Talk:Big hair

message: To avoid an edit war, I will post here. I believe that Monica Lewinsky is not the ideal candidate for "big hair" as is believed by a certain editor. I think someone such as Dolly Parton would be a better candidate for an image in this article. I'd like to change this as it seems reasonable enough. --Ethii 17:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked with Google - and you're right at 10:1.Rklawton 19:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Should be some pointer to historical "big hair" -- the 1770's put the 1960's to shame... Churchh 14:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second this, large wigs and big hair were popular throughout time and a section for say, 17th century hairstyles would be informative. --Ethii 09:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: :Image:JohnnySlut.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:JohnnySlut.jpg

message: The image :File:Toyah brave.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Toyah brave.jpg

message: This article has a POV problem. (Pardon me for being testy about this as it's a lifelong pet peeve!) The majority of white people have naturally straight or wavy hair, and think of "big hair" as a fashion statement rather than a hair type. But millions of people all over the world, of various ethnicities, have naturally voluminous hair. Try Googling "big hair don't care", "jewfro", or even just "curly hair" to see what I mean. So casting it as an artificially created style rather than a natural trait leads to all sorts of annoying misunderstandings. Unless you go to great lengths to flatten your hair, it's labelled "80s hair" or "hippie hair" or "country music hair" etc. Or it's mistakenly seen as "unkempt", or even threatening. This girl, for example, was threatened with expulsion for wearing her hair in its naturally voluminous state:  So IMO this article needs to be rewritten with that in mind, or deleted. MopTop (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view 

message: Someone changed this:
:"Big hair is commonly seen as artificial or trendy by white people, of whom only 15 percent have curly hair.
to this:
:Big hair is commonly seen as artificial or trendy by some people.
and claimed in the edit summary that the original was "racist."
1) The 15 percent statistic is not "racist," it's just a statistic with an inline citation to back it up. 
2) The sentence makes no sense as edited, because the context is lost.
3) The fact that white people are often clueless about big hair is evidenced by the very fact that I had to add a section called "Naturally voluminous hair" to this otherwise clueless article. I also cited other examples in the text. And by the way, I'm white myself, I just happen to have naturally big hair and grew up hearing clueless comments about it from other white people. --MopTop (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called "racist" remark about white people 

message: It's citation is not a credible source, naturallycurly.com. 70.123.36.85 (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  60% of humans have curly hair?