Talk:Long hair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Long hair has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Long hair, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Wrad (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Hotchpotch

This article is a mixture of a Wiktionary-type entry, a note about a Bible text usually used against hippies, and a disambiguation notice about somebody nicknamed Long Hair. I don't think it can be fixed. --Orange Mike 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overlap with Longhair and other problems

This article seems to overlap with the "Longhair" page which is also partly article and partly disambiguation.

I think there is room for an article on the cultural, religious and political significance of long hair, but what we have now isn't it.

I would suggest a new article to replace the present messy one, if someone would like to write it. In the meantime, I have cross-referenced "longhair" with "long hair", removed the disambiguation element here, and turned "longhair" into a disambiguation page, but this is only a beginning.

Rodparkes 10:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] expansion ideas

This article has some potential, for example, long hair was often a symbol of strength. Men in old testament times often would go for long periods of time without cutting their hair to show devotion to God. They were called nazarites. Samson is one example, his strength depended on his hair length. The idea of a man's strength depending on his hair length extended throughout history. Even today, men will play games where they don't cut their hair until their basketball team loses the NBA tourney, or they will make bets in which the loser shaves his head. And that's just men, who knows what its significance with women is? I'm going to look into it and expand this article. Wrad 04:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

"A boy with long hair". Doesn't look especially long to me. Isn't there a picture of someone with longer hair? Totnesmartin 11:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Found one. Totnesmartin 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It's still the same picture. Wouldn't it suppost to reach at least the back to be considered "long"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 21:05, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
The last picture was changed back by someone because it had no fair use rationale. Also, it doesn't have to reach the back to be considered long, especially in men. Still, I wouldn't mind an especially extreme example of a male with long hair, as long as it was allowed under copyright. Wrad 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

The biggest thing keeping this from GA status now is comprehensiveness/breadth. We just don't have anything from other cultures. Can anybody find this? Wrad 16:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic?

I can sum up my feelings in one word: Huh? How in the world is this unencyclopedic? Wrad 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an incoherent mess, with uneven tone, a strong US/Eurocentric bias, a bizarre POV (mid-1950s is "ancient" English?) and no real point. It wanders all over the map. I don't think it can be fixed. --Orange Mike 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As for the mid-1950s thing, you're grossly misreading the text. I honestly don't see where you're getting the 1950s bit in the middle of that second sentence which clearly says that it is defining the archaic word form. Wrad 20:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"The definition in archaic English meant, roughly, someone artistically knowledgable or wise, an aesthete." This "archaic" meaning was in common use in the United States as late as 1964. I understated when I said "mid-1950s"!

I was planning on moving towards GA on this article. I'm positive that it can get there. Wrad 20:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you just chose the wrong tag. I do think it can be fixed. I'm just looking over WP:NOT and scratching my head. I see nothing to merit this "unencyclopedic" accusation. This is an important aspect of fashion and culture, clearly. It covers notability as well, as there are plenty of sources covering it (many more than are already in it). What about Dreadlocks, braids, and baldness? Are they encyclopedic? We just need to fix it, not give up on it. Every article I've edited goes through a phase like this as research is gathered. The "incoherent mess" gradually cleans up as the sources come together. Maybe just put a cleanup tag on it or something... Deletion is way extreme! Wrad 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been brooding over this one since the article first came to my attention. It's like having an article on "Tall people"! For starters, what is "long" hair? Middle of the ear? To the shoulder? Mid-back? To the gluteus? What exactly is the point of having this, under this title? --Orange Mike 20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It can be all of them. Scholars discuss this subject all the time, and don't feel a need to specify. Why should we, since Wikipedia is merely a mirror of its sources? Also, there is an article on tall people Gigantism. There are also several scholarly books and articles discussing hair length. This subject isn't just the turf of hippies and drug-lovers, it is a legitimate, scholarly subject discussed by scientists, psychoanalysts, theists, and anthropologists all over the world. Wrad 20:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This section (Hair style#Hair lengths) on hair length of mother article on hair style refers to this long hair article (and other hair length articles). It's a subject worth writing about. The article Medium hair should be made and redirected to long hair I think.--Brz7 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research, unnecessary fork of hair

Keep. More references are indeed needed to make clear that no original research is going on. The article is in the process of bein improved so time will tell. The article I think is not an unnecessary fork of hair. There's simply too much information on long hair to put in the hair article AND in the hair length subsection. A fork was made to the hair article on hair style - with a subsection on hair length (which is not yet linked to from the hair page) and this article needed a fork, i.e. this article. The articles on hair need to be better integrated. For the rest I refer to the discussion in the section above. --Brz7 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't even really any OR in this article. I've marked unreferenced material as such, but have no reason to believe that it came out of thin air. I do agree, though, this article needs more references and a better structure to "make it clear" that it isn't OR. This topic is a bit off the beaten path, if you know what I mean. As for other hair articles, I don't know. I'm just focusing on this one. I take your word for it, though, that they are lacking, since this article was pretty dismal when I started. Wrad 20:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the 1970's

It's my understanding that by the 1970's, at least in the US, long hair for men had lost most of its taboo counterculture symbolism and was in fact the mainstream look. I'm changing the article to reflect this. -MichiganCharms 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Wrad 13:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes... "Assimilation of the Counterculture", American Decades, vol. 8: 1970-1979. It's cited on the hippie article, and is quite an interesting read. Aside from that published source, I think the information is common knowledge. -MichiganCharms 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, go for it. I'd just say that even if it is common knowledge, best to cite it anyway. In my experience the recent meanings section is a bit more charged with controversy than other section. Wrad 17:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA quick fail

The lead is too long according to WP:LEAD, and nothing in it is cited. You can renominate it when this is fixed. I suggest double-checking it against the GA criteria to see if it passes in other areas as well. GreenJoe 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says four paragraphs, so it is within limits. Leads also don't normally need cites the way you're asking, see the FA Building the World Trade Center. Wrad 17:13, 17 Septehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising

Donate to Wikipediamber 2007 (UTC)

It has to be cited if there are claims that aren't cited elsewhere in the article. GreenJoe 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please point out these claims. I don't know of any. I made sure that everything in there was already cited. Otherwise it is a summarial statement which needs no reference in the lead as it is covered in further detail later in the article. Please point out a specific statement in the lead that is not cited later in the article. Wrad 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Ways of life often viewed as more rigid, such as religious cultures, often have rules regarding hair length.
This is a summarial statement supported by several, cited examples, and thus does not need a citation.
2. Also, Buddhist monks shave their heads as part of their order of worship. Even outside religious structures, cultures often connect long hair with ways of life outside of what is culturally accepted.
Which statement? The monks are cited in the Asian section, and the second is cited at the beginning of the "Cultural history" section.
3. Asian cultures see long, unkempt hair in a woman as a sign of sexual intent or a recent sexual encounter, as usually their hair is tied up. GreenJoe 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
First paragraph of Asian section. This one wasn't cited quite as well, so I clarified it, but it was cited.
All are cited. Please remove the quick fail and give me a legitimate review. Wrad 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's ready, but for your benefit I've asked for a second opinion from another GA reviewer. GreenJoe 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. To your credit, this is article has a strange subject matter and is probably more difficult to judge than others. I don't think that the lead section is anywhere near bad enough to merit a quick fail, though. If it was, it would have been very easy to point out its flaws unchallenged. Wrad 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion

Per the guidelines of WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section and custom, lead sections generally do not require the same rigor of sourcing that the body of an article does, since they often speak in generalities. Specific and absolute exceptions to the easing of verifiability requirements include facts concerning biographies of living persons and quotations. It is also helpful to cite facts likely to be challenged, but if analogous claims are cited later in the article (as in this case) it is really unnecessary. Quick-failing is generally for articles that either lack sourcing entirely or have multiple large sections without sourcing (i.e. anything that would take longer than the hold period of seven days to fix). To summarize, though the article may need improvements, it is not a candidate for being failed per any of the quick-fail criteria and at least should be given a detailed list (hopefully using the rather helpful {{GAList}} or {{GANOH}} templates) of items to improve upon based on the GA criteria. Please don't hesitate to contact me further, VanTucky Talk 05:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and cite everything likely to be challenged. In the meantime, feel free to do the rest of the review. Wrad 05:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the second opinion, Van. I'll work on the formal review within a few days. GreenJoe 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: GreenJoe 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. The lead need to be longer, and cleaned up. It's not worded very well.
    1. Could you be more specific about how it's not worded well? It's difficult for me to analyze my own writing, and it sounds as though you have something specific in mind. As for length, it is fine. Three paragraphs is a good length per WP:LEAD. Unless you see something in the article that you feel should be in the lead, it should meet the requirement for length. Wrad 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. The section "Meaning" needs to be more than 2 sentences. GreenJoe 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    1. I added a bit that should have been there a long time ago. That's about as long as it's going to get. Wrad 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced material

Please provide a ref for this recently added material:

"In the 1970s, many aspects of the 1960's counterculture came into mainstream society, long hair amongst them, perhaps owing to the large amount of popular musicians who had taken to wearing their hair long as part of the counterculture. Eventually, long hair on men became so acceptible in the United States that the style began to appear in more traditional, historically conservative outlets such as country music and family oriented television shows like the Brady Bunch."

I removed it from the article until it is properly referenced. Feel free to add it back once it is. Wrad 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not deleting it outright, I'm working on sourcing the last sentence... but it will be ready to readd soon. -MichiganCharms 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another unreferenced addition, feel free to add if have ref. "Spartan men were an exception however, and grew their hair long for a variety of reasons, perhaps most importantly to signify their cultural independence from Athenian Greece...A popular style among some men in Classical Athens was a ponytail, as worn by many young "knights"." Wrad 02:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

Every historical account that I have read regarding the length of hair of Muhammad maintains that it was always at least long enough to cover his ears, and would often be shoulder length. The exception, of course, would be the occasional shave during the pilgrimage season. To say that he had short hair is completely incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.201.64 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not by my sources. What are your sources? Wrad (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/hair-beard.htm Scroll down to the section on hair.71.164.201.64 (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I added a little something saying that the call for short hair was less common in the past than it is now. Wrad (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks pretty good, man.71.164.201.64 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About long hair in China

I think only one sentence is necessary for Cultural Revolution in China, things like jeans and high-heels are just unecessary.

In addition consider this sentence: "Modern non-western cultures such as Islam and China see long hair as a western influence." Not only the source is missing, it's not accurate either. Most Chinese are aware that long hair is a sign of beauty in ancient time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecikierk (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the high heels stuff, but I think you cut a little more than was needed. That paragraph covered not only the cultural revolution but also more modern times.
About that last sentence: it's not talking about ancient times, it specifically says "Modern non-western cultures". Modern is not ancient. Also, that particular line has not one, but two sources. I don't really see what the problem is. Wrad (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sometimes longhair?

Longhair may be a slang term for hippies and the like, but the assertion it's commonly spelled longhair, and the implicit assertion that this is an acceptable spelling, is dubious. I tried it out a couple times: "She has longhair and green eyes." "Do you have longhair or short?" Not so much. I've added a fact marker looking for a citation to this effect, just to be polite, so if anyone has a qualm with my deleting that soon, speak up.

Forgot to sign. God, I'm out of it tonight. Chromancer (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's a descriptive term, not an alternative spelling. I fixed it. Wrad (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I liked your quick fix, but I'm thinking that moving and expanding the statement might provide more context and benefit the article as a whole. Take a look and see what you think. Chromancer (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a problem because it wasn't always a derogatory term. In the middle ages it described merovingian kings. Also, Longhair redirects here, since this is where we define the term. That's why I had it in bold near the top. I'm not saying we have to keep it this way, but I don't think the way you changed it is quite right yet. Wrad (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The main issue I'm having with this is that by have it in the lead-in, it's undue weight on a term that by no means is currently widespread, or indeed has much to do with long hair to begin with. Also, that link was redirecting towards the longhair disambiguation page, not this page.
I suggest moving this term to a lower place in the article- perhaps its own subheading?- where it can be discussed in the context of its uses. As it is, reading the article implies that any long-haired person could be indiscriminately referred to a 'longhair'. Looks a little ridiculous. Chromancer (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see all of that. I was saying that if you type longhair in the search bar then it will take you here, that's why I bolded it so prominently, but it does cause some undue weight problems. It doesn't need it's own subheading. It's all discussed in the etymology section. Maybe just take the sentence out of the lead altogether? Wrad (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds best to me. I can't see a way to discuss a term like that in the lead without digressing unduly from the essential point of the article. Chromancer (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Wrad (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medium Length Hair

... is accepted in "Western" cultures, not Long hair Long hair, hair below shoulder length, begins to get into the "danger zone" of what is considered too-long in "western" cultures for women. Only medium length hair, Between 4 inches below shoulder length and one inch below the nape of the neck is considered "normal" length of hair for women. This standard is set and actively maintained by hairdressers who will advocate, when you go for a "trim" for you to have a new haircut, and will try to make you unhappy with your current hairstyle. Extremely long hair, such as down to the waist, or hips, or further is equally a sign of freedom or rebellion in women as it is in men. It is a sign that you do not accept the myths perpetuated by the hairdressing industry. Such as: "split ends stop hair growth, therefore you must come to me for a trim every 3 months". Oh yeah, anyone want to prove that with actual scientific fact? And show the mechanism by which the ends of a dead piece of keratin such as your hair communicates with your living follicle 12-36-more inches away? 71.169.175.179 (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a source

The following needs to be referenced before being added back in. For the entirety of Chinese history up until the end of the Qing dynasty in 1912, Chinese men left their hair long. Cutting hair was considered an act of actively damaging the body that was a gift from one's parents, and therefore unfilial by Confucian traditions. Because of this, people generally refrained from cutting their hair at all during their lifetime. The act of cutting one's hair is a great symbolic gesture for being an outcast ( either by one's volition or being forced ) of family and/or society. Free-flowing hair however was considered barbaric, and the practice of styling one's hair was an important practice. Generally men would coil their hair at the top of the head in cylindrical fashion. The rich would restrain the coil with a pin, and the common people would more popularly wrap it with a cloth.

Sounds like good stuff, but doesn't meet WP:V quite yet. Wrad (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More stuff that needs sources:

In Japan during the Heian period long hair was considered desirable for women. The longer a woman's hair was, the prettier she was considered to be.

While Daoist holy men would have long hair tied up in a top knot.

I'll see if I can't find a source for this, but it would be best if the ones who added it all did. Wrad (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional info to be incorporated

The following answer to a related question I posted on the Humanities desk was given by Mhicaoidh I think it deserves to be incorporated here, but don't have any other ref. and don't want to mess up the page.

Niuean boys do not cut their hair until they become become teenagers, in a ceremony where women tend the hair for the last time before it is cut. Members of the extended family plaster the youth with banknotes – all part of a large informal Niuean economy that links families and ensures the community looks after its own. This is a tradition continued wherever Niueans live, especially in New Zealand where many Niueans are now, indeed my young sons went to a friends first hair cut last year. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 19th Century "Cavalier Chic"

Ranking officers in the Union Army and to a lesser degree the Confederate Army grew long hair as a sort of "Cavalier Chic" in imitation of the romantic warrior. Custer, in particular, comes to mind. 155.85.58.253 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced addition

Traditionally the hair would only be cut when there is a death of a loved one as a sign of mourning.

This needs a source. Wrad (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one:

There are several exceptions to this. The prophet himself was reported to having shoulder length, wavy hair. In Arabian states such as Yemen, men traditionally kept their hair long even after conversion. Turks as well as Bedouins braided their hair. Only civilians were encouraged to keep their hair short and this was only limited to the late medieval period. Warriors on the other hand regardless of ethnic origin were known for their long hair and extravagant moustaches.

-- Wrad (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)