no doubt that this tale will gain currency simply by being repeated a lot, but moderately trimmed mustaches extending fully across the upper lips did not impede the wearing of WWI gas masks ... The shape of the fuzz on Hitler’s face is simply his personal fashion statement.
Read the whole thing for more detail. Cheers, CWC 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a couple places that the mustache was pretty popular in germany at the time before world war 2, it became popular amongst the working class because all the upper class had extravagant mustaches, and they were like, 'hey fuck you guys and your crazy mustaches, we dont need that'..... not sure if it's really true, too lazy to look for source 155.92.100.40 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the article - "The moustache became popular during the 1920s as a response by working-class men to the flamboyant, flowing Kaiser-style moustaches of the upper classes." -- Bobyllib (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the questions above, there is speculation, but not a lot of evidence. We can say safely Chaplin began wearing it sometime after 1915, based on photographic evidence. There is disagreement on when or why Hitler began wearing it, with multiple conflicting POV's including from primary source (people who knew him at the time) and secondary source (later historians). The Chaplin influence is speculative, no documentary evidence. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gillette[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unfortunately I am unable to find reliable sourcing to confirm that the safety razor led to the popularity of the toothbrush. It may be conventional wisdom as seen in the user comment of this source[2] (search on "safety") but it's not a reliable source ("he told me so it must be true"). There are also stories that the style became popular during WWI, to make it easier to wear gas masks. These stories sound good, and good sounding stories tend to become received wisdom - until someone researches and debunks it. What we need is a cultural historian publishing in a reliable source before we can say anything about it along these lines. Also, there may be antecedents of the style with Frederick I of Prussia but did they call it a toothbrush or even give it a name? Surely human beings have worn this style as long as razors existed ie. at least 5,000 years. This article is really about the modern phenomenon. But if there are sources for earlier instances they can be included as part of the history. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural implications[edit]

It would be interesting to know - although it is a probably unknowable now - what a toothbrush moustache meant at the end of the nineteen century, and in the early part of the twentieth century. How common was it? What did it say about the person wearing the moustache? Why did Chaplin and Hitler choose to wear such moustaches? Were they common amongst poor people, were they a sign of self-discipline, was there a military regulation that favoured them over other moustache styles? From what I have read Hitler was ridiculed in Britain for his moustache, so it was presumably a Central European rather than British style. Time magazine mentions Gottfried Feder's moustache in [this article] from 1941, so presumably by that time the style was notorious in the US as well. Has anybody written on this kind of topic, that we could reference? -Ashley Pomeroy 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the moustache meant anything. It was probably just a random trend because a lot of people seemed to of had them in the early twentieth century. Chaplin just chose a random moustache style with his clothes when he went into films in 1914 and Hitler adopted the moustache because people told him he looked like Chaplin. I know Hitler thought Chaplin was Jewish and didn't really like him (although he thought The Great Dictator was pretty funny), but he thought the moustache would endear him to people. The British probably ridiculed Hitler for his moustache because they needed to make fun of Hitler somehow.

Before his rise to power Hitler was ordered to trim his mustache in order for gas mask issued to the German soldiers would fit properly.

Removed some[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What about Mugabe?[edit]

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)[reply]

It seems perhaps a little too narrow. BodvarBjarki (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Herring[edit]

Is Richard Herring and his "Hitler Moustache" routine worth including in this article? It's relevant, and [3][4][5] sourceable -- Bobyllib (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so, just add it and see if anybody objects.82.17.231.193 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Seriously??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqQzKzx-nDY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Morales? moustache?[edit]

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)[reply]

checkY Done. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Rally to Restore Sanity Photo 2010 Shankbone.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Rally to Restore Sanity Photo 2010 Shankbone.jpg, 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)[reply]

Michael Jordan's toothbrush[edit]

I'm no expert on Michael Jordan, but of the few pictures of him sporting a toothbrush on Google Images, it's not clear that 1. it's real and not photoshopped or 2. a temporary look for a commercial or movie role or 3. a temporary joke. If someone can confirm that he actually wore this style, seriously, in his every day life, for a period of time, we can add it back. I'm sure there is an ESPN article about it or something. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK a Google search confirms he wore the moustache during a Haines fruit of the loom commercial in 2010, which is where those pictures on Google are from, and was seen with it at a press conference around the same time in 2010. It appears to be a short term style of a month or two. Is a month or two notable? Probably. I'll add it back with a description.
Funny enough, Michael Jordan is mentioned in the main source of our article, Rich Cohen's "Becoming Adolf", where he says:
"..The moment he appeared in the press with the Toothbrush mustache is like the moment Michael Jordan appeared on the basketball court in Bermuda-length shorts"
Maybe Michael read Cohen's article and got the idea to start a new trend. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for this is comedy central's tumblr page. Can someone put a better link in 4 August 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.240.53.52 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p74Ux6IJV6I[reply]

Yes, now cites Yahoo! Sports. And I fixed the other dead link. thanks. -- GreenC 00:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People with toothbrush mousatche[edit]

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)[reply]

'Hitler smiley' image[edit]

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[6], 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)[reply]

Pop culture[edit]

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:

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed template removal[edit]

As this edit could spark controversy, I wanted to run it through the talk page first. I wish to propose removal of the {{Adolf Hitler}} template from the bottom of this article. This template produces the slate gray colored box of links directly associated with Adolf Hitler, for which the toothbrush mustache does not appear therein. Thus, the reason for removal being that this article is about human hair, and not about Adolf Hitler himself.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be included in the Hitler nav box? Reading this article, Hitler basically pwned the style effectively making it socially verboten to wear to this day. -- GreenC 14:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a conversation for the template's talk page, but I'm not opposed to removing the template per nom. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a right place, if it gets added to the template then the template gets added here (presumably) which circles back around to this page. One could notify about the discussion here, or there. I also don't really care about it. I think DeNoel should have just BOLD removed it without comment but rather made it into a 'proposal' that would "spark controversy" which makes it more important and and discussion-worth then needs be. Nav templates come and go who cares. -- GreenC 18:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are three "Civilian residences" in Template:Adolf Hitler already which are "not about Adolf Hitler himself". So there might be the reverse argument for adding this article to the template under "Personal life"? But no strong view either way. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To which civilian residences do you refer to? I just looked at those listed in the nav box, and each article seems to make a point about referencing Adolf Hitler. You make a valid point, but I'm not interested in the {{Adolf Hitler}} nav box itself, just the seemingly incorrect application of the template.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It fact, there are four, including the third largest city in Austria. And they all mention AH, of course. As does this article, of course. If this article was added to the template, then the template wouldn't be "seemingly incorrectly applied"! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC) p.s. a GoogleSearch on "Hitler moustache" produces (for me, anyway) this article as the top hit.[reply]
"If this article was added to the template, then the template wouldn't be 'seemingly incorrectly applied'"
Agreed. If someone wants to make the necessary changes to the template and then re-add the template to this article, they are welcome to do so. Perhaps 'Style' or similar phrasing would be one of the subjects added to the template for which Toothbrush moustache would be added. Deutscher Gruß, would be another example that could be added to 'Style' in the template.
As UpdateNerd pointed out, that would be a discussion for the template's own talk page.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Albert. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Completely not the responses I had expected. I had intended to leave the discussion open significantly longer, expecting responses that I disagreed with but agreed with the sentiment. Very well. I'll make the change, and if someone has an issue, I'll direct them to continue the conversation here.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 March 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW applies. No such user (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toothbrush moustache → Hitler Moustache – Because Hitler mustache is far more well known. Google has 6,000,000 results for Hitler mustache and a mer 3.8 million for toothbrush mustache. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as non-neutral, somewhat counter-factual, and overly capitalized: The proposed title would imply a direct connection between the use of this moustache style and one of the most notorious figures of world history, whereas many people who have used this moustache style (before, during and since his lifetime) have had no association with Hitler or have been actively opposed to him and what he represents (such as Chaplin). The proposed title would be derogatory to the reputation of the style. The proposed capitalization would also imply that the term is a proper name, which it is not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Hitler moustache per WP:COMMONNAME. Clearly the most common name based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's not per ngrams above—blindlynx 20:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Hitler is non-neutral usage usually meant to humiliate the wearer. Some examples from sources:
  • "Heidegger, with his unfashionable Hitler moustache"
  • "Santoshbhai, an old-timer with a Hitler moustache and six strands of hair glued across his bald pate"
  • "He wore a Hitler moustache plastered to his upper lip.. But he was no Hitler, instead more a Charlie Chaplin; a pathetic.."
  • "positioning the headline 'Person of the Year' in a panel that mimics Adolf Hitler's moustache over Putin's upper lip."
Toothbrush is the original name (I think), has more usage, is neutral. -- GreenC 00:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Depiction of a toothbrush[edit]

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)[reply]

Good point! UpdateNerd (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The template is {{Commons}} and an example is Category:Toothbrush moustaches which would be {{Commons|Category:Toothbrush_moustaches}} 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"The style"[edit]

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)[reply]

Jewish gallery[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. @Jpgordon: 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)[reply]
Just the poor reasoning. Whole thing should go; we have enough examples. Thanks for asking. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eshkol[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We don't need many images to illustrate the moustache. This makes for a crowded display, especially on larger monitors.

Eshkol certainly had a toothbrush, as is clear from the better image linked to in the article. But we've already decided there's no special reason to highlight the Israeli wearers (with a gallery). UpdateNerd (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

'style'[edit]

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)[reply]

"The"[edit]

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)[reply]

Not sure what lower case t in the Beatles has to do with a toothbrush moustache. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing the recent edits by a different editor. -- GreenC 19:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

TM as a gender issue[edit]

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)[reply]

See also mullet, etc., etc.? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toothbrush_moustache&oldid=1217893713"