Talk:Cosmetology

Why was Lasholgist removed?

I'm an avid reader of wikipedia, so finally tried my hand at editing, adding a short paragraph for Lashologist and I think a link to the Lashologist Council of America. Why was it removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcalvin001 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Because that's shameless self-promotion. Your so-called "Lashologist Council" is not recognised by any cosmetology bodies and is basically a totally amateur money-making scam with a half-hearted pretense at being some sort of an industry regulatory body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.129.114 (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Becoming a cosmetologist

Being a former beauty school student, I took the liberty of adding some "common knowledge" info about beauty school. If anyone wants to claim "original research" or demands citations, I will be happy to look for them, so just let me know. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations and proper references are always welcome, if for no other reason than they give readers other sources once they've finished the Wiki article. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OSHA

"All workers have a right to a safe workplace. To ensure worker safety The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) was passed in 1970. This law was developed in order to prevent workers from being seriously injured or killed at work. The Act requires employers to supply their workers with a hazard-free workplace. OSHA willingly provides information, training and assistance to workers and employers in order to prevent workers from harm on the job. If a worker feels that their employer is not following OSHA standards, or that there are serious hazards in their workplace, they may file a complaint to OSHA to complete an inspection."

This paragraph might be interesting in an article on worker safety or OSHA itself, but is irrelevant to cosmetology, or perhaps should be included in every single article about every single profession. The paragraphs that follow relate to the business itself and are fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.165.246.6 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Several comments

In many respects, the article is plagued by sloppiness and overly eager generalizations. Comments:

• I have (for the second time) removed statements that enumerate licensing and continuing education regulations (apparently applicable to the writer's state) as if they were nationwide. This time, I've incorporated text taken directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (see [1]), which was already cited here. I believe that as a government document, that webpage is not subject to copyright restrictions.
• The statement that "the primary difference" between barbers and cosmetologists "is use of fingers on one hand to hold and stabilze the hair" was nonsense.
• The reference cited doesn't support the statement that "the median income for a hairdresser is $26,000;" I've removed the statement.
• Barber make more money than Bill Gates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.37.98 (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• The sentence, "Today, the traditional barber is being replaced by well educated beauty professionals in some areas," seemed to me unnecessarily derogatory of barbers, who are in many states as rigorously trained as cosmetologists.
• The paragraph enumerating the differences between cosmetology and "beauty therapy" lists as belonging to "beauty therapy" many services that are in fact performed by cosmetologists, and there is no state -- as far as I know -- which licenses "beauty therapists" as distinct from "cosmetologists." Beauty therapy seems to be a term used mainly in the U.K. In general, the list of services offered by either cosmetologists or beauty therapists is redundant, having been covered in the section above about different disciplines within cosmetology.
• I've let the information about ITEC, CIBTAC, and CIDESCO stand (in a different form), although I'm unsure of the legal requirements in other countries.
• I've removed the information about income from "Becoming a cosmetologist" and placed it in a separate section. WilliamBarrett 15:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

more info

(Original comment from the village pump) For your cosmetology section of the Encyclopedia portion will you add more information about it. Like nature of the work, working conditions,and qualifications. Thanks.

Firstly, there is no "Encyclopedia portion", this is an encyclopedia. Secondly, every article in this encyclopedia can be expanded by anyone, including you - so someone who knows about it is very likely to add further information at some point in the future. - IMSoP 17:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The comment about booth rental being illegal in many states is vaguely worded and unsupported. I'm currently researching booth rental in hair salons, and I purposely look for restrictions on the practice. There are additional licenses needed in many states, but it is only prohibited in New Jersey and in Pennsylvania at present. I will offer citations the next time I discuss this; the laws are available online. --GiantLizard2008 (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

cosmetology is not a bad thing 2 do in a job career bcuz alot of people get money doin hair so what do u think about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.171.2 (talk • contribs)

I think your opening discussion of cosmetology is rude. These people are specialized, and the great ones are highly educated most of them with at least one college degree, not that a degree means anything.

cosmetolgy

— Italic textA Cosmetolgy is a person who helps people with there apperance.Anopther word for a cosmetologist is beautision.A beauttision is a person that does hair,nails and facail appearances.If you want to be a cosmetologist,you would have to go to school so you can get your license for it.

I am glad the person who wrote the article in the cosmetology section knows how to spell yah you need to go to s-c-h-o-o-l SCHOOL not suchool

Im confused, where'd the definition go?

-

Cosmetology is a somewhat pretentious 'non-word' invented to, supposedly, refer to the treatment of skin, hair and nails... This statement is erroneous. The Random House Unabridged Dictionary states that the word cosmetology has its origins in the middle of the 19th century and comes from the Greek kosmeto(s) appended with the suffix -logy. (See [2] for reference.) Given that the word cosmetology is also listed in Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and Princeton University's WordNet, I would hardly call cosmetology a non-word. I would also say, since the word is the standard descriptor for the profession and is contained within the title of that industry's accrediting commission (The National Accrediting Commission of Cosmetology Arts and Sciences; see [3]), that it is inaccurate to call it a pretentious term.

Thraxamer 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What to do to improve this article

Editors of this article will be interested in the pattern of hits to this article. They are unique among the articles I've checked, and highly suggestive.[4] On weekends, the hits drop to about half. As a webmaster, this is a clear indication to me that many readers come to this article with practical, job related interests.

Of course Wikipedia cannot be promotional, and cannot be "how to". That being said, there should be some extra sensitivity in this article to the needs of the readers.

A good place to start is following up on the two tag recommendations to improve references and to give a wider perspective -- certainly extending to English-speaking countries (other countries have their own Wikipedias).

Schools seem to get enraptured with WP:PEACOCK language -- it's never going to be more inappropriate than in this sort of article, where it's crucial readers get a workable understanding of the field. So...this existing sentence is poor...

"Students may choose a private beauty school or one of the many vocational schools which offer cosmetology courses to high school students."

It's not only verbose, but it has (I believe?) factual misinformation. The essence of the sentence is that there are private and vocational schools. That's it. There is no other essential content to the sentence. Leave out the flowery language, tell readers what they need to know:

"There are public and private beauty schools."

Notice this also makes the article more "international" ... e.g., it avoids mentioning "high school" ... which means little or nothing to people in England, India and the Philippines. When you keep the language trim, you can give the reader more before their attention drifts.

I'm not an expert in this area, but write me on my talk page if you need editorial assistance.

Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay well the reversion needs a lot of improvements to make it high quality enough for the article. Rapido (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and in the process we might consider the reading audience and the possible scope of references, in context. The typical reference, the typical reader, isn't making a pretense of being a Nobel candidate. Hopefully Wiki can meet its core values, and still address their needs. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was talking more in the sense of formatting, wikilinks, sources etc. Rapido (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. It would be helpful if someone with a masterful command of the subject identified which what type of material is worth "saving": i.e., worth investing our editing energy. Example, I'd tackle the German university material just added -- with the German style quotes, if I thought the material was going to be there in two weeks. Lol. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I took out one paragraph of it, maybe that will help? :) There's certainly bona-fide material there, a uni-level degree is notable. It's a matter of condensing it a bit so it doesn't read too much like a brochure. Oh yeah, sourcing would be good. Franamax (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All I can find for UOsnabruck is this course description (translate} and this department overview (translate}. I haven't compared them enough to the edits to be sure what's sourcable. Also, could we drop the last two paragraphs from "Becoming a cosmetologist"? They seem unduly country-specific. Franamax (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Para dropping. Yes, I had that same urge on those paras. Instead, though, I wrote to WikiProject Fashion, asking if someone would take responsibility for supplying an "ideal" structure for the article to work to. For the sake of the many readers who apparently come here looking for job-related information, it would be nice ... useful ... whatever ... if, for example the article included some mention of the "Oxford, Harvard and MIT schools of cosmetology". Or maybe that doesn't make sense, and there are no such things. (And if *that's* the case, then the article should make that fact clear, instead -- that cosmetology schools don't have internationally recognized standards?)

One of the things that was nice about being the webmaster for major knowledgebases was that it was possible to ask readers for feedback. (If an article was really deficient, readers would volunteer without prompting!) Is that legitimate in Wiki? Can we add an article banner or tag asking readers to comment on the talk page? At least for a few weeks until we get an idea of what reader needs are? Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific template for what you're thinking of, looking through WP:Template messages, beyond what's already on the article. You could start a WP:RFC but there's no particular issue to "comment" on. I think asking for help at a Wikiproject is a good first step. This article may get lots of readers but very few writers, generally pushing an agenda for their own beauty school. That's really all I watch this page for, I don't have enough hair to cosmetologize. :)

Cosmetology does appear to be a country-by-country thing although I'm sure there must be some prestigious schools. I take your point that if readers are coming here for employment information we don't want to excise the bits that would be helpful. Unfortunately I'm not long on ideas here, I'd say just do what you think is right and I'll try to follow along. :) Franamax (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Wood is listed as a famous cometologist, which is true. Ashley Wood is a qualified male therapist from Northern Ireland and is an extremely good one, in that he has not only worked for some extremely famous companies but he is often called upon by various celebrities to carry out beauty work for them. His website is www.ashleywoodbeautytherapy.vpweb.co.uk

The problem on this page is that when one clicks on "Ashley Wood", they are redirected to the wikipedia page of another famous Ashley Wood, an artist, not a cosmetologist.

Can this be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.207 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, all we can do is remove the name from this article. I couldn't find Ashley Wood in a Google search and the website link you give doesn't seem to work. Normally we need either a Wikipedia article about the person, or a very good external source to prove notability. I've removed both Wood and Benjamin Barker from the section until such time as they have sufficient notability. Thanks for the heads up and sorry I couldn't do more. Franamax (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

82.132.136.207, unlike some publications, notablity in Wikipedia is not inherited. I.e., one isn't Wiki-notable simply because one works with someone famous, is married to someone famous, etc. To Wiki, a famous cosmetologist would be someone, for example, someone who developed a new technique 50 years ago that's still used today, who created new technology, who wrote the standard text used in schools ... that sort of thing. Things that explain how we got to where we are today. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, the website was www.ashleywoodbeauty.vpweb.co.uk His latest appearance was for a private celebrity workshop in Belfast to teach skincare and makeup application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.204 (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC) --119.94.73.244 (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)--119.94.73.244 (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Would adding a link or section about the approximate number of training or clock hours required per state for licensure improve this page?Erica Leigh Penoyer Lange (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the source needs to be good. www.beautyschoolsdirectory.com doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It's also important to try and make the article International. Cosmetology isn't limited to the United States, so including other licensing and regulation in other countries would be best, if possible sources can be found. If that's not practical, content should at least not assume that the reader is from the U.S. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

IP comment refactored by Franamax

I noticed that some of the 'esthetician' section is word-for-word the same as about.com - See http://acne.about.com/od/diagnosisofacne/f/whatisesthetics.htm Their page - "Estheticians, also called skin care therapists, work at salons, day spas, and medi-spas. " Your page - "Estheticians, also called skin care therapists, work at salons, day spas, and medi-spas."

Their page - "Estheticians are not medical doctors so they can't diagnose skin conditions, prescribe medications, or suggest treatment for any skin condition outside of cosmetic products. They can however, perform treatment complementary to a doctor's treatment. Some estheticians may work closely with dermatologists, either in-office or through a referral system."

Your page - " Estheticians are not medical doctors and therefore can't diagnose skin conditions, prescribe medications, or suggest treatment for any skin condition outside of cosmetic products. They can, however, perform treatment complementary to a doctor's treatment. Some estheticians may work closely with dermatologists, either in-office or through a referral system."

Looks like someone's plagiarizing someone else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.180.121 (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The text in question was inserted in one whole body [5] by a new editor who has not returned since. This is indicative of someone trying to help but unfamiliar with our policies on copyright and attribution. I've removed the text [6] and since the existing text already does a fair enough job describing an esthetician I'll not try to rewrite the part I removed. Thanks for the tip! Franamax (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this page a joke?

"Nailtekmedic"? "Massagecaregiving"? Really? --Varavour (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Noella Papagno shamelessly self-advertising

This article has serious issues, part of it needs to be deleted, because a bunch of sections are about invented professions invented by this woman, which you can learn only by buying her book, the link for which is conveniently linked in text. Normally if the information is not available on the internet you just quote the information about the book, you don't link to a specific shop where you can buy it. 131.175.28.130 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason why this book can only be bought at one website, company is because that woman copyrighted the material. No I don't know why are you slandered the woman when she created it and she created an industry with that one book 108.147.177.88 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosmetology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122132422/http://www.orosha.org/pdf/Final_Hair_Smoothing_Report.pdf to http://www.orosha.org/pdf/Final_Hair_Smoothing_Report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)