Talk:Long hair

Hotchpotch
This article is a mixture of a Wiktionary-type entry, a note about a Bible text usually used against hippies, and a disambiguation notice about somebody nicknamed Long Hair. I don't think it can be fixed. -- Orange Mike 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Overlap with Longhair and other problems
This article seems to overlap with the "Longhair" page which is also partly article and partly disambiguation.

I think there is room for an article on the cultural, religious and political significance of long hair, but what we have now isn't it.

I would suggest a new article to replace the present messy one, if someone would like to write it. In the meantime, I have cross-referenced "longhair" with "long hair", removed the disambiguation element here, and turned "longhair" into a disambiguation page, but this is only a beginning.

Rodparkes 10:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

expansion ideas
This article has some potential, for example, long hair was often a symbol of strength. Men in old testament times often would go for long periods of time without cutting their hair to show devotion to God. They were called nazarites. Samson is one example, his strength depended on his hair length. The idea of a man's strength depending on his hair length extended throughout history. Even today, men will play games where they don't cut their hair until their basketball team loses the NBA tourney, or they will make bets in which the loser shaves his head. And that's just men, who knows what its significance with women is? I'm going to look into it and expand this article. Wrad 04:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture
"A boy with long hair". Doesn't look especially long to me. Isn't there a picture of someone with longer hair? Totnesmartin 11:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Found one. Totnesmartin 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still the same picture. Wouldn't it suppost to reach at least the back to be considered "long"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * The last picture was changed back by someone because it had no fair use rationale. Also, it doesn't have to reach the back to be considered long, especially in men. Still, I wouldn't mind an especially extreme example of a male with long hair, as long as it was allowed under copyright. Wrad 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To AUTHOR/PHOTOGRAPHER TOTNESMARTIN OF BOY WITH LONG HAIR; ANY WAY THAT I CAN CONTACT YOU OR YOU CAN CONTACT ME? I HAVE A VERY STRANGE FEELING THAT THE PERSON YOU CHOSE AS A SUJECT FOR BOY WITH LONG HAIR IS ACTUALLY SOMEONE I KNOW. NO, I AM NOT A KOOK OR WEIRDO...IT'S JUST AN UNDENIABLE FEELING. IF YOU CAN CONTACT ME AT BLUERAIN9601@YAHOO.COM I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE THIS IS A PERSON I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR; FOR SOME TIME. THANK YOU...AND YES THIS PERSON WAS/MAY STILL BE IN IN THE UK/ENGLAND/IRELAND ETC.. AREA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverlady1971 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC) The picture of this boy is really odd. Why is it being used? A billion other images could be used, but this boy's picture is bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.14.172 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

GA
The biggest thing keeping this from GA status now is comprehensiveness/breadth. We just don't have anything from other cultures. Can anybody find this? Wrad 16:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic?
I can sum up my feelings in one word: Huh? How in the world is this unencyclopedic? Wrad 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an incoherent mess, with uneven tone, a strong US/Eurocentric bias, a bizarre POV (mid-1950s is "ancient" English?) and no real point. It wanders all over the map. I don't think it can be fixed. -- Orange Mike 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the mid-1950s thing, you're grossly misreading the text. I honestly don't see where you're getting the 1950s bit in the middle of that second sentence which clearly says that it is defining the archaic word form. Wrad 20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "The definition in archaic English meant, roughly, someone artistically knowledgable or wise, an aesthete." This "archaic" meaning was in common use in the United States as late as 1964. I understated when I said "mid-1950s"!

I was planning on moving towards GA on this article. I'm positive that it can get there. Wrad 20:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you just chose the wrong tag. I do think it can be fixed. I'm just looking over WP:NOT and scratching my head. I see nothing to merit this "unencyclopedic" accusation. This is an important aspect of fashion and culture, clearly. It covers notability as well, as there are plenty of sources covering it (many more than are already in it). What about Dreadlocks, braids, and baldness? Are they encyclopedic? We just need to fix it, not give up on it. Every article I've edited goes through a phase like this as research is gathered. The "incoherent mess" gradually cleans up as the sources come together. Maybe just put a cleanup tag on it or something... Deletion is way extreme! Wrad 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been brooding over this one since the article first came to my attention. It's like having an article on "Tall people"! For starters, what is "long" hair? Middle of the ear? To the shoulder? Mid-back? To the gluteus? What exactly is the point of having this, under this title? -- Orange Mike 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It can be all of them. Scholars discuss this subject all the time, and don't feel a need to specify. Why should we, since Wikipedia is merely a mirror of its sources? Also, there is an article on tall people Gigantism. There are also several scholarly books and articles discussing hair length. This subject isn't just the turf of hippies and drug-lovers, it is a legitimate, scholarly subject discussed by scientists, psychoanalysts, theists, and anthropologists all over the world. Wrad 20:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This section (Hair style) on hair length of mother article on hair style refers to this long hair article (and other hair length articles). It's a subject worth writing about. The article Medium hair should be made and redirected to long hair I think.--Brz7 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has a good job over anthropology and sociology, Long hair whatever it be is a cultural obsession on many cultures it even says that chinnese rulers even killed people in means of this, what is more enciclopedic than that. I also learned the rule over midle ages and the influence that the world war has over long hair and why you would not see even just one man on the ages of my grand parents using long hair, it isnt a disadvantage at fighting but just a cultural and traditionary thing, I neither knew that greeks used it long at a time neither that romans cuted it because of sicilian barbers (what a good bussiness at that time), please improove it but keep it.--Neurorebel (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Original research, unnecessary fork of hair
Keep. More references are indeed needed to make clear that no original research is going on. The article is in the process of bein improved so time will tell. The article I think is not an unnecessary fork of hair. There's simply too much information on long hair to put in the hair article AND in the hair length subsection. A fork was made to the hair article on hair style - with a subsection on hair length (which is not yet linked to from the hair page) and this article needed a fork, i.e. this article. The articles on hair need to be better integrated. For the rest I refer to the discussion in the section above. --Brz7 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't even really any OR in this article. I've marked unreferenced material as such, but have no reason to believe that it came out of thin air. I do agree, though, this article needs more references and a better structure to "make it clear" that it isn't OR. This topic is a bit off the beaten path, if you know what I mean. As for other hair articles, I don't know. I'm just focusing on this one. I take your word for it, though, that they are lacking, since this article was pretty dismal when I started. Wrad 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the 1970's
It's my understanding that by the 1970's, at least in the US, long hair for men had lost most of its taboo counterculture symbolism and was in fact the mainstream look. I'm changing the article to reflect this. -MichiganCharms 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? Wrad 13:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes... "Assimilation of the Counterculture", American Decades, vol. 8: 1970-1979. It's cited on the hippie article, and is quite an interesting read. Aside from that published source, I think the information is common knowledge. -MichiganCharms 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, go for it. I'd just say that even if it is common knowledge, best to cite it anyway. In my experience the recent meanings section is a bit more charged with controversy than other section. Wrad 17:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GA quick fail
The lead is too long according to WP:LEAD, and nothing in it is cited. You can renominate it when this is fixed. I suggest double-checking it against the GA criteria to see if it passes in other areas as well. GreenJoe 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD says four paragraphs, so it is within limits. Leads also don't normally need cites the way you're asking, see the FA Building the World Trade Center. Wrad 17:13, 17 Septehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising

Donate to Wikipediamber 2007 (UTC)
 * It has to be cited if there are claims that aren't cited elsewhere in the article. GreenJoe 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point out these claims. I don't know of any. I made sure that everything in there was already cited. Otherwise it is a summarial statement which needs no reference in the lead as it is covered in further detail later in the article. Please point out a specific statement in the lead that is not cited later in the article. Wrad 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Ways of life often viewed as more rigid, such as religious cultures, often have rules regarding hair length.
 * This is a summarial statement supported by several, cited examples, and thus does not need a citation.
 * 2. Also, Buddhist monks shave their heads as part of their order of worship. Even outside religious structures, cultures often connect long hair with ways of life outside of what is culturally accepted.
 * Which statement? The monks are cited in the Asian section, and the second is cited at the beginning of the "Cultural history" section.
 * 3. Asian cultures see long, unkempt hair in a woman as a sign of sexual intent or a recent sexual encounter, as usually their hair is tied up. GreenJoe 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First paragraph of Asian section. This one wasn't cited quite as well, so I clarified it, but it was cited.
 * All are cited. Please remove the quick fail and give me a legitimate review. Wrad 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's ready, but for your benefit I've asked for a second opinion from another GA reviewer. GreenJoe 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. To your credit, this is article has a strange subject matter and is probably more difficult to judge than others. I don't think that the lead section is anywhere near bad enough to merit a quick fail, though. If it was, it would have been very easy to point out its flaws unchallenged. Wrad 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion
Per the guidelines of WP:LEAD and custom, lead sections generally do not require the same rigor of sourcing that the body of an article does, since they often speak in generalities. Specific and absolute exceptions to the easing of verifiability requirements include facts concerning biographies of living persons and quotations. It is also helpful to cite facts likely to be challenged, but if analogous claims are cited later in the article (as in this case) it is really unnecessary. Quick-failing is generally for articles that either lack sourcing entirely or have multiple large sections without sourcing (i.e. anything that would take longer than the hold period of seven days to fix). To summarize, though the article may need improvements, it is not a candidate for being failed per any of the quick-fail criteria and at least should be given a detailed list (hopefully using the rather helpful GAList or GANOH templates) of items to improve upon based on the GA criteria. Please don't hesitate to contact me further, Van Tucky  Talk 05:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and cite everything likely to be challenged. In the meantime, feel free to do the rest of the review. Wrad 05:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the second opinion, Van. I'll work on the formal review within a few days. GreenJoe 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail: GreenJoe 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead need to be longer, and cleaned up. It's not worded very well.
 * 2) Could you be more specific about how it's not worded well? It's difficult for me to analyze my own writing, and it sounds as though you have something specific in mind. As for length, it is fine. Three paragraphs is a good length per WP:LEAD. Unless you see something in the article that you feel should be in the lead, it should meet the requirement for length. Wrad 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) The section "Meaning" needs to be more than 2 sentences. GreenJoe 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I added a bit that should have been there a long time ago. That's about as long as it's going to get. Wrad 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I added a bit that should have been there a long time ago. That's about as long as it's going to get. Wrad 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced material
Please provide a ref for this recently added material:

"In the 1970s, many aspects of the 1960's counterculture came into mainstream society, long hair amongst them, perhaps owing to the large amount of popular musicians who had taken to wearing their hair long as part of the counterculture. Eventually, long hair on men became so acceptible in the United States that the style began to appear in more traditional, historically conservative outlets such as country music and family oriented television shows like the Brady Bunch."

I removed it from the article until it is properly referenced. Feel free to add it back once it is. Wrad 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not deleting it outright, I'm working on sourcing the last sentence... but it will be ready to readd soon. -MichiganCharms 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another unreferenced addition, feel free to add if have ref. "Spartan men were an exception however, and grew their hair long for a variety of reasons, perhaps most importantly to signify their cultural independence from Athenian Greece...A popular style among some men in Classical Athens was a ponytail, as worn by many young "knights"." Wrad 02:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad
Every historical account that I have read regarding the length of hair of Muhammad maintains that it was always at least long enough to cover his ears, and would often be shoulder length. The exception, of course, would be the occasional shave during the pilgrimage season. To say that he had short hair is completely incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.201.64 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not by my sources. What are your sources? Wrad (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/hair-beard.htm    Scroll down to the section on hair.71.164.201.64 (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a little something saying that the call for short hair was less common in the past than it is now. Wrad (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good, man.71.164.201.64 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

About long hair in China
I think only one sentence is necessary for Cultural Revolution in China, things like jeans and high-heels are just unecessary.

In addition consider this sentence: "Modern non-western cultures such as Islam and China see long hair as a western influence." Not only the source is missing, it's not accurate either. Most Chinese are aware that long hair is a sign of beauty in ancient time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecikierk (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the high heels stuff, but I think you cut a little more than was needed. That paragraph covered not only the cultural revolution but also more modern times.


 * About that last sentence: it's not talking about ancient times, it specifically says "Modern non-western cultures". Modern is not ancient. Also, that particular line has not one, but two sources. I don't really see what the problem is. Wrad (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes longhair?
Longhair may be a slang term for hippies and the like, but the assertion it's commonly spelled longhair, and the implicit assertion that this is an acceptable spelling, is dubious. I tried it out a couple times: "She has longhair and green eyes." "Do you have longhair or short?" Not so much. I've added a fact marker looking for a citation to this effect, just to be polite, so if anyone has a qualm with my deleting that soon, speak up.

Forgot to sign. God, I'm out of it tonight. Chromancer (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right. It's a descriptive term, not an alternative spelling. I fixed it. Wrad (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I liked your quick fix, but I'm thinking that moving and expanding the statement might provide more context and benefit the article as a whole. Take a look and see what you think. Chromancer (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a problem because it wasn't always a derogatory term. In the middle ages it described merovingian kings. Also, Longhair redirects here, since this is where we define the term. That's why I had it in bold near the top. I'm not saying we have to keep it this way, but I don't think the way you changed it is quite right yet. Wrad (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The main issue I'm having with this is that by have it in the lead-in, it's undue weight on a term that by no means is currently widespread, or indeed has much to do with long hair to begin with. Also, that link was redirecting towards the longhair disambiguation page, not this page.
 * I suggest moving this term to a lower place in the article- perhaps its own subheading?- where it can be discussed in the context of its uses. As it is, reading the article implies that any long-haired person could be indiscriminately referred to a 'longhair'. Looks a little ridiculous. Chromancer (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see all of that. I was saying that if you type longhair in the search bar then it will take you here, that's why I bolded it so prominently, but it does cause some undue weight problems. It doesn't need it's own subheading. It's all discussed in the etymology section. Maybe just take the sentence out of the lead altogether? Wrad (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds best to me. I can't see a way to discuss a term like that in the lead without digressing unduly from the essential point of the article. Chromancer (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wrad (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Medium Length Hair
... is accepted in "Western" cultures, not Long hair Long hair, hair below shoulder length, begins to get into the "danger zone" of what is considered too-long in "western" cultures for women. Only medium length hair, Between 4 inches below shoulder length and one inch below the nape of the neck is considered "normal" length of hair for women. This standard is set and actively maintained by hairdressers who will advocate, when you go for a "trim" for you to have a new haircut, and will try to make you unhappy with your current hairstyle. Extremely long hair, such as down to the waist, or hips, or further is equally a sign of freedom or rebellion in women as it is in men. It is a sign that you do not accept the myths perpetuated by the hairdressing industry. Such as: "split ends stop hair growth, therefore you must come to me for a trim every 3 months". Oh yeah, anyone want to prove that with actual scientific fact? And show the mechanism by which the ends of a dead piece of keratin such as your hair communicates with your living follicle 12-36-more inches away? 71.169.175.179 (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

wow, what a crock of shit. 184.38.18.129 (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Needs a source
The following needs to be referenced before being added back in. ''For the entirety of Chinese history up until the end of the Qing dynasty in 1912, Chinese men left their hair long. Cutting hair was considered an act of actively damaging the body that was a gift from one's parents, and therefore unfilial by Confucian traditions. Because of this, people generally refrained from cutting their hair at all during their lifetime. The act of cutting one's hair is a great symbolic gesture for being an outcast ( either by one's volition or being forced ) of family and/or society. Free-flowing hair however was considered barbaric, and the practice of styling one's hair was an important practice. Generally men would coil their hair at the top of the head in cylindrical fashion. The rich would restrain the coil with a pin, and the common people would more popularly wrap it with a cloth.''

Sounds like good stuff, but doesn't meet WP:V quite yet. Wrad (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More stuff that needs sources:

''In Japan during the Heian period long hair was considered desirable for women. The longer a woman's hair was, the prettier she was considered to be.''

While Daoist holy men would have long hair tied up in a top knot.

I'll see if I can't find a source for this, but it would be best if the ones who added it all did. Wrad (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional info to be incorporated
The following answer to a related question I posted on the Humanities desk was given by Mhicaoidh I think it deserves to be incorporated here, but don't have any other ref. and don't want to mess up the page.

''Niuean boys do not cut their hair until they become become teenagers, in a ceremony where women tend the hair for the last time before it is cut. Members of the extended family plaster the youth with banknotes – all part of a large informal Niuean economy that links families and ensures the community looks after its own. This is a tradition continued wherever Niueans live, especially in New Zealand where many Niueans are now, indeed my young sons went to a friends first hair cut last year.'' 71.236.23.111 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

19th Century "Cavalier Chic"
Ranking officers in the Union Army and to a lesser degree the Confederate Army grew long hair as a sort of "Cavalier Chic" in imitation of the romantic warrior. Custer, in particular, comes to mind. 155.85.58.253 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced addition
Traditionally the hair would only be cut when there is a death of a loved one as a sign of mourning.

This needs a source. Wrad (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's another one:

''There are several exceptions to this. The prophet himself was reported to having shoulder length, wavy hair. In Arabian states such as Yemen, men traditionally kept their hair long even after conversion. Turks as well as Bedouins braided their hair. Only civilians were encouraged to keep their hair short and this was only limited to the late medieval period. Warriors on the other hand regardless of ethnic origin were known for their long hair and extravagant moustaches.''

-- Wrad (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Another:

During the 1970s, long hair finally became popular among males in the mainstream, with even everyday businessmen wearing hair below their ears.

-- Wrad (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

first sentence
wow that is the biggest redundancy i've ever seen...--66.146.151.188 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Got any better ideas? Wrad (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Islam change
This was recently added:


 * There are no teachings in Islam forbidding nor encouraging a specific hair length neither for women nor men, in their daily lives. Prophet Muhammed have reportedly had a moderately long hair reaching (almost) below his ears and above the shoulders, according to several hadithes. Ibn Abbas reported that Prophet Muhammed  used to "let his hair lay down" because it was a commonly used hair style by People of the Book as opposed to infidels.

This will need reliable sources in order to be in the article. I don't doubt that it's true, but we've got to have sources for it. Everything else in the article currently has sources and this shouldn't be an exception. Wrad (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok شكرا! It looks very good! Thanks. Wrad (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity, Paul, Long Hair
"The New Testament, however, says, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." The statement was given in a time when hairstyles were changing from what was considered to be a normal (and longer) length, to a short-cropped haircut. Short-cropped hair and a shaven face was a pagan tradition that grew from the expansion of Rome. Paul may have gotten the idea because he was Roman, since there is no law elsewhere in the Bible teaching that long hair is a shame or even what qualifies as such."

This attempt at interpreting the quote sounds like speculation / original research to me. Here is an actual quote on interpreting that passage:

"Saint Paul uses the Greek word for "hair." This particular word for hair designates hair as an a ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested), differing from the anatomical or physical term for hair.1 Saint Paul's selection of words emphasizes his criticism of laymen wearing their hair in a stylized fashion, which was contrary to pious Jewish and Christian love of modesty. We note the same approach to hair as that of Saint Paul in the 96th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council where it states: "Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detri ment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls" "

Source: http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/longhair.htm

As such the Christianity section about Paul needs reworking - it seems to me that it is plain wrong, since according to the article linked, Paul himself had longer than normal hair. I don't have time to do it so I'll leave it (since just plain deleting is not very productive) but would appreciate someone working it in. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is long or short hair a result of "western influence"?
Well? 184.96.240.67 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When and where? FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

article needs a section on ways to grow long hair and types of long hair
for men growing long hair may not be as simple as it sounds. Men that work at jobs with grooming requirements but would still like to grow long hair need information. E.g. which sections of hair on the head can be cut while still enabling one to grow traditional 'long hair'. Which areas can be cut during haircuts and which should not be cut. Most Men usually need to keep their hair neat and groomed while growing it out. When someone has full 'rock star' length hair, Isn't most of that hair coming down from the TOP of the head,rather than the sides, for instance? In other words, if a man shaved the sides and back of his head and never touched the top of it, in 3 years he would still have long hair, right?(this is the information that should be in this article) if the article was truly detailed, it would provide pictures and diagrams showing specific areas on the head that can or cannot be cut and still acheive the basic growing of 'long hair'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? Normally Wikipedia is not a how to manual, but of course, if there are sources is could be oncluded. Longhairadmirer (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and having sources for the "how-to" doesn't change that. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing WikiProject Sociology, adding WikiProject Anthropology
While the length of hair is of sociological importance, it is just one of many social facts of importance to sociologists. I don't think it is within scope of this project. Perhaps anthropology would be more open to it? Note that an article on the social implications of hair length would of course be much more relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This sentence.
I think this sentence is overlong, considering the previous sentence. I will give it a few days, and if no one objects, I'll shorten it. "A widely held alternative interpretation of the conventional belief that they cut it short in the front in order to keep their enemies from getting a hold of it during battle is that, they did not in fact cut it in the front, but rather tied it back in a style known as a pony tail in order to keep it out of their enemies' reach." Erobinson55 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Celebrities
I find this confusing part under the current trends section:

"Female international celebrities known for their waist-length or longer hair include Amal Clooney, Amanda Seyfried, Angelina Jolie, Beyoncé, Blake Lively, Carrie Underwood, Demi Moore, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Hudson, Lea Michele, Olivia Palermo, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Shakira. <--NB! Please limit the list to famous women who have had very long hair (at least waist-length), but not only from the US.-->"


 * I looked at the various articles referenced. The Amal Clooney, Kate Hudson, Angelina Jolie, Blake Lively, Lea Michele, Gwenyth Paltrow, Olivia Palermo, and Amanda Seyfried articles don't support the claim, whether through the photos included or in the text. Neither is there a citation given here. The Beyoncé, Demi Moore, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Shakira articles includes photos that might be of hair that long if it's pulled out straight or if there was a better photograph, but it's unclear as things stand. The text doesn't support the claim, either. The only article that includes hair at all is Parker's where it mentions her contract with the Nutrisse company. A performer who truly had exceedingly long hair, well longer than waist length, is Crystal Gayle. (I don't know if she still does, though.)


 * This is the first article I've seen where a note to the authors is included right in the text instead of on the Talk Page: "<--NB! Please limit the list to famous women who have had very long hair (at least waist-length), but not only from the US.-->" I don't think it's appropriate.


 * One of my WP peeves is when lists are included in an article, but without an obvious organizing factor. These women aren't arranged alphabetically or by age. They seem to have been included randomly, unless I'm missing something.


 * Are men not celebrities, too? Are there no famous long hared men? And the definition of celebrity - does it only include actors and pop performers? What about people in other spheres who happen to have long hair? And why such a long list, anyway? If you think it's necessary, how about two or three examples and call it a night?

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hair biology section.
Since this is clearly an article about the sociology of long hair, I find the biological stuff to be out of place. Wouldn't it be better off in a biologically oriented article like Human hair growth? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, consider this sentence: "Relative to kinky Afro-textured hair, straight hair allows more UV light to pass to the scalp (which is essential for the production of vitamin D, that is important for bone development)." This is misleading. Vitamin D production is not dependent on sunlight striking only the scalp; it's produced no matter what skin the light strikes. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Reestructered some sections
Guided by an intuition that the article could be more ordered i gave a try but i hope that i did not do a mess, revert if necesessary. --Neurorebel (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Africa bias
"Throughout much of Africa, afro-textured hair is the most frequent hair form, except among the Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) speaking populations in North Africa and the Horn of Africa. In the latter regions, naturally long hair is instead more common.[61]"

It is inaccurate to say that Africans have naturally short hair. Long hair exists in all parts of Africa. Also I don't think it's particularly accurate to say that there is a completely separate "afro-textured hair" that is incapable of being long. It's inaccurate to say that hair divides into two categories.

Queue edict and Han massacre by Manchu
I have removed the following text because it's starting being cited while it lacks proper justification:

By 1651, the population of China had been reduced from 51 million to just 20 million, as a whole generation resisted the order for the sake of Confucian ideals against shaving or harming their hair.

It was added in 2016. I suggest not resuming this paragraph until a proper source is established. Apart from being unrealistic (60% reduction of Chinese population in a decade?), the very figure of 51 million is half or a third of the estimated population before the Manchu invasion. Here are a couple of sources:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-1231-2_3

https://www.quora.com/How-many-millions-Chinese-were-killed-by-Manchus

In any case, it is preposterous to assume that the rebellion against the Manchu rulers was only about hair style, or that the killings where directly in application of the 1645 Dorgon edict.

--Oekintaro (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Long Hair and income
I would like to know if there were studies that suggested correlation between long hair and income.

As I there were studies that found correlation between male height and income, and female weight and income. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.245.191 (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Eurocentric
Much of this article is written in a tone that appears very eurocentric. Many times throughout the article it refers to western hairstyle trends of eras as though they were universal to all of humanity. The article needs to be revised, identifying trends in western society as such, and expanded to provide contemporary/ coinciding trends of other cultures/civilizations in more instances where appropriate. SecretName101 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * KonkanaBakshi.jpg

Right wing
Long hair tends to bother the right-wing, at least in the US 139.138.6.121 (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The 6th reference does not exactly support the written statement
It is written: “straight hair allows more UV light to pass to the scalp (which is essential for the production of vitamin D, that is important for bone development[6]”. Was curious about such statement and thus checked if really someone has researched straight or curly hair abilities to pass on UV light and thus produce more D vitamin for bones. The paper “The Essentiality of Arachidonic Acid in Infant Development” and as far I understood it is not really a research about straight or curly hair ability to pass on anything to the bones. 193.238.216.184 (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"evolutionary psychology"
There are several nonsensical references to "evolutionary psychology" and human attraction that have little to do with the article or even the paragraph they're in. Perhaps the purported biology of attraction to long hair could be expanded upon and put in an article about "evolutionary psychology" theories instead of being randomly peppered in an article about long hair? 158.174.24.23 (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Intro is really weird.
I don't think the section of "hair fetishism" should be in the introduction. That's it. Tungster24 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree -- we could put it in the psychology section? Malvoliox (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)