Talk:Dreadlocks/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page contains the posts to Talk:Dreadlocks, as archived on 11:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jeeze! Why the photo of the white guy with the disheveled looking, unkempt dreads? I think a photo of the real deal would be far better. Find someone with coarse, naturally nappy, well-groomed hair, please! deeceevoice 15:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted passage about dreads being low-maintenance. If you've got long nappy hair, dreads can be pretty high-maintenance (and heavy). Removed the backshot (

Woman with braids

) of the woman with braids. They're not dreads, so they're not applicable to this article. deeceevoice 19:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1 Caucasian
2 There's a problem in a fundamental premise
3 This page is terrible
4 What's with Sessions and that photo?
5 i put quotes around some words

Caucasian

I do not like the term caucasian, so I changed it to whites to refer to people of european descent. I am not sure about the Wikipedia policy on this…

There is no set policy. Whites are Caucasians; the two words are interchangeable (but it is capitalized). But, hey, whatever floats your boat. deeceevoice 11:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's a problem in a fundamental premise

The article says: "For locks of fairly uniform size and neatness, most blacks will begin the process by oiling and sectioning off the hair into small braids or tightly twisted tufts."

This is factually incorrect. It's well known that oiling the hair that is to be locked will actually slow down the locking process for black people with 'black' hair. It's fine to oil the scalp, but not the hair. In fact, one MUST oil the scalp for general scalp health.

The basic way to form dreadlocks in 'black hair' is simply to not comb it. The person who wishes to wear locks can oil their scalp regularly, should wash frequently (in salt water if available) and do all general forms of hair upkeep. The two things that should not be done are combing and cutting.

It's as simple as that. I can't speak authoritatively on how it occurs for people with straighter hair, but there's how black folks make it happen in the Rasta tradition. There is no twisting or braiding involved. In fact, anything that makes the locking process easier or faster is regarded as something akin to sacrilege among the Rasta faithful.

Of course, there are other locking methods and traditions that have emerged. They are alternately called Nubian Locks, African Locks, etc. (eschewing the negative connotations of 'dread'). These other traditions may employ different methods to start or maintain locks, but the fundamental fact is that oiling the lock itself retards the locking process. --Adisa 06:29, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Adisa, see my comments below. Further, this article is about dreads -- not Rasta dreads. The article already says hair dreads naturally. What's your beef? People achieve the look in different ways -- and, by far, the most reliable way to for people who want a more groomed look (unlike the brother in the photo) is to uniformly section the hair off and start them that way. I'm not defending the article in its entirety -- especially all that crap about crochet hooks and stuff or perceptions about dreads being dirty. (I'm not at all interested in how white folks torture their hair into some simulation of Rasta locks or the misperceptions of the ignorant.) But someone wanted to put it in, and I left it. I appreciate you catching my edit error with the oil; I knew that. (Folks shouldn't use conditioners on their hair, either.) But next time you see something incorrect, change it. Nothing on Wiki is set in stone. deeceevoice 07:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just put a bit of what Adisa said at Rastafarianism#Dreadlocks, --SqueakBox 01:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is terrible

I don't think I've seen a worse page. I'm not really informed about dreadlocks, a fact I was trying to remedy by looking to this page, so if anyone is, please help me out here. I removed the list of celebrities with dreadlocks because that was the fecal topping to the whole ordeal, but other things may need some informed editing. --The Grza 23:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Besides the removal of the pointless celebrities, I have also removed some of the more pointless information. I would suggest that whoever edits this page next remove all the information pertaining to "How To" and include, maybe some actual information. I fixed it about as much as I am informed enough to do, but it needs a lot more work.--The Grza 23:21, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, well! lol Don't be afraid to speak your mind. If you thought this page was crap when you got here, you should have seen it before.

Yeah, I know you don't oil black hair before you start dreads. I was thinking about oiling the scalp. Such cognitive slips, incomplete/screwy edits happen when people compose and type at the same time. Not a big deal. If you see an error, then correct it. But you didn't. So, I went back and did it.

Yes, the business about hair care, arguably, can be omitted. And while you may disagree with its inclusion, it is "actual" information. As far as the list of people with dreads -- obviously, someone thought it important enough, or of interest enough, to add. (It seems that articles on Wiki are replete with such lists.) The same is true of the links. I am inclined to leave them. I think your criticisms are a lot of bluster without much substance, frankly, and consisted primarily of deleting information you deem extraneous. It's likely others who may have included the info in the first place will come behind you and restore it. I did revert a split verb you edited into the text, but left much of your edits untouched. I'll leave that to others who may feel strongly about one thing or another.

One thing that would be extremely helpful if you have the time, however, that I think we may both agree on is the need for a decent photo. There was one earlier of a white guy with some fairly nasty-looking dreads -- hardly the example one reasonably would expect in such an article but typical of what kind of crap one sees on Wikipedia all the time. Someone deleted it, thankfully. And I deleted the photo of a woman with braids as irrelevant. But now there's no pic at all. If you have access to a decent photo of some real dreads (read "black" and "nappy" and preferably beautifully groomed) without copyright problems, it'd be great if you'd add it. deeceevoice 01:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To your response- The only posts I made were under this heading so I made no reference to "oiling" or any such information. Like I said, I am not really informed on how dreadlocks are created and I am in no position to make such comments. To your second point, which was the list, I thought the reasoning behind deleting it would be obvious to all, but apparently it is not. The list of "People with dreadlocks" is both infinitely incomplete and doesn't actually give us any information about the dreadlocks. If you feel the list is necessary, why not include everyone who has had hair on the Hair page or all the famous people with tattoos on the tattoo page. Also, the links were all "How To make dreadlocks" links. I really don't think there needs to be seven links to the same type of webpages. If someone thinks that there should be more, put them back, it isn't that big of a deal. They're just incredibly repetative. Perhaps someone would consider posting a link about Dreadlocks themselves, that might be interesting after all. To the picture, I'll try to find one. I'm not sure why it needs to be black, but I'll see what I find. And yes, I did say what I thought. The page was and still is crap and needs to be fixed a lot. --The Grza 02:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I never said the list was necessary. I said I have no strong feelings about it one way or another -- merely that others might. After all, I've seen such lists attached to all sorts of articles on Wiki, so that seems to be a Wiki peculiarity. With regard to links, I think I added one to the list -- only because there was no decent photo available, and the link I provided had a few pics of black folks with dreads. I haven't checked out all the links provided, but wholesale deletion of all of them seems excessive. Are they all completely worthless? And, yes. The dreadlocks photo should definitely be of a black person -- for, I think, fairly obvious reasons, which I will not debate. deeceevoice 08:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you were confused. I didn't delete them all, I left three links to sites nearly identical to the other sites I deleted. I imagine that three versions of the same information is enough. I did, however, suggest that those who knew better links or saw that I deleted perhaps some with more intriguing and in depth information on a hairstyle replace them. As for the race of the person involved in the dreadlock picture, it really doesn't matter, does it? There should at least be a picture on this page, even if it's only until a better picture is found. --The Grza 11:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote the last note, I'd been switching among articles in different screens, at a time when the site was extremely sluggish. I probably was looking at another article when I wrote what I did re the links. My bad. As I've already stated, to me, the ethnicity of the person most definitely matters in an article on dreadlocks. I wouldn't have deleted the photo of the ratty-looking fake dreads that was already there. I think whoever did it tried to insert another in its place, because at the same time the photo disappeared, that multi-colored Wiki photo template appeared in its place -- which I deleted. But I'm glad the photo is gone, and I'm perfectly happy to leave it blank until a suitable photo of a black with dreadlocks can be found. deeceevoice 11:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It occurred to me to revisit Rastafarianism -- and there was a photo. The dreads aren't as neat as I'd prefer, but at least they're the real deal. I'd change the caption, though, to simply "Dreadlocks," but I don't know how -- and I've got a deadline this a.m. Maybe I'll read up later and fix it when I have more time. Peace. deeceevoice 12:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - but - why should a photo of someone with dreads be limited to a particular ethnicity? I accept the term 'dreads' is derived from Rastafari, but what it describes is fairly universal. NickW 19:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) (white with non-'fake' dreads).

I agree with you to a point NickW. Dreadlocks have some connotation in some circles as being a "black power" symbol, an anti-white emblem as I understand it. If there is to be a argument over ethnicity, the reasoning for both sides needs to be explained on the page, instead of in here.--The Grza 21:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hold up! Black power, black pride, even black nationalism are not, ipso facto, "anti-white." Don't confuse the two! Rastafari, as a matter of fact, often (generally?) welcome white folks. And I've already said I wouldn't get into a debate about why a black photo. Suffice it to say that I wouldn't post a photo of a dyed redhead in the Wiki article on "red hair." Why? It's contrived! The fact that the dreadlocks article when dealing with white hair talks about crochet hooks and sewing with thread and wrapping the hair in wool and teasing and ratting and using wax and all that ridiculous mess in order to torture/force white hair into dreadlocks says it all. While all human hair will 5 (UTC)

My personal (very limited) experience of Rastafari has been mostly positive. I guess I have some fairly strong views on this whole topic. I'm white and have dreads which have grown with nil interference (except the occasional ripping apart). I see plenty of black dreads that have come out of a salon. So to me, the notion of 'true' dreads has nothing to do with colour. I should add that the reason I have dreads, and many white friends of mine have had (now and in the past) has nothing to do with any culture but our own (I think the Celts are mentioned in the article, and even the Saxons had a term for dreads). I accept that the term 'dreads' has a black origin, but language can't grant exclusivity of concepts (unless you've totally lost the plot). To suggest that white people can only ever have 'fake' dreads etc.. is quite clearly racist. I'm happy to live with that of course, ignorance is a fact of life... But maybe these conflicting attitudes need to be described in the article as The Grza suggests... NickW 10:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. To add to above - I'm not pointing fingers or calling anyone racist - it's just the attitude re: white and dreads that I find frustrating. I think there's a lot of room for misunderstanding(s) on this one... Any suggestions for resolving this one - or should we work out how to present the 'opposing' views... Onwards and Upwards! NickW 12:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Racist" lol That's really funny. There's a hell of a lot of difference between going to a salon to have one's hair groomed and going to extraordinary lengths to torture one's hair into a style for which it is not naturally suited (the way lots of black folks endure all sorts of crazy chemical crap to perm their hair strait). And, yes, there are some white folks with really curly hair -- including some with African ancestry who have nappy/frizzy hair who do dreads without resorting to home crafting techniques and snatching hair off the backs of sheep. But they're certainly in the minority. If there's a single photo of dreadlocks in an article dealing with the subject -- my opinion? Hell, yeah. It should be of a blackman/woman. Same thing with an afro (and not that fool in a ratty-looking afro wig some jokester originally posted for that article). deeceevoice 19:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

White people can grow dreads without the need to go to a salon etc... (of course many will take the quick 'fake' route).
White people can grow dreads naturally even if they don't have particularly curly hair, (it just takes some time).
Re: racism. Well, I've had plenty shouted at me in the street because I have dreads (although never from Rastas to date).

Everything I'm saying is based on experience (of myself and numerous friends). I hear your opinion, but I'm still interested in the ra tionale behind it. NickW 19:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've already stated my rationale. So, you get shouted at, 'eh? Funny. I wonder if the black folks doing that were wearing Western clothes or a straightened hairstyle. While I've never seen any white dreads I thought looked good (and there probably are some), I wouldn't think to harass anyone for wearing them. Silly, pointless business that. But I'd hardly call it "racism." Lots of black folks see dreads as expression of race pride, and they feel a sense of ownership of them, and given the history of black-white relations in this nation, the resentment doesn't surprise me. I suppose Jews would react similarly if a bunch of Germans suddenly decided yarmulkas were all the rage and started wearing them as a fashion statement. deeceevoice 20:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, racism to me is any discrimination based on ethnicity. If people shout at me then that just makes them ignorant and rude, and if they're doing it because of my colour then yeah, they're racist. I won't lose any sleep over it, but don't tell me you think only whites can be racist? I'm also still missing your rationale re: dreads, other than an irrational belief that dreads are somehow the exclusive property of one ethnic group, when history and cultural practices around the world indicate something else... But hey, the article is okay at the moment, so I'm happy to disagree with you :) Check this out though [1]. This picture would make a nice addition to the article! NickW 13:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a discussion about who is and who isn't racist. We'd likely disagree. Further, go back and read what I said. Never once did I say "I" when describing the people with whom you seemingly have come into contact. Further, when trying to understand the reactions of the people who choose to vocalize their objection to dreadlocked whites, I still think it would be useful to consider the analogy to Germans wearing yarmulkas. You likely still won't agree with them, but you may understand where they're coming from. deeceevoice 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just checked that link. That's just gross. And, no, that turd-looking thing is not the same as dreadlocks -- any more than a Polish plait is. deeceevoice 03:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's with Sessions and that photo?

Is this person on a vanity trip, or what? The photo adds absolutely nothing to the article -- and all we see is one, big head and then a few weird-curlylocks off to the side. This is a joke/vandalism. Right? deeceevoice 09:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been reverting it as vandalism because he apparently didn't get the point and continued to include on the page. I left a note on his talk page, but I'd just keep reverting it.--The Grza 18:19, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. NickW 19:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i put quotes around some words

Such "neglect" often results in dreadlocks that are irregularly shaped and matted together, affecting a "disheveled and unkempt" appearance.

for obvious reasons. i have dreads and i didnt neglect my hair to get them and i dont think i affected a disheveled and unkempt appearance...well maybe some groups would see them as that...