Talk:Sideburns

Scrooge McDuck
Removed Scrooge McDuck from the list of men known for their sideburns for the following reasons: — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGorilla (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He has no ears and therefore no sideburns
 * His hairstyle is more of a bald-headed wraparound
 * His "hair" is actually feathers anyway
 * He is a duck, not a man

I'm very surprised nothing was mentioned of Luke Perry or Jason Priestley who popularized sideburns in the early 90's on Beverly Hills 90210 after they had become unfashionable in the mid to late 80's. I'll look for sources on that before I edit the article though. Yankees76 21:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Musicians like Glenn Danzig or James Hetfield surely popularized sidesburns throughout the 90s (at least in the metal/punkrock scene). Which probably goes back to their admiration of the music from the 50s/60s. Both are known to like rock and roll and country.--80.133.245.89 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably, but sources would help validate such statements. I doubt Hetfield was particularly noted for his sideburns until well after they had become fashionable/popular in the mid 90's. If I recall he had 80's metal hair up until the Load era, and in 1995 even sported a mullet/mohawk haircut complete with chinstraps - not sideburns . Yankees76 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes you think Scrooge McDuck has no ears? He evidences the ability to hear, and ducks normally do have ears. El Mariachi (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wolverine
I really don't think the prevalence of sideburns throughout the world is due to the popularity of the character Wolverine.

71.246.242.50 13:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

delete Ian J., Modern Man. this is shameless self promotion

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with shameless self promotion. --209.244.30.237 (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility requirements
To cut down on self-promotion (or other promotion of non-notables) I have added the following "invisible" editorial guideline:

-- Fyslee/talk 06:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: If they aren't notable enough to have an article here at Wikipedia, they aren't eligible for inclusion here. Only include those with articles, so write the article first. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertising.

Gallery
To make the article more interesting, we could start a gallery with images (from those with articles here) showing some of the various styles and some of the more spectacular ones. It should be limited to maybe 8-16 (divisible by four, since that's the breadth of the gallery). I'll make a start and others can add to it. -- Fyslee/talk 06:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sideburns vs. Burnsides
When did this inversion occur? Beefart is sixty years old and as a boy in the 1950's it was already sideburns. Any documentation?


 * I found a book from 1909 that tries to explain it. So by then it must have been popular. "It seems to be thought that the word side has something to do with it [ie, with the meaning of the term], and that as an adjective it should come first, according to our idiom." Doing Google Book searches, I couldn't find any examples before 1890 of "sideburn(s)", only one occurrence in the 1890s, and about a dozen instances the next decade, and the next decade several dozen. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2008-09-09 19:54Z

mutton chops...
..are not like sideburns,mutton chops are long hair tht goes down over thy cheeks,unlike sideburns which grow out of thy cheeks Luke12345abcd (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am unconvinced by the distinction, but evidently clarification of what exactly is meant by 'mutton chops' or 'lamb chops' is required, as long as there are redirects going from there to here. To me, those terms just refer to particularly extensive sideburns, but perhaps usage varies? --Oolong (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This needs to be addressed because the article twice implies that mutton chops or lamb chops are different than sideburns, but it does not make it at all clear what that distinction is. I'd say that if no one can support or explain this better soon, then it should be dropped, because it's just confusing the way it is now. ike9898 (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The gallery
Someone with the time and inclination might rearrange the gallery in chronological order, say by date of birth.--Wetman (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Listmakers have expanded it aimlessly. The gallery needs to be pruned of repetitive illustrations.--Wetman (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The gallery at the moment is male pale and stale. That it is "male" is a no-brainer and little more need be said about it. The gallery is "pale" in that all the wearers are of European origin, and "stale" given that only two of the men shown (Asimov and Elvis) were alive during the last 90 years. This is not personal criticism of the men currently depicted. The points I am making are as follows. Sideburns have been fashionable in Japan (as the article says) and also at various occasions (notably the "blaxploitation" era) in the USA's African-American community but the gallery does not reflect this. I would suggest that the gallery should depict the evolution of sideburns - from Alexander the Great to the present day - and photos should primarily illustrate this evolution, with depiction of men notable for wearing sideburns as a secondary consideration. A more controversial suggestion is the inclusion of fictional characters; even extra-terrestrials such as Neelix, the Star Trek character, who was "outed" by a telepathic woman for being someone who enjoyed it when a women pulled his sideburn hair. What do people think? 87.113.12.122 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general sentiments expressed by 87.x.x.x. The gallery should be more than what appears to be a random collection of men with sideburns.  Huw Powell (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Moustache / sideburn line?
We are having a discussion at work about the specifics of the term sideburns. If a person has no hair anywhere on the the top or back of their head, but only has hair that connects under the nose and extends to touch the top of the ears is that considered to be a long moustache or sideburns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.177.187 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov
The author has some pretty rockin sideburns. I think a pic of him should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.60.34 (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Links
The second link is dead... And by dead I mean it leads to a page containing nothing about sideburns, but loads of pop-ups and redirects to useless fraudulent crap instead :) Wouldn't it make sense to remove that link then? Someone unimaginative (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Question
So what were they called before Burnside's time? 86.143.69.89 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

alternative theory of the origin of sideburns?
I have heard, just by word of mouth from various old,wise and respected people that the word "sideburns" did not originate from general Burnside, if anything, the other way about. That side burns refer to the hunting classes-the rich English and European landowners who would shoot for sport, as well as often being involved in military service, and is in reference to the old matchlock, wheellock and flintlock mechanisms on the sides of rifles or muskets. As the spark ignited the gunpowder in the pan and exploded, often the sparks would flare out and sometimes back, to burn against the side of the face of the shooter, and could leave a scar. Quite often these wealthy men, after a military career would hunt on each others estates as a gentry pass time, and the facial scars would add up. Hair was grown both to cover up the scarring, and also to protect their faces from the sparks when firing the musket, held up to the sides of their face (singeing the facial hair, but not the skin). General Burnside's name may have been taken from a landed gentry or military ancestry which were noted for the burns on the sides of their faces. European surnames often have their origins in either the family trade or distinguishing features of the ancestry. I thought this explanation was well known and rivalled the General burnside explanation but have only heard it via word of mouth, I don't see much talk of it on the internet. Has anyone else heard this theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnmakool (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the burn from the flintlock mechanism, and the growth of the sideburn to prevent this is valid. I recently was at Fort George in Scotland which was built in the late 1700s and is still almost perfectly preserved having never seen a battle. There was a presentation by a man dressed as a redcoat who spoke about the life of an infantryman during that period. He explained that the sideburn was grown to prevent the face from being burnt and instead only the hair would be singed. Sometimes they were actually only grown on the firing side of the face. He even mentioned that the Americans like to claim it is from a General Burnside, but this is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbledzepp (talk • contribs) 06:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to see some evidence that the sideburn was named after this American general. The claim seems to be convenient, but lacking in any authority.119.224.13.116 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What is Long hair in front of ears, shaven jawline called?
When you have long hair hanging in front of your ears, but your jawline is shaven, what is that hair called? Does it still count as sideburns? I thought sideburns was what this article describes, jawline hair from ear to chin. Kinda like the difference between a fu manchu moustache, and a biker/Hulk Hogan horseshoe. Whether it's hanging or attached along a strip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.176.90 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's not growing out of the follicles along the side of your face, then it's not sideburns. Alialiac (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The pictures are often not the most representative of sideburns
Most of the pictures used in the article are not the best examples of the sideburn look. You could just as well use the main picture, for instance, as an example of a moustache as much as sideburns. The main pic at least should show a clear-cut (no pun intended) example of sideburns with no attachment to a beard or moustache. Someone here mentioned Isaac Asimov (in his older days), which would be a great example of sideburns -- and just sideburns. Alialiac (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)