Talk:Dreadlocks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Dreadlocks/Archive1 15:17, 4 January 2005 - 11:26, 23 May 2005
Talk:Dreadlocks/Archive2 11:26, 23 May 2005 - 22:12, 18 December 2005

Contents

[edit] Information hunt -update

I found a photo of MauMau warriors ("Freedom dreads") [1] in an online album,and requested permission to use it. Fortunately, the album owner is a fellow Wikipedian :=), building the Kiswahili wikipedia, who got the photo from the Daily Nation of Kenya. He will request permission for the picture (or a similar one) and will possibly contribute some more MauMau material to the article as well. CoYep 07:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


*** (I hope you don't mind me writing here but I wanted to share this publicly.) I just wanted to thank those of you who have worked on the article since I last viewed it in November of 2005. It broke me heart to read such a horrendously narrow-minded view on such a unique multi-cultural form of personal adornment. I thank you kindly for all your hard work and efforts. It is greatly appreciated. This is wonderful! -- UnderNYC

==External links

Here's my breakdown on the external links section, I'm going to go ahead and remove most of them, feel free to add them back, but please make a note here explaining.

- FrancisTyers 14:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


I restored the link to parahamsa.com, this is part of the copyright agreement: "If you do agree to grant permission, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section, by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission, and by providing a link back to your website." See [2] and Image talk:Sadhus.jpg CoYep 15:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I think that this should be made more clear. I've added something but while adequate it isn't perfect. Please feel free to change it. Why [s]he would want a link to a page that has no information on is confusing to say the least. - FrancisTyers 15:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I've read the page and that makes more sense. I will mention one thing, as the photographer has released the photo under the GFDL we aren't obliged to provide a link. The photographer also doesn't mention where the link should appear. Surely a link on the image page would suffice? Wikipedia shouldn't be used for advertising and I don't think its possible to enter into such an agreement. - FrancisTyers 15:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
well, you have a point there. I copied one of the letters (Boilerplate_request_for_permission), and wondered about that myself. But since she sent a webpage link, I would like to keep my word and include it. Maybe we can give it a few weeks, and remove it then. CoYep 17:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Perhaps you could email her asking if a link from the image page would suffice or if she really requires a link from the Dreadlocks page. Explain that it is Wikipedia policy not to advertise (or something, I can't remember the exact words) and suggest that the Image page is the appropriate place. Another option would be to make her name within the Image a link to the Image page? I'll do that now anyway. - FrancisTyers 17:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Good idea! CoYep 17:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the links. I did this much earlier on, but people kept adding/restoring them. IMO, a bunch of useless clutter. deeceevoice 17:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just hopped on in after fixing up another page. The new iteration of this page is more informative but the "External Links" section now only has one link?! I'll replace the following in the next few minutes:

>> First person account of how to start dreadlocks (includes history and a cultural definition)

>> Product reviews for those with dreadlocks

>> Provides steps on how to maintain dreadlock style (maintaining being different than starting which is covered with the first link)

I was going to include the KnottyLocks link (a helpful forum) but there's too many pop-ups.

Hope the reasoning is logical to more than just me :-) Not trying to step on toes or clutter the page. By the way, link fights are not likely to resume as many may have been looking for "link popularity". Placing their link on this page (Talk page) will suit their purposes just as well. maltiti 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: Added links as mentioned above (with exception of MyDreadlocks. The link was sent to a dreadlock maintainance page as opposed to the home page) maltiti 02:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the one link you added, as it had some nice pics and was somewhat of a personal site, I'd rather remove it than have the other ones you added however.
Please read Wikipedia:External links, particularly the What not to link to section for what is and isn't appropriate. As an aside, I do have a POV here as I don't believe dreadlocks need to be made and I don't believe they need to be maintained, they just are. So I would be willing to have other peoples input on this. - FrancisTyers 11:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth I agree with you Francis - I don't see info. on 'how to' (especially links to commercial sites) as particularly relevant to this article. It also tends to introduce daft POV on what's natural for who and what isn't. I've also personally managed ten years of dreads with no specialised dread hair products, wax, backcombing etc... so the fixation with the like is a mystery to me... NickW 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Francis: Thank you for the "External links" reference. While I haven't hidden the fact that I own My Dreadlocks.com, as a trained journalist, I had hoped that I was being objective in my reasoning for the addition.
For example, the links were added with "multiple POV" in mind, contains neutral/accurate information and was proposed because the section on "creating dreadlocks" (which also included maintainance) was removed from the original article.
With all due respect, Francis(that's when you know something borderline disrespectful is on its way) what you believe doesn't matter at all. To soften the blow, what any of us editors believe don't matter.
As I see it, an editor's role - back to that objectivity thing again - is to provide all relevant information. I was going to add "in demand" but Wikipedia likely isn't concerned with how popular a given topic is.
Is it "site promotion"? I suppose but the links were added in light of filling a need. Did any of the other links in the list above have the potential to fill the need based on the "External Links" criteria? I don't think so, but then again as objective as I try to be there's likely bias. As a side note, I don't sell anything on my site.
NickW: I've worn dreads just shy of six years. As for daft POVs, the references on MyDreadlocks.com are from dreadlock stylists who themselves range in ethnic background and who work on different hair types. CoolPoet's page was a nice "journey log" which seems to be popular in the African-American community. The PerfectDreadlocks.com page was a product review one. While I use "whatever" in my hair, there are others - with and without dreadlocks - who want to use specific products (due to concerns about ingredients, enviro-impact, etc). I have no affiliation with PerfectDreaclocks.com or CoolPoet and think both were good references for those needing this kind of information and support.
To wrap up my lobbying effort for the additional two "External Links", encyclopedias have a goal to offer "general education" on a variety of topics. The topic here being dreadlocks, I think there's a derth of education for the Wikipedia user coming to this page looking for a general knowledge of dreadlocks especially since there's very little perspective on how to start and maintain the style.
The End :-) What say you? maltiti 10:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is contact info for www.howtodread.com ? I looked and couldn't find anything. There are some good pictures on the site and I wanted to find out what the copyright status of them is. -Sajendra 19:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You could try webmaster@howtodread.com I guess. I think the one on the first page would make an excellent addition :) - FrancisTyers 19:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

So...why is there a site in the External Links section that goes against what we said we didn't want? I suppose I could remove it, but then there would be suspicion of subjectivity again. Discussion? maltiti 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed that one, I will revert it now. - FrancisTyers 21:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have removed this link for the following reasons: 1. It contains advertising, 2. It contains factually incorrect information and does not provide a unique resource per Wikipedia:External links. - FrancisTyers 20:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to create dreadlocks

I've deleted this section as it no longer fits with the tone of the article. If you don't agree, please feel free to reinsert it. - FrancisTyers 11:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people groom their locks into relatively uniform size and shape. If not groomed to do so, the hair can grow into locks which are unique in size. If they begin to grow together they may be pulled, cut or "ripped", apart.

For locks of fairly uniform size and shape, one may begin the process by sectioning and fashioning it into small braids or tightly twisted tufts. As the hair grows, wayward strands will appear around the sections, which must be twisted regularly to incorporate the new growth into the tufts, which become dreads as they lengthen. This process of acquiring dreadlocks, sometimes called letting the hair "lock", refers to the hair naturally turning in on and spiraling around itself.

To speed up this slow process, some people first backcomb, tease, or "rat" each section of hair, and after forming a long knotted mass of hair, rub each dread between their hands. In order to help consolidate the hair into locks more quickly, beeswax is often used. Sometimes wisps of hair are actually sewn in, using thread or wool to wrap the locks, sealing in the shorter hairs. A crochet hook also can be a very useful tool in the creation and tidying up of dreadlocks, twisting sections of hair between the fingers, then hooking and pulling them through the dreadlock. With straight hair, this technique also can be used at the ends of dreadlocks to make them more rounded and prevent them from unraveling. There are many techniques to improve the upkeep of dreadlocks, such as wrapping an entire lock in string, spritzing a bit of lemon dissolved in water (which aids in the drying of the hair), or passing a wool garment in circles over hair to aid in the attachment of the new hairs.

Both curly hair and straight hair can mat and twist into dreadlocks without backcombing or the use of products; however, generally, it takes much more work to dread straight hair.

While I feel that this will be a missed section, I've re-added some of the External Links that will help people looking to re-create dreadlocks in their own hair. maltiti 02:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

So, I had an idea, most of this stuff is about backcombing, so we have a section (or small reference) that says something like:
While dreadlocks develop in most hair types without intervention, it can take many years for them to develop. Some people choose to shorten the development time by creating dreadlocks by backcombing their hair.
Thats a very rough draft, horrible wording etc. feel free to expand on it. I haven't thought of a name for the section yet, "How to create dreadlocks" isn't appropriate, but then neither is "The development of dreadlocks", how about "Hair styling and dreadlocks" ? if anyone has any ideas please put them forward. The benefit of this is that the stuff which is about backcombing will be in its own article which makes sense as I guess the majority of the worlds dreadlock wearing population don't backcomb. Just a thought though, I'm open to comments... I should really stop thinking about wikipedia at all hours of the day/night :) - FrancisTyers 01:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I never liked that section either. The article states that dreadlocks "will form by themselves if the hair is allowed to grow naturally without the use of brushes, combs, razors or scissors for a long period of time" but then you have a section about "backcom, tease, or "rat" each section of hair". Maybe we could name it "Dreadlock maintenance", with some informations on how to speed up the process, or we could provide external links instead, and people who are searching for this kind of information can look it up elsewhere. CoYep 09:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Or, if someone insists on including it, we could move it to "popular culture", merging some of it with the section about dreadlock extensions, false hair and dread perms. CoYep 09:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about insisting but I do like the idea of adding it to the pop culture section. As I mentioned a few days ago, I do think the topic of maintenance deserves a passing mention.
Hastening the dreadlocking process or "manicuring" dreadlocks really is a current phenomenon often brought about by folks wanting to skip over the awkward stages of growth. The result is either a more "polished" look for professionals or a faster lock look for younger folks who don't want to wait out the hair style.
Backcombing is only one way to manicure locks and is used more for Caucasoid and Mongoloid hair types. There's about a dozen others that range in suitability for Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid hair types.
Err, anyway - moving away from the science - all that is to say that I agree with putting a mention in the pop culture section.
maltiti 10:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: Someone added information on some methods, so I moved them out into separate articles at Backcombing and Dread perming. Dread perming is linked in popular culture section, Back combing in see also and there was a paragraph on "neglect" which I deleted as it is mentioned in the lead. - FrancisTyers 17:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this entire section should be added back in. It provides very valuable information, and external links cannot be relied upon because you never know when a site will shut down. Regarding the conflict between stating that hair will lock on its own and having a section on how to create them. You should just begin the section with something like: Although hair will lock on this own if combs and brushes aren't used, people often use tecniques to crate locks. This can help ensure uniform locks (if creating them for fashion) or can help people with straigher hair lock there hair since straigher hair doesn't lock as readily. Thoughts??? Jean15paul 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

I think some of the wording in the history section could be changed to improve clarity. Right now it reads:
"The first known examples of dreadlocks date back to ancient dynastic Egypt,..."
and
"Vedic scriptures provide the earliest known written evidence of dreadlocks."
This seems a bit confusing and contradictory to me at first glance. I assume it means the first visual examples are from ancient egypt but the earliest known written evidence is from India? Could someone clarify this and/or clean up the writing? I didn't want to change it without checking first. Also does anyone have references for these two claims? Nice work on the stuff here btw. --Sajendra 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The vedic evidence is already included, the various myths about the dreadlocked Shiva are from the vedas, the "Hymn of the longhaired sage" is a direct quote from the Rig Veda. I was hoping for pictures from ancient dynastic Egyptian artifacts or bas-reliefs, but I couldn't find any, and, unfortunately, the editor who inserted that information didn't provide any links either. CoYep 09:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


This history section seems very short on references for cultures other than indian ones. This is a controversial (and interesting) topic, so citations really need to be given.

"According to Roman accounts of the time, the Celts wore dreadlocks as well, describing them as having "hair like snakes"."

  • you say there is a roman account, so let's see it.

"Germanic tribes, the Vikings, the Greeks, the Pacific Ocean peoples, the Naga people and several ascetic groups within various major religions have at times worn their hair in dreadlocks."

  • The vikings have high numbers of combs in their archeological record. This almost sounds like most vikings wore dreadlocks, which is contrary to the combs. Evidence for vikings wearing dreadlocks needs to be substantiated. I have friends who study this period, and they do not know of dreadlocked vikings. So this certainly isn't common knowledge amoungst viking studies groups, and needs substantiation. Also viking is a rather broad term - it would be better to describe them as inhabitants of one of the scandanavian kingdoms, or by locality.
  • which greeks wore dreadlocks? myceneans, classical greeks, byzantines, renaisance greeks? Citations too please.
  • Which germanic tribes, when, and was it only religeous ascetics or general folk? Evidence?

The reference for the egyptian dreadlocks is similarly scarce: "There, he was unceremoniously deposited in a glass cast on the second floor, flanked by a pair of child mummies to one side and a female mummy whose hair had twisted into dreadlocks on the other"

  • this citation is a glancing reference in a non-scienfic pop-article. As such it could be simply wrong. The statement could also be argued to say that her hair had been made into dreadlocks at any time - even in the 19th century. In reality, I expect she did have genuine pre-death egyptian dreadlocks, but this citation doesn't prove it.
  • the photo that accompanies certainly looks like dreadlocks, but could be artist's whim or plaits or a wig. An expert opinion on the matter would be better. (but I'm less woried by this photo)
  • neither of these backup the claim that dreadlocked wigs have been found, and yet the citation next to them implies it is so.


"The very earliest Christians also may have worn this hairstyle. Particularly noteworthy are descriptions of James the Just, "brother of Jesus" and first Bishop of Jerusalem, who wore them to his ankles."

  • well, this says there is a description, so provide it. And preferably from a good source, it's so easy to mistranslate biblical era descriptions.

I'm not trying to criticise, but be constructive. Ecyclopedia style entries need to be very certain of their facts, and this style of writing sounds very confident. If there were a few more unconfident words (such as reported, apparently, may have) or citation needed markers, then I'd be happier with the article. Teffania Anonymous

[edit] Vedas

The sources regarding the Vedic evidence, and especially its influence on Celts were obviously unreliable. (See Archive for brief previous discussion.) The link between the two cultures is not a mainstream theory and should be fought out on the main articles instead of here. I removed that sentence and instated an unreferenced tag. 01:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of word

Elsewhere on Wikipedia (including Rastafarian articles), we say that the word "dreadlock" is derived from being godfearing. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes please. I particularly don't understand the "dread" reference, unless it is "dreading" God.

Done, but a biblical ref to the dread of God would be cool, SqueakBox 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Western Popular Culture

I disagree with the section about dreadlocks in Western culture. It makes it seem as if all westerners that adorn locks do it only for superficial fashion reasons. Moreover, the photo for this sect I think that most Westerners that wear dreadlocks (at least today) do it at least partly as a sociopolitical statement.

How would you suggest that the section is changed? - FrancisTyers 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
How about notable people in dreadlocks like Manny Ramírez?--75.49.192.55 13:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sadhus

Why didn't you list Sadhus as being the first visual with jata/dreads. People in the Caribbean know this because of Indians there.. I always thought black Rastas copy Saivite Sadhus including smoking ganja<-that's an Indian thing not African.

Even if they use Egypt..that's Indians..they mixed with black Africans and made Arabs/gypsies/Hebrews meaning Indian people was there already pre Pyramids. I'm a Saivite who wants jata hair but I know dumb Americans will assume i'm Jamaican or it's an African thing.

[edit] A note about the word used in Swedish

In Swedish, dreadlocks are called "Rastaflätor" (rastaplaits). It seems that we are more connecting the hairstyle with the Rastafari movement then just a general hairstyle. →AzaToth 21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] how to start?

Does anyone have some links/resources about starting dreadlocks that are reliable? I am caucasion, with straight, rather fine hair, and don't know if it is even realistically possible. Perle 16:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dreadheadhq.com/ has some really good instructions for dreading your hair. I am white with straight hair and had some lovely dreads within a few months - it can be done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.176.129 (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dreadlocks can be started by anyone, although it's a common myth that dreadlocks are only possible if you're black. They are essentially ropes of thickly knotted hair - this is most often achieved by first taking a 1cm diameter (or thinner/thicker) group of hairs, twirling them so that they wind together, then "back-combing" (basically combing the wrong way down the hair to get it to knot) starting at the roots and working out to the tips. This process is often aided by the use of beeswax or dedicated dreadlocking wax. Since the natural oils in the hair prevent it from becoming knotted, it is usually advisable to wash any oils or conditioners out of the hair before attempting to style it into dreadlocks. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If you've got 3-4 years to wait, just stop brushing your hair and wait for the rest. - Francis Tyers · 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
hey, it worked for me, albeit accidentally. Sadly I have 1 big dreadlock which looks less cool, lol - Ico2 11:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreadlocks can be washed

I've never heard that they can't be and everyone that I know with locks washes their hair. I'm deleting that part of the article. 9/10/06

Indeed, the smell of unwashed dreadlocks would be extremely offputting and so of course people wash them, SqueakBox 17:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Citation and Sources

While I admit that there are parts of this article that have adequate citation, there are others, including in the first lines, that make quite strong claims and do not back them up. If the word dreadlocks "comes from the Bible and the "dread" of God" where in the Bible? How does it come into English? I take offence as an anthropologist when the second paragraph of the begins "Dreadlocks are a universal phenomenon" and continues "It can be said that what are known today as "dreadlocks" are one of the oldest and most universal hairstyles known." If this is true it really needs to be backed up. There are very few things (if any) that can termed cultural universals. Also, I would like to see evidence that dreads are the oldest hairstyle. None of our primate relatives have dreadlocks, and since we, like other primates, groom each other our ancient ancestors would have needed to purposely create dreadlocks, not have them form naturally. This implies that our hairstyles in the distant past would have been more like that of the great apes. And if someone argues that orang-utans sometimes have dreads, this is because they are solitary, not social like us and the other African great apes. Furthermore, showing a depiction of a Maya man with "dreadlocks" is missleading. Hair is depicted in many ways artistically and is not usually tremendously realistic. This is not the best way to establish the existance of dreadlocks in the past. To then cite the 18th-19th century historian William Hickling Prescott is rediculous. His mention of the "priests" wearing "sable robes, covered with hieroglyphic scrolls of mystic import" should have set off alarm bells. A citation of Horodatus for the existance of men who have no heads and have their faces on their chests would be comporable. Digsdirt 08:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree better referencing is needed, and there is a lot of scope to improve accuracy and weed dubious text. However, this is not an 'anthropological' article in the strict sense, so judging it solely by the definitions and perspectives of anthropology would be wrong. IMO the notion here that dreadlocks are universal is a reflection on the controversy surrounding the origin and 'ownership' of dreads in this article between Wikipedia editors over the years. In this context, the notion they are universal shows acceptance that no one culture is responsible for the origin of this particular hairstyle, rather than a comment on 'cultural universals'. (For example, there have been inaccurate - verging on racist - edits in this article in the past that white people can't grow dreads naturally). Perhaps the wording needs tightening up. I agree that there is little to support dreads as 'the oldest hairstyle' but the rest of what you say re: other primates etc.. is pure speculation. Whatever, lots of work to be done on the article for sure. NickW 12:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Images

I've been reverting various edits that have removed the clubber and activist images from the article. I think the images make a positive contribution to the article. If anyone disagrees can we discuss it here? NickW 12:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree they should stay. - Francis Tyers · 16:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
do we have any other images? that shiva image should not be near the top, it is almost impossible to see the dreads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Just undid an edit that removed the clubber picture - I still think it's a good image to have and shows an interesting variant of dreads - synthetic or not... NickW 08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Why is "Political motivations for wearing dreadlocks" a subheading of "Religious or spiritual connotations"? Making "In Western popular culture" a subheading of the same point is also somewhat questionable, in my opinion.

--Pcj 00:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology?

The article claims in the heading that the "Dread" in dreadlocks comes from a dread of god. It later says that it refers to the fact that young rastafari looked "dreadful with their locks."

Which is it?216.165.38.83 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology?

The article claims in the heading that the "Dread" in dreadlocks comes from a dread of god. It later says that it refers to the fact that young rastafari looked "dreadful with their locks."

Which is it?216.165.38.83 05:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Celtic" Identity

"Apart from anti-establishment politics and spiritual reasons, some white peoples have cited reasons for adopting locks to honor and cherish Celtic or Viking tribal identity."

Uh... some people may say this is their reason, but I know of no basis for dreads having any place in historical Celtic tribal cultures. The Fianna, for example, had the requirement that you had to unbraid and rebraid your hair every day. This would specifically argue against dreads. And as the Fianna were the "wild", "outsider" sorts, living rough in the wilderness, if they didn't have them I certainly doubt the mainstream folks would have. What I think this perception is based on is recent movies or TV shows that have had "Celtic" characters with dreadlocks (the same characters have often had facial tattoos of Maori designs. Real historical, that). There is some folkloric acknowledgment of hair tangling into locks, as seen in the phrase "elf locks" - but afaik this was not seen as a hairstyle or something desirable, but rather the actions of mischievous fairies playing tricks on those who wanted their hair to be without tangles. So, I think if you want to keep this bit in the article, you should footnote multiple people making this claim, as well as note that it's really not accurate to imply this was true of historical Celtic cultures. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "Dreadlocks"

The opening paragraph states that dreads are matted rope-like pieces of hair which form without intervention (ie. the neglect method). While this is obviously how they were first formed, it is not the only way it can be done. I know that many people with dreads feel that natural locks are "superior" to those which are permed, backcombed, wool-rubbed etc. however they are just as much "dreads" by the dictionary definition:

1 : a narrow ropelike strand of hair formed by matting or braiding 2 plural : a hairstyle consisting of dreadlocks (m-w.com)

The definition and reasons for dreading have evolved over time. I feel this part: "which will form by themselves if the hair is allowed to grow naturally without the use of brushes, combs, razors or scissors for a long period of time" should be revised or removed, as it implies that that is either the only way dreads form, or the "proper" way to form dreads. Opinions? --74.12.189.251 03:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia at end of article

The 'In Western Popular Culture' section veers toward trivia. Some of the examples cited (such as 'the twins' from The Matrix (who?) and Captain Jack Sparrow) are of limited cultural significance at best. I think it should be cut from the end of the third paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunstar hero (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Care and washing?

I came to this article wondering how folks with dreadlocks keep their hair and scalp clean. No information on that. I think this article needs more on the subject than the bit in the lead paragraph about how some cultures never cut or clean their hair but dreadlock wearers commonly clean it. I can't imagine how you'd rinse the soap out. Or dry it. =Axlq 21:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone add a discussion about the supposed distinction between "dreads" and "locks"?

Every recent discussion I have heard makes the distinction, but doesn't explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.62.175.189 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dreadlocks in egypt?

the history of dreadlocks section appears to be misleading,it seems to be a suedo way of trying to say the ancient egytpians were black by claiming on the asumption that in our modern day drealocks are considered a black hair style that they were the first ones to be wear dreadlocks,first off ancient egyptians never had or wore dreadlocks and link us to a picture that is probaly taken out of context, from returntoglory.org a dubious afrocentric site does not count as a crediable source for this,though ancient egyptians hair was straight wavy or lightly curled which anybody who know about dreadlocks it is easier to make dreadlocks out of caucasian hair because it knots easier,the ancient egytpians mainly shaved there head because there hair being straight wavy or lighty curled like many other caucasoids from north africa south west asia and europe is easier to get infested with lice unlike there sub saharan neighbors who had tight kinky hair,the ancient egyptians wore braided wigs which braids is found in every culture in some form or another.the person who edited that section makes a wrong asumption about lock and dreadlocks what he/she is talking about is some ancient egyptian women (i belive not positive have to check into it further) as a sign as being a feminine would wear a single side hair lock in other words would shave there whole head and leave a single long lock of hair but was not knoted in a dreadlock fashion so to claim the side lock to be a begining of the dreadlock hairstyle that we know today is a major stretch.to my knowledge dreadlocks either originated from india or from the vikings or celts but not positive so until then no edits but has soon as i investigate more i will make changes to that section wikipedia is not here so people can just put up what they want to believe and ignore truth because of a certain dubiuos agenda--Mikmik2953 05:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how sourced information can be "trying to show" something that isn't said explicitly. futurebird 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)lets put it this way if i put up a statement claiming that gunpower was invented in persia but we know that

The ancient Egyptians were black, so it's no surprise they wore dreads. Their locked wigs are in museums. It's in their statuary. You can't tell us a photograph of a well-known artifact is somehow bogus simply because it appears on a website called "returntoglory.org" -- (which is, incidentally, maintained by a Jew, not a black person). The mummy of Maiherpri has nappy hair and a pronounced prognathism. Even mainstream scholars who challenge certain so-called "Afrocentrist" scholarship readily recognize the presence of black Africans and black pharaohs and queens in dynastic Egypt. All of the characteristics of Tut and the Tutmosid line clearly indicate they were black people. You need to do some research before coming in here and making such claims -- based entirely upon ignorance and outdated and discredited "scholarship" twisted/contorted by the racist premise that blacks lacked the intelligence to build a high civilization. deeceevoice 11:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the debate about "were the egyptians black" but my understanding is that Egypt was a multi-racial society whose ties to other African states at the time are pretty well accepted. In any case, I don't see how noting the presence of dread locks is "tying to prove" anything exciting or new. futurebird 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, God. Egypt started as a black civilization and remained so in predominant part throughout the dynastic era. Were there non-blacks there? Yep. Later on. But ancient Egypt was certainly far blacker then than America is or ever was white. Yeah, I know that's another discussion, but I'm really sick of that "multi-racial society" mess. Makes me wanna hurl. deeceevoice 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

why do you call me a racist why because i disagree with you think that means i hate you see that is what makes me want to hurl because if anybody come out against afrocentism they are called racist and that is why many egyptoloist stay out of the race game of ancient egypt because they dont want to lose there jobs if they come out with the truth they would be called racist so they leave us to read tea leaves, just as hawass was called a racist but he dont have to play by the same pc rules that americans play by , i am challenging your postion that ancient egypt was dominated by blacks and your assumption like many other assumtions by many afrocentrics but is wrong that the ancients egytpians were displaced by the arabs they did a dna study from a documentry called egypt beyond the pryamids in 2001 on modern day cairo and compared it to the workers tombs that build the great pyramids and found them to be homogenous in other words the ones there now were the ones who were there 5000 years ago,and news flash they are not black africans ancient egyptians look not black or white in the modern day use of the term they would look like what we would call middle easterners i dont like the term arab because not all middle easterners are arabs,but in anciet times would there people in ancient egypt who would pass as white yes or as black yes ,there is without a doubt the rameses the great would be considered white in the modern day sence from a book by professor clarence e walker called we cant go home again, "diop's,desire to prove rameses was black was a futile excersise,diop could not provide solid evidence that rameses the great was black,since the pharoah was in fact not black,in 1976 a group of french scientist working with the permission the the egytpian goverment exsamined the mummy of rameses and concluded he was a "leucodern" that is a fair skinned man,like pre historic or ancient mediterraneans or perhaps ,the berbers of north africa,the only egyptian dynasty which could be called black without qualification in the modern sence of the word would be the 25th dynasty which originated from kush".and the nubians would be what we call blacks of mixed racial background in america today black .Further more afrocentrics try to put to much stake on egytian art and try put ancient art into todays terms and understanding by lets say some of tuts statues and mentuhotep ll statues portray them as having black skin, here is a little diddy from a book called the penguin historical atlas of ancient egypt by bill manley,"colors were expressive rather than natural red skin impliled vigourous tanned youth,whereas,yellow skin indicated women or middle aged men who worked indoors,blue or gold indicated divinity because of there unatural character and association with precious materials,the use of black for royal figures expressed the fertility of the nile soil out of which egypt was born.sterotypes were frequently employed,to especialy indicate geographic origins or foregnersin closeing i am not saying blacks are stupid and can't have a complicated society ,i am saying you cant steal ones that are not yours because of wrongs done the sub saharan black people during the last 500 years,and further more afrocentrics like your self do a diservice to your people of black african hertiage by portaying egypt as a black civlisation and the greeks to, also claiming west africans were the frist ones in the americas to try to rob ancient native americans of there culture by saying west africans taught them how to build pyramids,two wrongs don't make a right,and i would like to know more about great black civilizations like that of punt,nubia and the complex societies of subsahran africa because,but all the great african american studies professors like dr. cornell west are worried about proven the dis proven i myself am a student of human history first not race history but if peole are trying to distort history im willing to debate the issue.--Mikmik2953 20:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Next time you read what I write, try reading for comprehension rather than reading in something that you expect, but that I did not say. I've been at my computer for almost 12 hours cranking out deadlines, so I'm just not in the mood to read further. I'm sure I've had this discussion many times before. I'm tired, I'm bored -- and I'm out. deeceevoice 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

okay agreed--Mikmik2953 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hygiene?

Dreadlocks look unhygienic; are they actually dirty or bad for your health, or is it inconsequential? I could not find much online information regarding this outside of blogs or forums. Reliable sources needed Eedo Bee (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


http://www.knottyboy.com/ -- Take a look around, they have a very good FAQ section. Dreads (if properly maintained) are not at all unhygienic, in fact on most hair types, poorly cleaned/maintained dreads will be more likely to "unlock", read: the knots that form the dreads will be more inclined to unknot. Not to mention that if one doesn't regularly clean his/her dreads the locks may begin to mold and smell bad.--Lycan1841 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)