This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
business 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Woodworking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WoodworkingWikipedia:WikiProject WoodworkingTemplate:WikiProject WoodworkingWoodworking articles
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
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a
stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
I second not adding it. Per the woman herself, she has been
very vocalthat 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply