Talk:Dreadlocks/Archive 2

message: White people have very different hair, and displaying a diversity of styles is exactly what the article should be doing. Both pictures are weird looking. Neither pic is much better or worse than the other, so thats no criteria. IMO this is simply a matter of ego's boiling over. Sam Spade  08:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed several inferior photos from other articles over time.  Just removed one from Rastafarianism yesterday, as a matter of fact.  It was too small and looked strange with the other photos on the page.  So, I tried upsizing it -- but the resolution was so poor, the image was just a blur even slightly enlarged.  It wasn't critical to the article, and there are always other images.  So, I simply deleted it.  And as I stated earlier, yes.  The photo of the white guy is a bad one.  If you're taking snapshots and sharing them with friends, it's fine.  But my background is journalism and print media, and it very clearly is not publication quality.  Crappy shots are crappy shots.  And just like crappy writing, there's no place for mediocrity on Wikipedia.  deeceevoice 09:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's a fine quality picture that details what some dreadlocks look like. If that's you're angle, I suggest you try another tact." Is what you said to me. Well, right back at you. And by the way, it is just your POV that the pic of the black man and the white man are good/bad, as obviously others feel diferently.  The reason I find this so pathetic, is because I believe even if I found an award winning pic of a white guy with dreads, you would still remove it from the article. So don't try to say it's anything to do with the quality of the pic, you just don't want anything but a black/rasta on the article as though they are the only ones with "true" dreads. The most NPOV way is to have more than one. And by the way, I don't see ANY of you who argued about inapropriate images for articles such as if "Skirt were illustrated by a picture of Jean-Paul Gaultier", removing the pic of Marilyn Monroe who is a natural brunette from the Blond article. But then, you were just saying anything to try and get your way weren't you. --Silversmith 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Er, what on Earth does anti-Semitism have to do with this?  SS has made his PoV on the poor down-trodden whites plain and explicit, and appealing to him on this article was clearly making use of his views in order to help effect your own agenda here.  the claim that you did it for fun, or out of a noble desire to break down cliques, is disingenuous.  As for the remarks above, it's all too common a cheap rhetorical trick to accuse editors of inconsistency because they haven't made similar changes on articles they've probably never looked at (as I've never looked at blond). Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that, I wasn't just talking to you. The Blond artilce image has been pointed out on this talk page, and it hasn't been changed by anyone reading over the discussion who feels such things are inapropriate, yet they will argue for days over the image on this page. --Silversmith 11:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry, maybe it's nothing to do with a vendetta against me (the anti-Semitism thing) but just your vendetta against Sam Spade.  Your accusations are wrong and unfounded, by the way.  — Chameleon 11:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you are saying that because you are unaware of the problems I have had with Mel lying about me in the past; but in any case, I have withdrawn the suggestion that he is motivated by that.  I also have not said that you want to exclude a white person from the page; it's deeceevoice who wants to do that.  Silversmith must have been referring to deeceevoice there.  You should tone down your silly comments about the "suspicious" and "vehement nature" of things.  You should also work on your ability to separate arguments made against your points and arguments made against deeceevoice's.  — Chameleon 11:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Apparently I've lied about Chameleon.  Do provide the diffs. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Discussion, May 23rd to ... 

message: As another contributor is so fond of citing Wiki policy, I think it important to warn against violating the 3-reverts rule.  Another member has twice chosen to arbitrarily revert edits which have removed a superfluous photo of poor quality from the article -- and without so much as a single word on the discussion page.  That contributor -- whose tag escapes me -- should refrain from doing so again.  deeceevoice 21:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "without so much as a single word on the discussion page" — that's humour, right?  — Chameleon 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR rule

message: I submitted an RfC. Someone should probably request page protection. Sam Spade  12:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it's necessary.  TheGrza and Deeceevoice seem to have stopped their revert war.  — Chameleon 12:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: False.  Gabriele's picture was the first one in this article, and has been here since July 2004.  The rasta pic stayed until it transpired it was a copyvio.  You are right about an improved article being my goal though.  — Chameleon 14:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: False, and stop personalising issues, particularly with a racist tone.  For any latecomers, the dispute is over one party not accepting the photo of a white person in the article.  Specifically, deeceevoice was against the race of the person, and TheGrza claimed it was low quality.  I insisted it was fine and should stay until a better shot of a white person was found.  It then transpired that the rasta photo that had recently been added was a copyvio and it had to be removed.  This was relatively uncontroversial.  The rasta photo was re-added when a partial licence was obtained.  Extra content was added to the article and it was divided into sections, thus further detracting from the idea that one photo was enough because it was a brief article, and at that point deeceevoice and TheGrza gave up reverting.  Personal attacks and insinuations were made throughout.  The article is still being improved, and better photos of various races are still being sought.  — Chameleon 15:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know what all the rudeness is about, but the article is looking alot better. Maybe next time we can achieve that result without all the crossed wires and racial invective? Sam Spade  15:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: False.  Diff links in chronological order: First edit in dispute (put white pic back, did not remove black pic), Pointed out copyvio as per policy, Removed black pic for first time (as copyvio, as per policy).  I'm waiting for your apology.  The rest of your comments are ad hominem and also untrue.  Please actually read and digest our policies on WP:FAITH and WP:NPA.  I'd also like to point out the deep shadows on the rasta pic.  — Chameleon 17:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before trying to take the moral high ground it's best to check that you're not standing in a hole.  You levelled accusations against me above (that I'd called you anti-semitic, and that I'd called you a liar) neither of which was either true or relevant to this discussion.  I've been waiting for your apology for longer than you've been waiting for deeceevoice's. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You came in here and immediately started personally attacking the integrity of Sam Spade (without giving diffs).  I just gave you some of your own medicine, which is to be expected after having taken a lot of personal attacks on this page without losing my cool.  As for an apology or explanation for you, well, I'm first waiting for an apology from you for the sneaky behaviour and insinuations.  Let's deal with that before we deal with the question of whether I overreacted to it.  If you sincerely want to argue about the issue (which, for all you reading, was not recent) then you are free to talk about it on my talk page (I won't even insist it be by e-mail this time).  This is not the place for it.  I am currently waiting for Deeceevoice to make an apology for the false accusations she has only just made regarding this very article.  — Chameleon 17:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Your opinions on photography are all very interesting and valid, but here are merely a distraction from the main point: I have just proven your nasty accusation totally wrong, and you have failed to acknowledge that, much less apologise.  — Chameleon 18:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, whatever, but you have still not had the integrity to admit you made a totally false accusation.  — Chameleon 22:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What matters is when the accusation was made, not when it refers to (nor the weak excuse that you were retailiating for something that I said about another editor).  You have lied about me in public on this page, by saying that I accused you of anti-Semitism, and saying that you had lied.  I asked you to show the diffs, and you're unable to (obviously, as they don't exist) — but now you have the nerve to get on your high horse about another editor.  Well, now I'm afraid that I am saying that you lied.  If you are honestly convinced that you can prove me wrong, let's see the diffs.  If I'm suffering some peculiar form of amnesia, I'll happily and ungrudgingly apologise.  If you refuse to respond, then at least drop the hypocrisy of your fake moral outrage. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already expressed willingness to talk about this away from this page.  You are showing bad faith by trying to talk about it here, thus distracting from Deeceevoice's failure to admit that she was 100% wrong in her argument.  — Chameleon 22:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you lie about me "away from this page", then we can talk away from this page.  When you lie about me here, then explain and apologise here. (I haven't noticed you suggesting that deeceevoice talk about it away from this page...) Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 08:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll ignore that paragraph because it wasn't written in English.  Back to the main point: even if we forget all talk of apologies, Deeceevoice has still not been grown-up enough to admit she was completely wrong.  — Chameleon 10:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you mean ¡Qué lástima!  Siento que no entiendas el inglés.  Perhaps you could mangle French or Hindi now that you have finished with English and Spanish.  Damn, you'll probably now inform me that your bad Spanish grammar was actually AAVS and I am therefore racist for noticing it.  — Chameleon 19:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: India should be mentioned in the article, afterall their dreadlock tradition dates back to ~ 1800 B.C.  This site  has a lot of interesting informations (and pictures), maybe some could be included into this article. (e.g. the Dravidian roots, that the first attestation in writing is in the Veda scriptures of India, that the world's record holder of hair length is a Thai man with dreadlocks named Hoo Sateow, etc.) Pharlap 14:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestion.  We should have more in-depth international coverage of dreadlock history and culture.  Feel free to research and add info.  — Chameleon 19:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I'm afraid that your sense of beauty is most irrelevant, especially when we focus on writing a NOPV article. Pharlap
At that comment relates to what?  (Serious question. I'm not sure how your remark relates to this discussion, because no one has referred to "beauty" at all.  This article about a very particular hairstyle.  One, long glob of hair (as with the Vietnamese guy) is not dreadlocks.  It's whatever they call it in Vietnam.  All matted hair is not dreadlocks.
I see someone has contributed another photo -- but the caption identifies the person as "white" -- when he clearly is not.  (He's blacker than I am.)  It's of the same guy whose (not very good) photo kept appearing a while back.  This photo is better in that it actually kind of shows the man's locks (if only in outline -- which is still not optimal).  Is this a joke, or what?  I guess the only way to find out is to delete it and see what happens -- if there is some response that clarifies the matter.  (This person has not participated in the discussion in the past; perhaps that will change.)  About Sadhus there is to be a photo of a Sadhu -- and I think that's a great idea -- it'd be helpful to include some accompanying text, as well.  Even if we can't get a copyright-free photo, or permission to use a photo, the text should be inserted, anyway.   deeceevoice 08:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: For me, that photo is a welcome addition.  If the uploader is the person in the photo, I'd urge him to take a picture with better lighting (I've played with the contrast on that photo, but the locks still come out as a black blob) and perhaps a bit to one side so that we see more dreads than face.  And don't mark yourself as being "white"; that's bizarre.  Perhaps you meant just "[relatively] pale [compared to most Indians]".  — Chameleon 09:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about India and the Sadhus? 

message: It's good to see this article has found some balance and breadth at last. Anyone know anything about Maori (New Zealand) dreads? Are they traditional or a recent fashion? I was also once told the Anglo-Saxon (Old English) word for dreads - but have since forgotten. Any historians out there know what it is? NickW 11:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maori and Anglo-Saxon dreads? 

message: I wandered in here from the cultural appropriation page, and I'd just like to thank and congratulate everyone who was involved in the wars on this talkpage in May. What a cast of characters!! It had everything: wild, blustery attacks on Deeceevoice's AAVE; Chameleon's "presumptuous crakkka supremacism"; Sam Spade in his timeless role as Knight for the Whites; pictures of "little friends"; out-of-nowhere accusations of antisemitism; explosions of random and pointless Spanish; admiring references to Marcus Garvey's fine haircut. If Wikipedia had a "great talk pages" category, this would surely be on it. I'm so impressed by the whole thing that I feel duty bound to alert Chameleon that his little friend Gabrielle, of hideous house party pictorial fame, is now being used as a classic example of the cultural appropriator. Cheers to all! Babajobu 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow! What a Talk Page! 

message: I appreciate the attempt to add the image of Samson, but one can't really see Samson's "dreads."  Unless someone has a better photo (I hope), it's gone.  deeceevoice 06:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor-quality image

message: "In East Asian countries, such as China, dreadlocks and a variation on locks, the Polish plait, have been regarded with superstition throughout the ages."
It seems to me the sentence structure is off -- perhaps mutated/mutilated by successive edits.  After all, why would people in China give a s***, or even know about the Polish plait?  deeceevoice 06:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this make sense as written?

message: Rather than rely on explanations contained in edit notes, I've decided to explain my changes in detail here.  I ask the editor, User:CoYep, who insists on automatically reverting my changes to read the following and respond -- before making further changes to the document.  There's no need for an edit war.
* I've deleted (again) the second paragraph of the excerpt regarding Shiva, etc., etc.  The first para. adequately illustrates the point.  (Also, please cite the source of this text.)
*Under "Meaning and Popularity," I've deleted any specific examples of dreads, because that information properly fits under the succeeding paragraphs, rather that the introductory, "umbrella" paragraph.
*Further, Bob Marley and the appeal of dreadlocks went far beyond fashion.  If Marley had been a button-down, corporate shill with dreads, locks would not have had the same appeal.  The sentence as presented is clearly shallow/limiting and, by implication, contradicts information presented later.  I've deleted it.  Again. The appeal of Marley and his anti-establishmentarianism is discussed in my earlier language -- "earlier" in that it predates this unfortunate and, IMO, misplaced addition.
*I changed (again) the subhead from "Ethnic pride or political statements" to "In popular culture," because this section also addresses creative self-expression and spirituality. This change makes the subhead more inclusive/accurate in terms of the content that follows, because I've moved the expanded/revised info on Goth culture there, where it more properly belongs.
*Black nationalists and other black folks who wear dreads often attribute their motives in changing their hairstyle to a renewed spirituality, which involves a journey of self-realization, a discovery of who they are as African people, and a desire to return to their ancestral roots.  Stop deleting this.  It's a perfectly valid point.  deeceevoice 16:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's avoid an edit war

message: Tentatively removed:
*Dreadlocks were also part of Mexican culture. In a description of an Aztec ritual, Historian William Hickling Prescott referred to dreadlocked Priests of the Aztec civilization, a Mesoamerican people of central Mexico in the 14th, 15th and 16th century. "On the summit he was received by six priests, whose long and matted locks flowed disorderly over their sable robes, covered with hieroglyphic scrolls of mystic import. They led him to the sacrificial stone, a huge block of jasper, with its upper surface somewhat convex." (William H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico)
The Aztecs may, indeed, have worn dreadlocks.  However, the quote provided refers to only "matted locks," which certainly are not the same as dreads.  A bad case of "bed-head" is not dreadlocks.  I've searched the Internet for "Aztec dreadlocks" and come up with zilch.  Please, please provide definitive information before reinserting this unsubstantiated, and somewhat dubious, information.  If no reliable text can be found, an image of an artifact where dreads are clearly visible would suffice.  Please keep in mind that the verifiability accuracy of the information is what is at issue here.  This is not a pissing match.  Thanks.  deeceevoice 14:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to tell from the description, but - a) there is a reference, b) 'being on the internet' is no measure of the veracity of factual information, c) did the Aztecs have chewing gum? NickW 16:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aztec dreadlocks?

message: *For an explanation of the deletion of the image of Shiva, please see "Poor-quality image" above.
*The overly long text related to Shiva has been edited to include only relevant portions -- that verbiage dealing with Shiva's hair.
*The text from Revelations has been deleted, because it says absolutely nothing about hair.  deeceevoice 12:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent deletions

message: 4 links out of 84200 search results:
Additional reading: Ploughing the Clouds : The Search for Irish Soma (Paperback)
by Peter Lamborn Wilson 
CoYep 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Celtic Vedic Connection 

message: Now the page has so much info, this seems out of place. Does anyone agree? Somehow I don't think that the Sadhus or Aztecs would have followed this method. - FrancisTyers 14:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to create dreadlocks