Talk:Dreadlocks/Archive 2

Can some information be added on how dreadlocks are maintained/cleaned (or are they?)

Question about possible racial motives
Why can't a white guy be on the page? &mdash; Chameleon 21:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That's just a ranting from earlier; it's not really applicable to the picture that was just removed. The reason the picture was removed was because it was unecessary, and poorly placed, crappy picture.--The Grza 21:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh? How is it unnecessary?  If anything, the black guy's pic is unnecessary because the white guy's pic was there for months (since July 2004) until a vandal removed it without my noticing.  The black guy was a superfluous addition.  Crappy?  No, it's a good-quality pic.  Poorly placed?  What can that possibly mean?  That it belongs in another article?  That would be a bizarre thing to think.  That it belongs somewhere else in the article?  That can't be the case because you would have moved it instead of removing it.  You need to give some coherent reasons in order not to look like a racist.  &mdash; Chameleon 21:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

(Comments condensed and expanded(Yes that makes sense) from here)

Toward the picture itself, I must make several comments. First, it is a crappy picture. I'm not being racist in saying that, in fact you may look to the top of this page and my disagreement with the pointlessness of the argument. I have no problem with a picture of a white man on this page, it's the fact that the article itself doesn't necessitate two pictures, and the one with the black guy is better. The picture you have added is amaturish and poorly lit (I assume it was taken by you, as it was taken in your "flat", but it was certainly not taken by a professional.), while the one currently on the page is of much better quality. Wikipedia is not the place to celebrate your friends and their crappy hairstyles, it is an encyclopedia and should be treated as such. --TheGrza 07:28, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that once I pointed out that the "placement" and "superfluous" arguments were baseless, you've moved on to saying that the quality of the image is low and making personal insinuations. I'm glad at least you have written a bit more instead of just reverting.


 * Now, whether Gabriele has a cool hairstyle or not is not the point. This article is on dreadlocks so it going to have pics of people with dreadlocks, even though I wouldn't personally get some myself.  Also, attacking my photography skills is pointless.  The pic is not award-winning, but it is perfectly adequate for Wikipedia.  It is also better lit than the one of the black guy, which incidentally is probably a copyright violation.


 * I disagree that the article is not better with two pictures. Both black and white people commonly have dreadlocks, and it is cool to have a pic of each.  So, if you can find a good, non-copyvio pic of a black person, please add it to the article alongside the good, licensed pic that we have had for a long time without problems.  To return to your comment about placement, I should point out that a thumbnail in the top right corner is standard on Wikipedia so your claim is baseless.  Additionally, should you prefer another position for it (inline, centred, top right but under another image, etc...) then feel free to implement that.  It is not an excuse for removal.  &mdash; Chameleon 11:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The photo was missing, and I replaced it with a photo of a Rasta -- which, IMO, is imminently more appropriate than some vanity shot of a white guy with crappy dreads. Can white people get dreads? Yep -- but usually not unless they resort to rather extraordinary means (crochet hooks and wool and do -- according to the article). And they're not the same as the look achieved naturally with coarse, nappy hair. They don't look the same, don't feel the same. I'd no more have a photo of a white guy with dreads to illustrate the style than I would a white guy with frizzy hair illustrating Afro, or of a bleached Mary J. Blige or Lucy Liu illustrating an article on "blondes" or "red hair." The photo has been restored. To my knowledge, there has been absolutely no evidence presented that would lead one to suspect it is a copyright violation. deeceevoice 14:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks ("vanity") and constant racial references are not the way to go on Wikipedia.


 * Dreadlocks do not belong to a particular race. The article makes reference to dreadlocks amongst the very white Celts.  Also, your opinion on whether white people with dreads is natural or not is entirely irrelevant.  If you wish such a belief to be represented in the article, then find a notable person who has expressed it and quote them in the article.  You and I both no doubt find plenty of topics covered on Wikipedia to be unnatural, but that doesn't mean we get to censor them.  The fact is that whether it is a good thing or not, many white people have dreads.  In fact, the majority of dreadlocked people I have seen are white.  Therefore they will be represented on Wikipedia, as per policy.


 * The ideal situation is to have one example of a white person and one of a black person. This article has for a long time had a good pic of a white guy (until it was removed without comment by an anonymous racist vandal).  We are now just waiting for a pic of a black person.  When you find one, feel free to add it alongside the other picture.  I have no problem with you giving the pic of the black person precedence at the top of the article.  You just do not get the right to remove the original picture just because it goes against your prejudices (which is not an attack; we all have prejudices; the point is to rein them in on Wikipedia).


 * Incidentally, your analogy about what pic to use to illustrate the article on Blond is rather poor, since if you take a look at that article, it has for many months been illustrated by a picture of a bleached blonde. In addition of course, the analogy is poor because dreadlocks are grown intentionally no matter the race of the person, whereas a certain hair colour is something totally natural and unintentional that we all have until we resort to chemicals.


 * The rasta pic has been listed on Copyright problems and by policy you may not use it on any article until the matter is resolved. It will either be deleted, or full copyright information will be found, in which case you will be allowed to add it to the article alongside the picture illustrating dreads on white people.  Alternatively, you can find another appropriate picture.


 * On a general point, I'd like you to review Copyrights, Neutral point of view and WP:RV. &mdash; Chameleon 17:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Describing your actions on this article and that picture specifically as "Vanity" are by no means personal attacks; they're just descriptions of your actions. Screaming racism, especially when I have made it clear that the race of the person in question is not an issue here is what would be the dictionary definition of a personal attack. Secondly, I never changed my opinion of this picture. It was a bad picture from the start, and that isn't an attack on your skills as a photographer, it's an attack on the quality of the picture. It needs to be removed and your violation of the 3RR as well as the vain nature of this process is not welcome on this article. --The Grza 20:03, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't get to make personal attacks by arguing that they are accurate descriptions. Otherwise we could go around mentions people's "moronic behaviour" with impunity.  No, the mention of "vanity" is both a break of Wikiquette and an argumentum ad hominem as it has no bearing on the validity of the picture for us; instead it is used to poison the well by implying a bad-faith reason for edits.  The honest way to argue against an addition is to discuss its merits rather than questioning motives in a pointless and inaccurate way.  The allegation of vanity is particularly odd when we consider that the photo is not of me but just of someone I met.


 * The allegations of the picture being bad are not in line with reality, as the picture is perfectly fine. Try nominating it on Images and media for deletion as an unnecessary and low-quality image, and see what they tell you.  It is clear from the general tone of the comments above that the essential problem that Deeceevoice has with the picture is that it is of a white person.  This is unacceptable on Wikipedia.  A lot of white people have dreadlocks and it is good to illustrate this, whether or not white people should have dreadlocks and whther or not you think they look good.  The picture stays until a better-quality picture of a white person is found.  Additionally, it is currently the only properly-licensed image we have of dreadlocks, so it is doubly necessary for it to remain.


 * I have tried to avoid calling anyone a racist on this page, although consistent hostility to there being a white person in the article has been displayed. I have done my best to assume good faith and give people the opportunity to explain their opposition in sensible terms that don't include exclamations like "Jeeze! Why the photo of the white guy" (just try making similar comments but substituting the word "Jew" and you'll see how Wikipedia comes down on you like a ton of bricks).


 * Don't try to quote policy at me. I know it far better.  Please review WP:3RR.  It is factually false that I have violated the three-revert rule.  Please do not make false accusations.


 * In summary, there is plenty of space for two images in the article. It would be great to have one to illustrate rastas and one to illustrate the very common fashion for dreads in the mainly white countercultural movements etc.  We have a valid photo for the latter but not the former.  If anyone has a better photo for the former, please upload it.  If anyone has a properly licensed photo for the latter, please also upload it.  There is nothing left to discuss.  &mdash; Chameleon 21:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Boy. Some white folks just love to cry "racist" -- don't they? :p Chameleon, don't bullshyt me. Don't post a subhead like the one under which your posts have appeared and then pretend you've "tried to avoid calling anyone a racist on this page." Don't play the race card and then pretend you ain't in the game. Equating well-founded objections to posting a photo of some white guy with "dreads" to a policy of systemic racial segregation is offensive to those of us who have faced real the real thing -- not to mention an insult to our intelligence. I (or someone else) will find a copyright-free photo of a BLACK person with dreads that is suitable for the article. And when we do, we will post it. You're right on one point: there is nothing left to discuss. deeceevoice 22:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, not really. "Crying racist" (I would phrase it as "pointing out possible racism") is clearly done more frequently by black folk, and with just cause.  White folk rarely do.  So when one does, it is important not to discuss the "cry" out of hand.  I extend the same courtesy to you.  Please also note that the type of comment you have just made: "Some [black] folks just love to cry 'racist' -- don't they?" or "Some [Jews] just love to cry 'racist' -- don't they?" would generally be considered racist.  That's not an accusation, but an invitation for you to moderate your tone, and avoid using language that is likely to make people misjudge you.  Anyone reading this page is likely to dismiss you as a racist, when they should be dismissing your arguments as badly thought-out.


 * I am glad that you are looking for a suitable picture of a rasta or similar. As I have indicated, I think it would be a valuable and overdue addition to this page, and also the page on Rastafarianism.  Do not imply that in doing so you will have won a point; that would be a case of a straw man.  For that matter, attacking me for "crying racism" is also a clear case of a straw man argument, since all I did was argue against the logic of your avowedly racially-motivated deletions, rather than extrapolating from those deletions any further race-based ideology you may have.  I am specifically trying to avoid doing so in accordance with policy WP:FAITH.


 * Whilst touching upon the issue of logical fallacies, I might point out that your comment "Equating [...] is offensive" is an example of argument by appeal to emotion typical of offendocrats, as well as being a straw man. The comment on intelligence is a further Red herring thrown in.  One could even point out the ad hominem  implicit in the act of needlessly bringing my race into the debate.


 * I notice that you have continued to remove from the article the only picture we have. That is unacceptable, and you must not repeat that behaviour.  You must make a case based on Policy and not in emotive terms punctuated with non sequiturs.  &mdash; Chameleon 22:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)]


 * Thank you for pointing out the section title. It was meant to be light-hearted, and I wrote it before this debate started.  In accordance with your comment, I have renamed the poorly-named section.  I hope you prefer it like that.  You are right that the race card should not be played, but  you must be aware that I was simply asking about the possible race-based motivations for the removal, and my suspicions are becoming more substantiated with every edit.  You, on the other hand, blatantly  and apparently maliciously played the race card by needlessly mentioning the race of other editors and making insinuations based upon it, something which I have definitely not done, and would appreciate a retraction for.  Please also revise our policy on Wikiquette, and avoid using swearwords.  They, especially when combined with nonstandard English, only make people misjudge you as uncouth and unintelligent.   &mdash; Chameleon 23:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't presume to school me on what is racist and what is not. And don't you DARE lecture me on when I may and may not use AAVE because I might be judged "uncouth and unintelligent" -- lest you come off sounding like some high-handed, arrogant, ignorant, presumptuous crakkka supremacist. An' lawd knows you wouldn't wanna do dat! :p Besides, I hate to break it to you, but I long ago stopped giving a flying **** what white folks think of me. Furthermore, a who-ole lotta white folks love to scream "racist" when black folks raise the issue -- that "you're another one" syndrome. And, usually -- as in this case -- it's been my experience they haven't a clue what the hell they're talking about. deeceevoice 23:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hardly presumption. We are having a debate about the content of a Wikipedia article, and the meaning of racism is important here.  I am not concerned with schooling you as an individual (if you are ignorant you may choose to remain so if you prefer), but it is important to clarify the meaning of it within this debate.  You do indeed appear to be operating under the illusion that racism only means racism by whites against blacks, when in reality it is any sort of irrational racial prejudice.  You can operate under that misconception in your day-to-day life, but I'm afraid you cannot do so here if you wish to be taken seriously.  You might respond with a racist comment such as "I don't care if white people take me seriously", but the fact is that you need to be taken seriously if your proposal (to ban pictures of whites from this page) is to be adopted.


 * You may of course use what you call "AAVE" (in my opinion a high-falluting initialism designed to rationalise failures of education; I certainly wouldn't use such strategies to justify the highly non-standard vernacular speech of my birthplace and social class), but you cannot expect others to respect you if you deliberately "talk stupid". Will you next claim that typos and non sequiturs are part of your inalienable heritage?  I wouldn't advise it.  I'd also like to point out that what you think is black is not.  "Ain't", the word I was referring to, is a case in point.


 * What you call the '"you're another one" syndrome' is known to the rest of us as an incitement to adhere to Ethic of Reciprocity, or to avoid Hypocrisy, and is generally considered a good thing rather than a syndrome.


 * I'm sorry that the last three paragraphs dealt with you personally, but it was necessary to respond to your comments. I will happily return to the facts of the discussion about dreadlocks if you permit me.  I'd like to again take the opportunity to urge you to check your understanding of the relevant policies, especially those relating to civility.  &mdash; Chameleon 00:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow...that's obscene. You'd like to get back to the argument after castigating someone for something so significant as their manner of speech, all but calling them uneducated? That takes cajones. Oh, sorry...maybe I shouldn't speak mexican either.--The Grza 00:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

About "talking stupid" -- your ignorance (and racism?) is showing. Since you seem so inordinately fond of wiki links, here's one for you: AAVE. (What a jerk.) deeceevoice 01:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Puedes hablar el idioma que quieras, si es que realmente lo sabes hablar, con tal de que tengas en cuenta el hecho de excluir a algunos miembros del público que quieres alcanzar. De la misma forma, Deeceevoice puede escoger el registro lingüístico que quiera a condición de que se dé cuenta de las consecuencias.  Por cierto, quieres decir cojones, y no el lugar donde guardas los calcetines.


 * I don't believe you can quote me castigating him or her for anything but breach of policy and guidelines (in particular regarding swearing and personal attacks). I did however, on another level, advise against a) those things and b) other things such as incoherent arguments, personal attacks, racist language and sloppy English, as being things likely to get his or her arguments dismissed out of hand.  If he or she wishes to ignore this advice, that's fine, but it won't be my fault.


 * I'd like to point out that I did not force Deeceevoice to use any of those things I advised about, and I was largely responding to attacks upon me, which is necessary to avoid the straw man and similar rhetorical strategies from working (if one ignores them, people assume one was unable to reply).  I sincerely wish to return to the main issue now that I have covered all the points raised.  If either of you wishes to refuse to return to the main issue and continue to attack me for being white etc, then from a purely selfish perspective that is fine by me, since I "win" by default.  &mdash; Chameleon 01:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that you have made a further edit. I had already linked to that article (AAVE).  I'd also like to point out that you made two direct personal attacks on me: "racism" and "jerk".  I won't link to the relevant policies, but I urge you to read and absorb them nevertheless.  On a factual point, I'd like to point out the non sequitur in concluding racism from disdain for basilectal speech forms (double plural on "folk", use of expletives, misspellings, use of non-standard negation "ain't", etc) all of which have very little to do with the United States and/or black folk (two groups of people who have but adopted these features).  Indeed, linking basilectal forms to either Americans or blacks (something that you, not I, appear to do) would be a much clearer prima facie case of prejudice.  &mdash; Chameleon 01:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL. You a real trip, aincha, bwoi? Still tryin' to school me on racism, 'eh? I've forgotten more on that subject that you think you know. And let me draw your attention to the question mark after the parenthetical "racism" which you appear to have missed. Nonblacks who equate the speaking of SAE with intelligence and the speaking of AAVE with "talking stupid," are unpardonably ignorant and quite possibly/likely racist, to boot. And consequences? Me parece que no me has entendido. Wun mo' 'gin (otra vez): a mi no me importan ni un poquitín. Oh. And one more thing: this is not a competition for one to "win" or lose. Watch it. First your ignorance (and possibly racism). Now your ego is showing. :p deeceevoice 02:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that you restrict us to a false dilemma between "SAE" (which means "stamped, addressed envelope" where I'm from) and "AAVE" would suggest limited cultural experience, which might explain failure to understand the issues sketched out here. But I won't go further than that, because it is personal-attack territory, which, I might add, you have strayed further into, to greater detriment to you.  &mdash; Chameleon 02:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

What?!! Your understanding of what constitutes a "personal attack" appears to be about as limited as your understanding of racism. I'm bored with this. *yawn* *x* deeceevoice 03:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm just getting around to really reading much of this give and take, which I had merely skimmed before. I agree wholeheartedly with Grza's comments about the quality of the photo. Not only are, IMO, the guy's dreads nasty/tacky; the photo is, as well. It is, indeed, clearly amateurish; the flash lighting is terrible, which is precisely why I downsized the shot. It doesn't make the photo any better, but it makes its flaws less obvious. Of course, I expect that all will be remedied with a better photo by the by. :p deeceevoice 10:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I have already indicated I welcome the addition of an even better photo, as with any article.  &mdash; Chameleon 11:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I find Silversmith's edit to the page to be extremely suspiscious. Strangely, it was the same edit that you made to start this entire discussion, almost as if you were trying to make it appear as if there were several unconnected users who agreed with you, instead of it being your Fiancee whom you enlisted in the debate. Also, I note that you have just reverted my edits removing her addition of the picture. Maybe try some good faith edits sometime, it really makes the whole experience more fun.--The Grza 20:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I want to make it clear that I formed my own opinion, and my opinion is that there should be a picture of both a black person and a white person. In fact if one could be a female that would be even better.  We need to show the diferent possibilities and outcomes, not just what everyone has seen a thousand times before.  And I think the picture of the black man is terrible, please find a better one. I will try to as well. --Silversmith 23:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Any halfway decent photographer will tell you this photo is of not publication quality. The flash shadows are obvious and intrusive. This relatively short article stands quite well with just the one, quality photo -- a point which others weighed in on earlier when another individual kept inserting his photo (also of poor quality) on the page. The mediocrity/inferiority of the second photo alone is grounds enough for its removal. Reverted. deeceevoice 21:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, TheGrza, for obtaining permission to use the photo. It's a tremendous improvement to the page. :) I've also reinserted it in Rastafarianism.deeceevoice 21:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Drawing a line under the hot air (hmmm, that's a mixed metaphor and a half), it seems odd to claim that an article on dreadlocks – a hairstyle overwhelming worn by and associated with black people – should be illustrated by a picture of a white person It's as though Skirt were illustrated by a picture of Jean-Paul Gaultier; it's not that men don't sometimes wear skirts, it's that an illustration should point to the central, primary use, otherwise it's misleading. If the article were much longer, a photo of a dreadlocked white might be appropriate (though I'd have thought that it would come way down the list of priorities). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it would be fab if we had a pic of a Celtic person with dreadlocks as they have had them for centuries. oh well, not to be. I think as the article specifically deals with white people having dreads, it is appropriate to show the outcome. I think it is great for an encyclopedia to not just show the most common usage, as that is what most people see IRL, so why would they need a pic? An encyclopedia is meant to impart knowledge, not just reinforce what you already know.  What is also interesting about the pic of the white guy with dreads is that he is Italian. Never thought an Italian would have dreads.:s There is plenty of room for both, and the pic of the black man is far worse than the other in terms of quality &mdash; you can't even see all of his hair as it's cropped! Until better images become available, please stop the bickering and revert warring and keep both on the article. --Silversmith 22:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Mel, nobody is arguing that the only picture should be of a white person, so that is misleading comment. I am arguing that there is plenty of space for one of each, and there is.  The situation is not similar to the one on skirts, because skirts are overwhelmingly worn by females, whereas dreadlocks are worn by people of all races.  Most people I have seen with dreadlocks are white.  If you Google for dreadlocks, you see perhaps 3&#8260;4 white people.  The article points out that the groups such as the Celts wore dreads.  It's really not the exclusive property of black people, so there is no need to censor the white pic, which is I might add the only properly-licensed pic that we have for this article.  &mdash; Chameleon 23:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Call me picky, but when I've gone to the trouble to offer a reasoned argument for a position, someone making a revert shortly afterwards, without even an edit summary, much less a response to what I said, is considerably less than courteous, and is out of keeping with the Wikipedia spirit. I've removed the photo again. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Mel, assume good faith. I hadn't seen your comment.  &mdash; Chameleon 22:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Toward Silversmith's comment above the line, I find it pretty suspicious that someone who did not edit the page or become involved in this discussion until after their fiancee noticed he was the only one upholding his position to be questionable. I'm not calling sockpuppet, I was just making my suspicions known. Also, there is nothing wrong with the picture. It's a fine quality picture that details what some dreadlocks look like. If that's you're angle, I suggest you try another tact. I agree with Mel Etitis on the length problems with the article. A much longer article, much more in depth article would call for more pictures. This article is not the size or the depth to require more pictures for minor parts of the article. If you two want your friend to appear on Wikipedia so badly, perhaps suggest that he do something worthy of an article and quit shoehorning him in here.--The Grza 23:30, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem not worth dissecting. &mdash; Chameleon 23:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. The vanity is a little too bold faced to hide itself beneath anything.

Also, Chameleon, you most definitely made your argument for a white only picture when you completely removed the black guy with dreads here, and here, both times removing the main picture instead of adding your own.--The Grza 23:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you being disingenuous or actually failing to understand? &mdash; Chameleon 23:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the links speak too loudly? Instead of contacting the proprietor of teh website in order to find out whether or not the picture could be used, you determined that it couldn't. I contacted him and he responded quickly that he would love to have his picture on the site. You did not attach the copyvio tag when you first noticed the picture, you attached it after several people had reverted your attempts to exhibit your dear friend Gabriel. Stop the act.--The Grza 00:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * More personal attacks and insinuations, incorrect ones to boot. Please read the relevant policies.  Keep to the issues.  &mdash; Chameleon 00:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to your comments specifically. If you don't like responses to your comments, don't make them.--The Grza 01:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, when you made a false statement I asked whether you had misunderstood or were being disingenuous. &mdash; Chameleon 01:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Back again. It is not the only properly licensed picture and you know as much. Your crusade against this picture is nonsense and needs to stop immediately. See here.--The Grza 23:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto to Grza's comments about the manner in which the copyright matter was handled. The Rastaman stays. deeceevoice 02:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Picture Discussion, May 23rd to ...
White people have very different hair, and displaying a diversity of styles is exactly what the article should be doing. Both pictures are weird looking. Neither pic is much better or worse than the other, so thats no criteria. IMO this is simply a matter of ego's boiling over. Sam Spade 08:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw that SS had been appealed to (in his r&ocirc;le of defender of the white man against oppression), and it's in character that he should launch into an edit war without bothering to take proper part in the discussion. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well. These are the things that make Wikipedia so frustrating; one tries to make an article better only to be stifled by users with less courtesy, less community-mindedness and more time on their hands.--The Grza 09:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The comparison between a professional photograph and a picture taken by a guy in his apartment are significant, and there is a chasm between the two in terms of quality.--The Grza 09:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lets assume your correct, and the picture of the white guy is signifigantly inferior in quality... who cares? My point still stands, displaying a diversity of styles is a valuable service to the reader. And don't mess w my comments. Sam Spade 09:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed several inferior photos from other articles over time. Just removed one from Rastafarianism yesterday, as a matter of fact.  It was too small and looked strange with the other photos on the page.  So, I tried upsizing it -- but the resolution was so poor, the image was just a blur even slightly enlarged.  It wasn't critical to the article, and there are always other images.  So, I simply deleted it.  And as I stated earlier, yes.  The photo of the white guy is a bad one.  If you're taking snapshots and sharing them with friends, it's fine.  But my background is journalism and print media, and it very clearly is not publication quality.  Crappy shots are crappy shots.  And just like crappy writing, there's no place for mediocrity on Wikipedia.  deeceevoice 09:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mess with your comments, I moved them and put them into the continuing conversation on this page. You, however, actually deleted my comment. Maybe try to pay attention to your edits before removing other's comments. Also, Deeceevoice is again completely right. The problem with the crappy picture is not diversity (which really isn't needed on the page in the first place but that's neither here nor their) but it's a matter of a vanity photo of poor quality.--The Grza 10:06, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * "It's a fine quality picture that details what some dreadlocks look like. If that's you're angle, I suggest you try another tact." Is what you said to me. Well, right back at you. And by the way, it is just your POV that the pic of the black man and the white man are good/bad, as obviously others feel diferently. The reason I find this so pathetic, is because I believe even if I found an award winning pic of a white guy with dreads, you would still remove it from the article. So don't try to say it's anything to do with the quality of the pic, you just don't want anything but a black/rasta on the article as though they are the only ones with "true" dreads. The most NPOV way is to have more than one. And by the way, I don't see ANY of you who argued about inapropriate images for articles such as if "Skirt were illustrated by a picture of Jean-Paul Gaultier", removing the pic of Marilyn Monroe who is a natural brunette from the Blond article. But then, you were just saying anything to try and get your way weren't you. --Silversmith 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, don't come here and get straight into ad hominem. But if you insist on talking about motivations instead of the issues, I just wrote to Sam Spade because I thought it would be funny to ask one of my Wiki-enemies to help. A sort of statement against clique building. I should have considered the risks of people who hate both him and me piling in and reverting this article purely to annoy us. Really, Mel and Mrfixter, you don't have to be against everything I do just because you've got it into your heads I'm an anti-Semite. &mdash; Chameleon 10:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, what on Earth does anti-Semitism have to do with this?  SS  has made his PoV on the poor down-trodden whites plain and explicit, and appealing to him on this article was clearly making use of his views in order to help effect your own agenda here.  the claim that you did it for fun, or out of a noble desire to break down cliques, is disingenuous.  As for the remarks above, it's all too common a cheap rhetorical trick to accuse editors of inconsistency because they haven't made similar changes on articles they've probably never looked at (as I've never looked at blond). Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, I wasn't just talking to you. The Blond artilce image has been pointed out on this talk page, and it hasn't been changed by anyone reading over the discussion who feels such things are inapropriate, yet they will argue for days over the image on this page. --Silversmith 11:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, maybe it's nothing to do with a vendetta against me (the anti-Semitism thing) but just your vendetta against Sam Spade. Your accusations are wrong and unfounded, by the way.  &mdash; Chameleon 11:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon's suggestion that it's "anti-anti-semitism" and the description of my irresistable urge to hate white people are two more examples of how far out of whack you two are. I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever said anywhere that my problem with the picture is the race of the person in the picture. Never said it, never insinuated it, never intimated to others in private conversations. I don't have a problem with the race of the subject, I have a big problem with three things here. First, and I'll say it again, it's a crappy picture, it's a terrible, awful, bad, painful photograph. I cannot make my reasoning any clearer, but I have the feeling I will have to say it again. Secondly, the suspicious nature of the photograph and it's connection to the vehement nature of Chameleon and Silversmith's arguments here; it is a picture of their friend, taken in your apartment, not some award winning photograph. Third, the nature of this discussion and the way it has been handled by Chameleon, Silversmith and Sam Spade. It's not race, even though you continue to try to make that the issue (it's like an obsession with you people, ignore the arguments presented and call "whitey-bashing"). It's about quality, it's about community and it's about respect. --The Grza 11:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are saying that because you are unaware of the problems I have had with Mel lying about me in the past; but in any case, I have withdrawn the suggestion that he is motivated by that. I also have not said that you want to exclude a white person from the page; it's deeceevoice who wants to do that.  Silversmith must have been referring to deeceevoice there.  You should tone down your silly comments about the "suspicious" and "vehement nature" of things.  You should also work on your ability to separate arguments made against your points and arguments made against deeceevoice's.  &mdash; Chameleon 11:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being dense, but when a comment starts with a direct quote from me on a user's talk page and continues on listing several things completely unattributable to me and seemingly addressing me at the same time, I think you could see where confusion can set in. Also, as you can see I did separate the arguments into a first, second and third section, because there seemed to be some confusion about my position, confusion that apparently continues.--The Grza 11:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently I've lied about Chameleon. Do provide the diffs. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

3RR rule
As another contributor is so fond of citing Wiki policy, I think it important to warn against violating the 3-reverts rule. Another member has twice chosen to arbitrarily revert edits which have removed a superfluous photo of poor quality from the article -- and without so much as a single word on the discussion page. That contributor -- whose tag escapes me -- should refrain from doing so again. deeceevoice 21:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "without so much as a single word on the discussion page" &mdash; that's humour, right? &mdash; Chameleon 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. Missed the earlier para. But, yeah. Laugh if you want. The Rastaman stays. :D deeceevoice 01:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Effect an Affectation
To Mel, I read the article to be talking about an affect (emphasis on the aff) instead of an effect. It still reads that way to me. Maybe a rewording would be useful here? --The Grza 09:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * "To affect" is to change ; "to effect" is to cause . The sentence makes sense with "effect".  Are you perhaps intending the other meaning of "affect" ?  It's not stressed on the first syllable either, and I don't think the meaning fits.


 * Chameleon's explanation is what I had in mind; dye affects the colour of the hair, but it effects a colour change. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 10:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon, don't be pissed from other on-going arguments; let's view this as a little sanctuary where we can have a civil discussion and hopefully carry that back upstairs. I pronounce the word with the emphasis on the first syllable. If you don't, I congratulate you. If I haven't made myself clear, then I'm sorry, I apologize profusely. The definition I was using was With the sentence, I read it as saying that the irregularly shaped dreadlocks are creating the a "disheveled and unkempt" appearance, especially when those quotation marks surround that phrase. Perhaps effecting could be changed to "creating" which clears up the issue?--The Grza 11:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * To put on a false show of; simulate
 * Such "neglect" often results in dreadlocks that are irregularly shaped and matted together, effecting a "disheveled and unkempt" appearance.
 * I view the whole page as a sanctuary. The "false show" meaning doesn't quite work with the current wording.  I think "effecting" or "causing" is probably the best thing to say here.  If the idea of a false show is important, we could say "allowing the wearer to affect", or even clearer wording.  &mdash; Chameleon 11:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Rock and roll. Now there is some agreement.--The Grza 11:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * After two edit conflicts
 * Hmmm, I've never heard the verb pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, only the noun; where are you from? (That's not a challenge or an attack, I'm just interested in accents.)  The main point here is that "affect" is intentional – a person affects surprise, etc.  – but here the effect is unintentional (or, at least, the sentence doesn't seem to be about intention, but about cause and effect):
 * If left alone for a time, eventually the dreadlocks will develop their own natural way of lying. Such "neglect" often results in dreadlocks that are irregularly shaped and matted together, effecting a "disheveled and unkempt" appearance.
 * (I'm not sure, incidentally, what the rash of scare quotes is doing; neither set seems necessary.) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the confusion is being caused by those "scare quotes" (PUNcutation...I better quit before I get murdered). I read the sentence to say that it was intentional. As for my accent, Oregonian/Marylander/Chicagoan/Minnesotan may create the occasional linguistic monster.--The Grza 11:44, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The language was intentional. Had I known it would prompt such an exchange, I'd have written it differently. Anway, tweaked the paragraph a bit. deeceevoice 11:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

About reverting the changes to my edit: as noted above, I wrote much of this section. I'd always assumed that uniform dreads required special attention, which is why I wrote the section as I did. Not so. A good friend of mine with extremely impressive, voluminous, long dreads of perfectly uniform size never did anything to hers -- no sectioning, no twisting -- nothing. And I deleted the disheveled bit, because it is unnecessary. It was a holdover from another contributor's work. I didn't particularly care for it, but I left it alone. As it turned out, it offended someone a while back -- so I figure it's time for it to go. The conclusion one may draw from seeing dreads that are matted together -- or dreads of any kind, in fact -- is a purely subjective matter. deeceevoice 12:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Didn't like the separating out of "white people with dreadlocks" from the rest of the article, which treated all groups. So, I followed suit -- creating a section dealing with the popularization of the style with subsections for black folks and others, and fleshing out the reasons black folks wear them. While there may be room for improvement, I think the article is more balanced now. deeceevoice 14:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC
I submitted an RfC. Someone should probably request page protection. Sam Spade 12:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's necessary. TheGrza and Deeceevoice seem to have stopped their revert war.  &mdash; Chameleon 12:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"Our" revert war? I seem to recall the "revert war" referred to was begun by someone who didn't like the black photo, deleted it and replaced it with one of his little buddy. :p But the upshot of all this is, I think, an improved article -- which is, after all, the goal. deeceevoice 14:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * False. Gabriele's picture was the first one in this article, and has been here since July 2004.  The rasta pic stayed until it transpired it was a copyvio.  You are right about an improved article being my goal though.  &mdash; Chameleon 14:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

True. This wasn't a "revert war" until you removed a perfectly fine photo of a black man with dreads so that you could reinsert an inferior one of your little, white buddy. deeceevoice 15:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * False, and stop personalising issues, particularly with a racist tone. For any latecomers, the dispute is over one party not accepting the photo of a white person in the article.  Specifically, deeceevoice was against the race of the person, and TheGrza claimed it was low quality.  I insisted it was fine and should stay until a better shot of a white person was found.  It then transpired that the rasta photo that had recently been added was a copyvio and it had to be removed.  This was relatively uncontroversial.  The rasta photo was re-added when a partial licence was obtained.  Extra content was added to the article and it was divided into sections, thus further detracting from the idea that one photo was enough because it was a brief article, and at that point deeceevoice and TheGrza gave up reverting.  Personal attacks and insinuations were made throughout.  The article is still being improved, and better photos of various races are still being sought.  &mdash; Chameleon 15:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what all the rudeness is about, but the article is looking alot better. Maybe next time we can achieve that result without all the crossed wires and racial invective? Sam Spade 15:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, pleeze. lol You don't know what racism is. The fact is -- as Grza pointed out some time ago -- you never even challenged the copyright status of the pic until your repeated removal of the pic of the black man was reverted. You just wanted your little buddy's inferior pic reinserted and to stand alone; that's all you cared about. Further, the second photo is a bad one, exceedingly amateurish, rendered only marginally acceptable the fact that I down-sized it to de-emphasize the intrusive shadows cast by the flash. deeceevoice 16:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * False. Diff links in chronological order: First edit in dispute (put white pic back, did not remove black pic), Pointed out copyvio as per policy, Removed black pic for first time (as copyvio, as per policy).  I'm waiting for your apology.  The rest of your comments are ad hominem and also untrue.  Please actually read and digest our policies on WP:FAITH and WP:NPA.  I'd also like to point out the deep shadows on the rasta pic.  &mdash; Chameleon 17:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Before trying to take the moral high ground it's best to check that you're not standing in a hole. You levelled accusations against me above (that I'd called you anti-semitic, and that I'd called you a liar) neither of which was either true or relevant to this discussion.  I've been waiting for your apology for longer than you've been waiting for deeceevoice's. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You came in here and immediately started personally attacking the integrity of Sam Spade (without giving diffs). I just gave you some of your own medicine, which is to be expected after having taken a lot of personal attacks on this page without losing my cool.  As for an apology or explanation for you, well, I'm first waiting for an apology from you for the sneaky behaviour and insinuations.  Let's deal with that before we deal with the question of whether I overreacted to it.  If you sincerely want to argue about the issue (which, for all you reading, was not recent) then you are free to talk about it on my talk page (I won't even insist it be by e-mail this time).  This is not the place for it.  I am currently waiting for Deeceevoice to make an apology for the false accusations she has only just made regarding this very article.  &mdash; Chameleon 17:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

ROTFLMBAO. An apology? Now who's "talking stupid"? *snicker* Hold your breath. Please! :D And dang. You really don't know much about even the basics of good photography, do you? Shadows are a natural consequence of an object having three dimensions. (Duh) The shadows in the Rasta photo are an integral part of the subject matter. The shadows in your photo are harsh and distracting as a consequence of a too-bright light source (a flash) in relation to ambient lighting, with nothing to diffuse the light source. A good flash photograph never shows (as yours clearly does) the harsh shadows of, say, the chin against the body, or dark shadows which appear to hang off a subject's nose, brow and chin and then project onto a background -- not unless the photographer wishes to produce a specific effect, like, perhaps, up-shooting a horror character using a flash when dark, pronounced shadows contribute to a sinister mood. As in the case of the photograph under discussion, such intrusive photographic defects are caused by improper lighting and are a tell-tale sign of a rank amateur at work. Instead of a photograph of publication qualtiy, such a photo ends up looking as though it were taken in someone's kitchen at a house party. deeceevoice 18:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Your opinions on photography are all very interesting and valid, but here are merely a distraction from the main point: I have just proven your nasty accusation totally wrong, and you have failed to acknowledge that, much less apologise. &mdash; Chameleon 18:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"Talkin' stupid." Aw, gee. Life is full of disappointments. :( deeceevoice 21:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, whatever, but you have still not had the integrity to admit you made a totally false accusation. &mdash; Chameleon 22:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What matters is when the accusation was made, not when it refers to (nor the weak excuse that you were retailiating for something that I said about another editor). You have lied about me in public on this page, by saying that I accused you of anti-Semitism, and saying that you had lied.  I asked you to show the diffs, and you're unable to (obviously, as they don't exist) &mdash; but now you have the nerve to get on your high horse about another editor.  Well, now I'm afraid that I am saying that you lied.  If you are honestly convinced that you can prove me wrong, let's see the diffs.  If I'm suffering some peculiar form of amnesia, I'll happily and ungrudgingly apologise.  If you refuse to respond, then at least drop the hypocrisy of your fake moral outrage. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already expressed willingness to talk about this away from this page. You are showing bad faith by trying to talk about it here, thus distracting from Deeceevoice's failure to admit that she was 100% wrong in her argument.  &mdash; Chameleon 22:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * When you lie about me "away from this page", then we can talk away from this page. When you lie about me here, then explain and apologise here. (I haven't noticed you suggesting that deeceevoice talk about it away from this page...) Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Aw-ww, thay-o, thay-o, widdow Cammy. Your fixation on "winning" and your continual whining about an "apology" are awfully immature -- not to mention tiresome. Gee, I suppose you'll completely spaz out if/when someone replaces that crappy photo of yours of your lil' buddy with another, better one, huh? :p Now, give it a rest -- 'cuz ain't nobody studdin' you, bwoi. :p deeceevoice 06:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore that paragraph because it wasn't written in English. Back to the main point: even if we forget all talk of apologies, Deeceevoice has still not been grown-up enough to admit she was completely wrong.  &mdash; Chameleon 10:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the quality of the picture, I have seen worse on wikipedia (the blackface pictures for instance). Pharlap 14:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Redux: Reality check: anyone who would refer to AAVE as "talk[ing] stupid" and symptomatic of the "failure of education" -- I don't owe squat -- well nothing I care to mention in print, anyway. *x* Que lástima. Siento que no puedes entender inglés. :( deeceevoice 18:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you mean ¡Qué lástima! Siento que no entiendas el inglés.  Perhaps you could mangle French or Hindi now that you have finished with English and Spanish.  Damn, you'll probably now inform me that your bad Spanish grammar was actually AAVS and I am therefore racist for noticing it.  &mdash; Chameleon 19:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You understood me didn't ya? When your language skills are perfect (see my edits), then I'll consider taking criticism from you). Gee, you're a racist?  lol  Okay.  If you say so! :p  Like I said, "Redux: Reality check:  anyone who would refer to AAVE as "talk[ing] stupid" and symptomatic of the "failure of education" -- I don't owe squat -- well nothing I care to mention in print, anyway."  You want an apology?  Again, hold your breath.  Please.  :p deeceevoice 19:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Lice-ridden dreads
Hey, what about the article? What about dreadlocks? Personally, I could give a damn about them, and were it up to me such lice havens would be forcibly shaved (maybe there could be a religious exception for rastafarians, but on a white guy? C'mon..) All this dust kicking and name calling and worry about what ethnicity everybody is... its shameful! Move on, grow up, or at least debate it elsewhere. Sam Spade 23:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, and sorry to prick the bubble of prejudice, but human head-lice prefer short hair; long matted hair is much less likely to have lice. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose thats why the military requires close cropped hair? If only you wern't so aggressive about your ignorance... [http://naani.com/what_do_you_do_about_lice_in_dreadlocks_.htm What Do You Do About Lice in Dreadlocks? ... Point blank, the only thing that can be done to completely rid yourself of the infestation is to cut 'em off.], [http://www.knottyboy.com/learn/faqs/general_dread_maintenance_faqs/ I have an ex-boyfriend who sports a mass of locks that are his crowning glory and all that, but now he tells me he has LICE!!! What’s worse is that his new girlfriend has lice too because of him and can't get rid of them because he WILL NOT get rid of his dreadlocks—he is a walking infestation, it is horrible, and if I am correct, there is no way to get a LARGE infestation of head lice out of a LARGE amount of dreadlocks. Now they are getting evicted from their apartment, and the nice guy who says they can move in with him is gonna get lice too!!!], Treating boys is somewhat simplified as a close haircut (acceptable for most boys) will eliminate the head lice's habitat. Sam Spade 10:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's just an extreme case, Jack. Anyway, stop pointlessly attacking him, Mel.  &mdash; Chameleon 10:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The military requires closely cropped-hair because short hair is a signal of submission to authority. (POV alert: I'm a man with shoulder-length hair). Thanks for reminding me, I've been meaning to add to Social role of hair. (Don't worry, I have references, it's not OR.) Arguably, another reason the military requires short hair (and no beards) might have to do with tradition--back in the days of swords and bashing people over the head, someone could grab your hair or beard in combat. At least that's what my dad (the old Marine) says. &mdash; Phil Welch 3 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)

Citations and research are pointless, eh? Why are you criticising me for my on topic focus of discussion, pray tell? I don't quite know what to say about that.. Sam Spade 10:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me? I'm not criticising you; I'm just saying that most dreadlocks are perfectly healthy.  I even urged Mel not to attack you.  &mdash; Chameleon 10:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I didn't read you correctly, not seeing the "him,". I don't claim to know much about dreadlocks, but I can say short hair is widely considered the most hygenic. I think I'll happily move on now to another subject. Has anyone else read Marcus Garvey recently? He had a nice haircut ;) Sam Spade  10:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Not all militaries require close-cropped hair
 * 2) That's in any case a relatively recent fashion
 * 3) Even if it weren't, you're making the unsubstantiated claim that they require close-cropped hair because of lice
 * 4) Even if that were their reason, you're assuming that they're right. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Jack was being flippant, so his claim doesn't really require such analysis.


 * By the way, I wish I had taken my camera with me to work today. On the metro and in the street I saw several people of both races with a variety of dread styles.  &mdash; Chameleon 18:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This is kinda funny. I checked the first link, and it's a website run by some white folks who operate a salon and sell dreadhead products. Any public health official or black person will tell you that it's generally white folks who get lice. I'd never even heard of such a thing as head lice until my family moved to the 'burbs and I found myself in a majority-white school. Kinda creepy. Maybe the chemicals or heat that some black folks use to straighten their hair makes their heads unsuitable habitat. And with those of us with natural do's, maybe the little critters can't deal with the glorious kinks. (Maybe they need a machete? :p) Who knows? But lice -- hey, that's generally a problem for others. (Maybe a good reason white folks should steer clear of dreads? :p) If you doubt any of this, just check it out on the www. deeceevoice 23:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

As a person with a link in the article (My Dreadlocks: The dreadlocks hair care resource site for all hair types), I find this conversation to be non-factual in many aspects. I'm relieved the bias is not reflected in the article itself. While I didn't see the original picture quality, it's true that dreadlocks are a style worn by many cultures and pre-dates Rastafarianism. As an indicator of fashion, spirituality or other form of self-expression, dreads needn't be "dirty" which is why the link to lice is hurtful. Deeceevoice was right in saying that the majority of lice cases do not include those with Afro type hair and this because of the tightly wound hair pattern. I would go as far as to say that since dreads are tightly wound too that lice is not a common occurance. I wore the style for five years and never got them (but I guess, based on my theory, that that's because I have afro hair and wore dreads lol). All this to say that the page in its current state in terms of graphics (Aug 2005) looks like a fair representation of the term dreadlocks. Talking dreadlocks on my talk page

What about India and the Sadhus?
India should be mentioned in the article, afterall their dreadlock tradition dates back to ~ 1800 B.C. This site  has a lot of interesting informations (and pictures), maybe some could be included into this article. (e.g. the Dravidian roots, that the first attestation in writing is in the Veda scriptures of India, that the world's record holder of hair length is a Thai man with dreadlocks named Hoo Sateow, etc.) Pharlap 14:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion. We should have more in-depth international coverage of dreadlock history and culture.  Feel free to research and add info.  &mdash; Chameleon 19:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Dreadlocks in India? Cool. Add it. But the Thai guy? I hope it's not like that Vietnamese man (see discussion archive) -- with the single, long thing. That's not locks -- any more than a Polish plait is the same as dreads. deeceevoice 20:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm afraid that your sense of beauty is most irrelevant, especially when we focus on writing a NOPV article. Pharlap

At that comment relates to what? (Serious question. I'm not sure how your remark relates to this discussion, because no one has referred to "beauty" at all. This article about a very particular hairstyle.  One, long glob of hair (as with the Vietnamese guy) is not dreadlocks.  It's whatever they call it in Vietnam.  All matted hair is not dreadlocks.

I see someone has contributed another photo -- but the caption identifies the person as "white" -- when he clearly is not. (He's blacker than I am.) It's of the same guy whose (not very good) photo kept appearing a while back. This photo is better in that it actually kind of shows the man's locks (if only in outline -- which is still not optimal). Is this a joke, or what? I guess the only way to find out is to delete it and see what happens -- if there is some response that clarifies the matter. (This person has not participated in the discussion in the past; perhaps that will change.) About Sadhus there is to be a photo of a Sadhu -- and I think that's a great idea -- it'd be helpful to include some accompanying text, as well. Even if we can't get a copyright-free photo, or permission to use a photo, the text should be inserted, anyway. deeceevoice 08:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Let's see what develops. deeceevoice 08:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For me, that photo is a welcome addition. If the uploader is the person in the photo, I'd urge him to take a picture with better lighting (I've played with the contrast on that photo, but the locks still come out as a black blob) and perhaps a bit to one side so that we see more dreads than face.  And don't mark yourself as being "white"; that's bizarre.  Perhaps you meant just "[relatively] pale [compared to most Indians]".  &mdash; Chameleon 09:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The earlier photo of this guy was mostly his head, so this is an improvement --but you still can't really see the locks -- just in silhouette. Frankly, he doesn't look East Indian at all to me. (I suspect this is just a kind of vandalism, given this contributor's history.) And he's most certainly not white. But a bona fide photo of a Sadhu would be great. Again, even without a photo -- just a link -- some relevant text in the body of the article itself would be good. It's the only example of which I'm aware of an ongoing tradition of wearing dreads that isn't about a revival of tradition, or cultural appropriation (as in the case of Rasta locks, the Irish or the white counterculture) of some sort. deeceevoice 10:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Maori and Anglo-Saxon dreads?
It's good to see this article has found some balance and breadth at last. Anyone know anything about Maori (New Zealand) dreads? Are they traditional or a recent fashion? I was also once told the Anglo-Saxon (Old English) word for dreads - but have since forgotten. Any historians out there know what it is? NickW 11:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! What a Talk Page!
I wandered in here from the cultural appropriation page, and I'd just like to thank and congratulate everyone who was involved in the wars on this talkpage in May. What a cast of characters!! It had everything: wild, blustery attacks on Deeceevoice's AAVE; Chameleon's "presumptuous crakkka supremacism"; Sam Spade in his timeless role as Knight for the Whites; pictures of "little friends"; out-of-nowhere accusations of antisemitism; explosions of random and pointless Spanish; admiring references to Marcus Garvey's fine haircut. If Wikipedia had a "great talk pages" category, this would surely be on it. I'm so impressed by the whole thing that I feel duty bound to alert Chameleon that his little friend Gabrielle, of hideous house party pictorial fame, is now being used as a classic example of the cultural appropriator. Cheers to all! Babajobu 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Poor-quality image
I appreciate the attempt to add the image of Samson, but one can't really see Samson's "dreads." Unless someone has a better photo (I hope), it's gone. deeceevoice 06:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the image of Shiva has the same problem -- to a greater degree. At least Sampson's beard appears to be at least curly. Shiva's hair is straight and flowing in this image. I would prefer the Samson image remain unless and until one of Shiva can be provided where the dreadlocks are clearly in evidence. I did a quick search on the Internet to see if I could find something suitable -- but so far, no luck. I've got a heavy work schedule today, but perhaps someone else can provide an image? After all, an earlier call for images produced the great photo of the dreadlocked Saddhu. deeceevoice 14:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the image of Shiva altogether -- for the reasons cited above. A good illustration of dreadlocks in antiquity would be great. Again, the Samson image is only somewhat better, because at least the beard appears to be in (sort of) Shirley Temple curls, if not dreads. I would have preferred to leave that image in place until a better image could be found, but another contributor stubbornly insists on deleting it -- despite the fact that a photo related to dreadlocks in India is already part of the article. Unfortunate. deeceevoice 12:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the new image, which clearly shows Shiva's dreads. Blond? (ugh!) But much better. deeceevoice 16:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Does this make sense as written?
"In East Asian countries, such as China, dreadlocks and a variation on locks, the Polish plait, have been regarded with superstition throughout the ages."

It seems to me the sentence structure is off -- perhaps mutated/mutilated by successive edits. After all, why would people in China give a s***, or even know about the Polish plait? deeceevoice 06:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's avoid an edit war
Rather than rely on explanations contained in edit notes, I've decided to explain my changes in detail here. I ask the editor, User:CoYep, who insists on automatically reverting my changes to read the following and respond -- before making further changes to the document. There's no need for an edit war.


 * I've deleted (again) the second paragraph of the excerpt regarding Shiva, etc., etc. The first para. adequately illustrates the point.  (Also, please cite the source of this text.)


 * Under "Meaning and Popularity," I've deleted any specific examples of dreads, because that information properly fits under the succeeding paragraphs, rather that the introductory, "umbrella" paragraph.


 * Further, Bob Marley and the appeal of dreadlocks went far beyond fashion. If Marley had been a button-down, corporate shill with dreads, locks would not have had the same appeal.  The sentence as presented is clearly shallow/limiting and, by implication, contradicts information presented later.  I've deleted it.  Again. The appeal of Marley and his anti-establishmentarianism is discussed in my earlier language -- "earlier" in that it predates this unfortunate and, IMO, misplaced addition.


 * I changed (again) the subhead from "Ethnic pride or political statements" to "In popular culture," because this section also addresses creative self-expression and spirituality. This change makes the subhead more inclusive/accurate in terms of the content that follows, because I've moved the expanded/revised info on Goth culture there, where it more properly belongs.


 * Black nationalists and other black folks who wear dreads often attribute their motives in changing their hairstyle to a renewed spirituality, which involves a journey of self-realization, a discovery of who they are as African people, and a desire to return to their ancestral roots. Stop deleting this.  It's a perfectly valid point.  deeceevoice 16:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Finally, I've also deleted (again) the clause, "...regardless of the history of dreadlocks attributing the hairstyle to almost all racial and ethnic groups." It's completely unnecessary and smacks of the kind of backhanded (often overt), negative, judgmental commentary that whites seem particularly addicted to when it comes to what black people do.  The point that dreads are a cross-cultural phenomenon already has been made.  deeceevoice 16:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Aztec dreadlocks?
Tentatively removed:


 * Dreadlocks were also part of Mexican culture. In a description of an Aztec ritual, Historian William Hickling Prescott referred to dreadlocked Priests of the Aztec civilization, a Mesoamerican people of central Mexico in the 14th, 15th and 16th century. "On the summit he was received by six priests, whose long and matted locks flowed disorderly over their sable robes, covered with hieroglyphic scrolls of mystic import. They led him to the sacrificial stone, a huge block of jasper, with its upper surface somewhat convex." (William H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico)

The Aztecs may, indeed, have worn dreadlocks. However, the quote provided refers to only "matted locks," which certainly are not the same as dreads. A bad case of "bed-head" is not dreadlocks. I've searched the Internet for "Aztec dreadlocks" and come up with zilch. Please, please provide definitive information before reinserting this unsubstantiated, and somewhat dubious, information. If no reliable text can be found, an image of an artifact where dreads are clearly visible would suffice. Please keep in mind that the verifiability accuracy of the information is what is at issue here. This is not a pissing match. Thanks. deeceevoice 14:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And, no. Matted locks are not the same as dreadlocks. Read the definition. They must be "ropy." Hair stuck together in random, globular or flatted mats (say, with wadded chewing gum or spittle) is not dreadlocks. Again, no documentation whatsoever has been provided to substantiate the claim that the Aztecs wore dreads. deeceevoice 15:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is hard to tell from the description, but - a) there is a reference, b) 'being on the internet' is no measure of the veracity of factual information, c) did the Aztecs have chewing gum? NickW 16:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Who said the Internet was definitive? And neither is the quote provided. Reread my response. I checked the Internet and found nothing. The contributor of the information must provide more definitive supporting evidence of dreadlocks not just "matted locks." (And who cares about chicle -- not "chewing gum")? The wording has been changed to be speculative, rather than reflective of an unsubstantiated, definitive conclusion reached, so far as I can tell, by only the contributor. deeceevoice 12:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent deletions

 * For an explanation of the deletion of the image of Shiva, please see "Poor-quality image" above.


 * The overly long text related to Shiva has been edited to include only relevant portions -- that verbiage dealing with Shiva's hair.


 * The text from Revelations has been deleted, because it says absolutely nothing about hair. deeceevoice 12:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Are we not communicating? The excerpt from Vedic scripture is way too long, past the point of being pertinent. It is already clear dreads have religious/spiritual significance. The text I've deleted is completely unnecessary and, perhaps, more properly should be in an article on the Sadhus or on Indian religion. The excessive verbiage does not add anything at all of substance to the article -- which is, again, on dreadlocks -- not Shiva or Indian religion. deeceevoice 16:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The Celtic Vedic Connection
4 links out of 84200 search results:     Additional reading: Ploughing the Clouds : The Search for Irish Soma (Paperback) by Peter Lamborn Wilson CoYep 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Now, how 'bout adding a link to support the asserted connection in the text? Thanks. deeceevoice 17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

About a possible Egypt-India connection
The information provided was not unsourced and not POV. A link was provided w/regard to the theoretical connection (either migratory, or simply w/regard to cultural interaction) between Egypt and India, and the wording was not definitive. It is certainly not POV. The link between Egypt and India is certainly no more speculative than the link between the Hinduism and Celtic religion -- the wording of which I, incidentally, slightly modified to indicate that that link is also not proven.

The information about the age of the Vedas I modified and mostly deleted, because this article is on dreadlocks and -- again -- not Hindu religion. There's a link to the Vedas for those who wish to read further. Or, if you wish, you can simply provide an in-line link to information about the timeline debate. But for this particular article, all that stuff is just simply TMI. No one needs to read about the Aryan invasion "theory", etc. That's for another article. There is a tendency here to go into far too much detail about Hindu religion, etc., etc., etc. Let's try to keep in mind the primary focus of this article, which is dreadlocks. deeceevoice 19:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly, the connection between Egypt and India is still disputed. Furthermore, provide a source connecting Hindu symbolism and Indian dreadlock tradition with Egypt, otherwise it's just an assumption and shouldn't be included.


 * About the Veda: it's important to mention that the date is debatable, especially since this is probably the first written document mentioning dreadlocks and a history section should be chronological. Dreadlocks have a deep spiritual import and high religious significance in Hinduism, so please refrain from deleting these informations.  CoYep 20:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read my language carefully enough. The link is written as speculative. Perhaps, you should have been in on a discussion in the Wiki list serve regarding the difference between POV and analysis -- and I don't mean that in a taunting sense. It is not considered POV to draw links between established scholarship, and is not only perfectly acceptable, but desired on Wikipedia. It is a means of providing a thorough, coherent treatment of a subject -- instead of simply regurgitating facts. There are those who would argue that the reason the Hindu word for "dreadlocks" is found in the Dravidian language is that the Dravidians themselves owe their origins to the Nile Valley. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the Dravidians themselves are not Hindu. As the Dravidians are the prehistoric inhabitants of the continent and the Hindu term is a derivative, then clearly the term for dreadlocks predates Hinduism and was a cultural fixture prior to the establishment of the religion itself. There are, in fact, Indian/Dravidian scholars themselves who support this interpretation. It would be absurd not to mention the connection.

I also clearly indicated the controversy about the age of the Vedas and, upon second thought, also included the earliest, speculated date. But there is a way to include such information -- briefly -- without going all around John's barn and including superfluous information. The passage was far too lengthy and some of the information simply doesn't belong here. For those wishing to read further about the Vedas, they can click the applicable link(s). deeceevoice 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The link to Dravidians is already there. and if the connection between Hindu symbolism, Indian dreadlock tradition and Egypt is so obvious, you will be able to provide some sources. Otherwise we should follow wikipedia guidelines: CoYep 20:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read my language carefully enough. The link is written as speculative. Perhaps, you should have been in on a discussion in the Wiki list serve regarding the difference between POV and analysis -- and I don't mean that in a taunting sense. It is not considered POV to draw links between established scholarship, and is not only perfectly acceptable, but desired on Wikipedia. It is a means of providing a thorough, coherent treatment of a subject -- instead of simply regurgitating facts. There are those who would argue that the reason the Hindu word for "dreadlocks" is found in the Dravidian language is that the Dravidians themselves owe their origins to the Nile Valley. There are, in fact, Indian/Dravidian scholars themselves who support this interpretation. It would be absurd not to mention the connection.

I also clearly indicated the controversy about the age of the Vedas and, upon second thought, also included the earliest, speculated date. But there is a way to include such information -- briefly -- without going all around John's barn and including superfluous information. The passage was far too lengthy and some of the information simply doesn't belong here. For those wishing to read further about the Vedas, they can click the applicable link(s). deeceevoice 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The link to Dravidians is already there. and if the connection between Hindu symbolism, Indian dreadlock tradition and Egypt is so obvious, you will be able to provide some sources, wikipedia guidelines:

Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Verifiability CoYep 20:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, drawing connections between established research is not the same as original research. It's called "analysis" and in-depth treatment. deeceevoice 20:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, if that is established research then show me one established source connecting Indian dreadlocks and Hindu symbolism with Egyptians. CoYep 21:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I provided a link to the posited Egypt/Africa-India connection by a recognized scholar. If you'd like more, that info is readily available on the Net, including info written by Indian scholars themselves. But this article is not the place for that discussion. Further, noting the considerable scholarship (historical and anthropological) that identifies the Negroid/Africoid nature of the Dravidians (and other Sudroid/Veddoid blacks of India -- and, consequently, their African origins) and the Dravidian origin of the Hindu word for dreadlocks is certainly not POV or original research. Given that information, mentioning the possible Egyptian origins of dreadlocks is also not "original research." It is analysis based on the available information. Again, good writing is more than a regurgitation of facts. deeceevoice 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly, not one of these scholars mentions that Egyptians or "Negroid/Africoid" people introduced dreadlocks to Indians. Sorry, but dreadlocks are not limited to "Negroid/Africoid" peoples, and not all "Negroid/Africoid" people had dreadlocks. Provide a source. CoYep 21:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to engage in good writing without "a regurgitation of facts", consider writing novels instead of encyclopedia articles. CoYep 21:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

O-ooh. Mee-ooow! :p You wanna back ya b*tch up for a sec? That ain't nice. LMAO. :p deeceevoice 17:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that same old photo again!
Please don't simply reinsert the old, discredited photo. It does not illustrate dreadlocks -- which is why it was replaced. I don't know what the copyright issues were with the replacement photo. The image of Shiva in it was also (curiously) fair-skinned and (weirdly) blond, but at least the dreadlocks were clearly depicted. Perhaps another image which clearly shows Shiva's locks can be obtained that will meet Wikipedia's copyright requirements. It's frustrating, I know. I've experienced the same problems with images related to Egypt. But there's little that can be done about it. Perhaps a museum photo could be found and considered "fair use"? (I don't know. I'm not that familiar with Wiki policy.)  But this one just won't do. There are no discernible dreads. deeceevoice 20:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "The image of Shiva in it was also (curiously) fair-skinned and (weirdly) blond"
 * I'm sorry that you dislike the Hindu color symbolic, and that you consider it to be "curious/bizarre, indeed" "sad" and "emblematic of just how negrophobic" Indian culture is. But I'm afraid that your tendency to turn the Hindu color symbolic into races is simplistic and incorrect. The picture shows clearly shiva's hair, and you can't keep on deleting it because you dislike it's colors. CoYep 20:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No. I wasn't aware of the symbolism of the color. What is it? Why is Shiva's hair blond and his skin blueish white? And, no. The colors are not the reason I object to the photo. After all, I was pleased to see the replacement photo with the dreadlocks, and Shiva's skin is just as pale there. (Actually, though, Hindus are notoriously "color-struck." After all, they bought into the caste system hook, line and sinker -- didn't they?  The blackest Indians, the Dravidians, on the other hand, of course never did :p.)

But let's not obscure the issue here. The central problem with the photo is simple: it doesn't illustrate the subject of the article:  dreadlocks.

But, yes. If you'd care to explain the colors, I'd appreciate it. I find them strange/curious. deeceevoice 21:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The picture illustrates perfectly how shiva uses his dreadlocks to exercise his power, which is one important aspect of the Hindu symbolism. According to the discussion history, you argue over the inclusion of non-black pictures since May, give it a rest. CoYep 21:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong. There are no discernible dreadlocks in this particular illustration -- which, again, is why it was replaced. And read the discussion again. I actively solicited photos illustrating the Sadhus of India and also repeatedly asked for better photos of John the Baptist and of Shiva. In fact, I'm still hoping you or someone else will produce a photo of Shiva which clearly illustrates the deity's dreadlocks and which meets Wikipedia's copyright requirements. Since you're more familiar with Hinduism, instead of this pointless back and forth with me, why not devote your energies to that?

Further, the repeated reverting of the use of "may" in the Mexico reference is indefensible. There is nothing that has been produced that specifically refers to dreadlocks in that cultural context. Talk about POV pushing! There's no reason for it.deeceevoice 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why don't YOU spend some time to add some valid informations to the article instead of repeatedly vandalizing the article by removing valid informations because they don't fit into your color scheme? When I came here, there was nothing of value, only some rants about how "Caucasoid wannabes" "using unnatural means to mimic the form, volume and texture of nappy hair". And so far, in all those months, you still didn't add anything of value to the article. The very few things you added were either unverifiable or plain incorrect, e.g. Tuts wig, which has braids, not dreads; connecting dreadlocks to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is simply incorrect, the assertion that only "black" hair is able to grow into dreadlocks naturally, which is incorrect, the assertion that dreadlocks in Indian Hindu culture have African origins, which is a totally unverified and unsourced POV edit. Instead of adding some valid material, you constantly removed valid and sourced informations, e.g. the celt/vedic connection, that Rastafari sects welcome all ethnicities, the mexican reference, the Hindu references and quotes, the fact that dreadlocks are a cross cultural hairstyle, you even removed the cybergoth picture asking me to replace it by a cybergoth, totally ignorant to the fact that it IS a cybergoth, you removed pictures of european people with dreadlocks, among them the now almost legendary "gabriel" picture for instance, which is thank God deleted by now, because they were allegedly not "neat enough" or not of "high quality", while you didn't mind to use these "low quality" pictures to illustrate pejorative terms like "Trustafarian" in other articles, you removed the Samson picture, you removed the Shiva pictures, the first because it was allegedly  "poor quality" (getting old), the second one because you disliked the "pale colors" and because it is "too blond", totally ignorant of any Hindu color symbolic, and so on and so on. All you do since months is edit waring, removing facts, replacing them with unverified POV edits,... Talking about a waste of time ... CoYep 01:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The reference for the Mexico reference is valid, look up Historian William Hickling Prescott. While I'm still waiting for some references or pictures of Egyptian dreadlock wigs, bas-reliefs or other artifacts(since your link only mentioned GREEK mummies with dreadlocks accompanying an egyptian mummy) CoYep 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, you mischaracterize my comments. I've made substantive and correct contributions to this piece. I didn't add the line about Tut's wig. I never stated that only black hair would dread, etc., etc., etc. (I haven't bothered to read the rest of your entry, because it is not germane to this debate.) Deal with the issues at hand, Coyep. deeceevoice 07:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "long and matted locks", just like the Jata's which are also called long matted locks. Just like Shiva's hair, which is also called long matted locks. Why don't YOU read before you waste my time? But I assume you would also object the notion that icecream is part of Italian culture because they call it gelato! I also wonder what term Egyptians used to describe their Dreadlocks, or do you seriously assume that they spoke English 3200 BC? CoYep 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I read the Prescott quote. It refers to "matted hair" and not to dreadlocks. If you have another, more definitive quote, or a citation where Prescott suggests that they were dreadlocks, then please provide it. Otherwise, "may" is called for here.

And "Greek"? I suggest you read the article again. deeceevoice 22:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are so many dreadlocked Egyptian artifacts, I wonder why  you don't add a link to a picture showing one of those artifacts instead of adding links to unrelated pages? Or better yet, find a picture we can add to the article. That at least would be, finally, a constructive addition. CoYep 23:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Specious. Your use of ellipsis conceals the fact that the dreadlocked mummy referred was not among those of surmised to be possibly of "Creek [sic] or Roman origin."  Further, I don't include a photo, because it's extremely difficult to find photos of contemporaneous Egyptian artifacts that clearly show dreadlocks and that also meet Wikipedia's copyright requirements.  Does the problem sound familiar? deeceevoice 09:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't plan to wade into this bigtime, but there are no discernable dreadlocks in this particular image of Shiva. If another image of Shiva shows something more like dreadlocks, I would think that should be preferred. If we don't have such an image, I think we would do better without one at all, because someone coming to this article to learn what dreadlocks are would be misled by the picture. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And if you think that the Hindu/Indian/European aspects are too massive, go and find some African ancient or spiritual/religious scriptures or any other kind of valid historical references and pictures and add them to the article to level it out instead of deleting material. CoYep 23:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (interspersing) I assume that is addressed to me, since it is 20 minutes after my remark, and directly below it, and it doesn't seem to respond to the remark preceding mine. CoYep, I didn't say anything about Hindu/Indian/European aspects being "too massive" or about wanting "African ancient or spiritual/religious [blah blah]". I said I think the picture is inappropriate because there are no discernable dreadlocks. I suspect there are images of Shiva that would be appropriate, but this one isn't. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I wasn't talking to you, Jmabel, sorry for the confusion. CoYep 07:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One general point re: the use of 'dreadlocks' - while it's now the accepted term, for the most of the global history of 'dreadlocks' it hasn't been, and not everyone will use it even today. To many people, dreadlocks are synonymous with 'matted' hair (even though semantically 'matted' is the broader term). So, just because a source uses 'matted' (or variants of) instead of 'dreadlocks', does not necessarily have any bearing on its relevancy for this article. NickW 09:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nick, please address the issue at hand. No one is arguing that information is irrelevant. It, however, must be qualified. Rather than stating that "matted" hair necessarily means "dreadlocks," it is far preferable to use "may" in stating that the existence of dreadlocks in that culture was a possibility -- rather than an absolute certainty, because the documentation provided simply isn't specific enough to support it. deeceevoice 09:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm happy with avoiding absolutes either way! I was more concerned that absence of the term 'dreadlocks' may be used used as grounds for excluding material generally...(not that I was pointing the finger at you - you'd already made the 'may' qualification clear).... NickW 12:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The new Shiva image Image:LordShiva2.jpg looks fine to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * from rfc, i think the shiva discussion & image is out of proportion in the article. the image doesn't seem to show dreadlocks, & do we really need to go into detail about the dating of rig veda on an article on dreadlocks??? Appleby 06:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ha. You noticed that, too?  I've repeatedly had to pare down lengthy scriptural excerpts which do not reference dreadlocks at all and the text related to the dating of the Vedas.  Coyep seems to think this is an article on Hinduism, and he's been pretty pigheaded about reverting my edits, as well as including a photo which didn't illustrate dreadlocks at all.  deeceevoice 12:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The current images do not show Shiva with dreadlocks, or even matted hair. The following images do:


 * http://www.matchless-gifts.com/dancing-shiva-parvati-1.jpg (from )
 * http://lotussculpture.com/images/nata14.jpg (from )
 * http://lotussculpture.com/images/nata3.jpg (from )


 * The current image should be removed until an image (that shows dreads) with appropriate copyright can be found. The references to Shiva should be kept in as it is obvious that Shiva has dreads. I've tried to pair down the section a bit, I hope you don't mind CoYep, but you should try and keep it to just the parts about dreadlocks, and cut any superfluous language you don't need "fierce, violent" etc. - FrancisTyers 12:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How about:, I'm sure a better one could be found though... - FrancisTyers 13:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the current photo does show dreads -- upon close inspection. They aren't as clear as I'd like, but the photo is a far cry from the Shiva with flowing, straight hair which occupied that spot previously. But if you think another image is better, and it meets Wikipedia copyright guidelines, then feel free to substitute it -- and let other contributors judge. Thanks for your efforts in finding other images. :) deeceevoice 17:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How to create dreadlocks
Now the page has so much info, this seems out of place. Does anyone agree? Somehow I don't think that the Sadhus or Aztecs would have followed this method. - FrancisTyers 14:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)