Talk:Dreadlocks - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Infocidal (talk | contribs) at 09:29, 23 May 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:29, 23 May 2005 by Infocidal (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 (

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 mat if left ungroomed, only locks are locks. And only wild, black, nappy, frizzy locks are truly dread. And while you may disagree, while that may not satisfy you -- my regrets -- that's all I have to say on the matter. deeceevoice 07:30, 19 Mar 2005 (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 rationale 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 . 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...

Question about possible racial motives

Why can't a white guy be on the page? — Chameleon 21:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That's just a ranting from earlier; it's not really applicable to the picture that was just removed. The reason the picture was removed was because it was unecessary, and poorly placed, crappy picture.--The Grza 21:18, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Eh? How is it unnecessary? If anything, the black guy's pic is unnecessary because the white guy's pic was there for months (since July 2004) until a vandal removed it without my noticing. The black guy was a superfluous addition. Crappy? No, it's a good-quality pic. Poorly placed? What can that possibly mean? That it belongs in another article? That would be a bizarre thing to think. That it belongs somewhere else in the article? That can't be the case because you would have moved it instead of removing it. You need to give some coherent reasons in order not to look like a racist. — Chameleon 21:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

(Comments condensed and expanded(Yes that makes sense) from here)

Toward the picture itself, I must make several comments. First, it is a crappy picture. I'm not being racist in saying that, in fact you may look to the top of this page and my disagreement with the pointlessness of the argument. I have no problem with a picture of a white man on this page, it's the fact that the article itself doesn't necessitate two pictures, and the one with the black guy is better. The picture you have added is amaturish and poorly lit (I assume it was taken by you, as it was taken in your "flat", but it was certainly not taken by a professional.), while the one currently on the page is of much better quality. Misplaced Pages is not the place to celebrate your friends and their crappy hairstyles, it is an encyclopedia and should be treated as such. --TheGrza 07:28, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that once I pointed out that the "placement" and "superfluous" arguments were baseless, you've moved on to saying that the quality of the image is low and making personal insinuations. I'm glad at least you have written a bit more instead of just reverting.

Now, whether Gabriele has a cool hairstyle or not is not the point. This article is on dreadlocks so it going to have pics of people with dreadlocks, even though I wouldn't personally get some myself. Also, attacking my photography skills is pointless. The pic is not award-winning, but it is perfectly adequate for Misplaced Pages. It is also better lit than the one of the black guy, which incidentally is probably a copyright violation.

I disagree that the article is not better with two pictures. Both black and white people commonly have dreadlocks, and it is cool to have a pic of each. So, if you can find a good, non-copyvio pic of a black person, please add it to the article alongside the good, licensed pic that we have had for a long time without problems. To return to your comment about placement, I should point out that a thumbnail in the top right corner is standard on Misplaced Pages so your claim is baseless. Additionally, should you prefer another position for it (inline, centred, top right but under another image, etc...) then feel free to implement that. It is not an excuse for removal. — Chameleon 11:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The photo was missing, and I replaced it with a photo of a Rasta -- which, IMO, is imminently more appropriate than some vanity shot of a white guy with crappy dreads. Can white people get dreads? Yep -- but usually not unless they resort to rather extraordinary means (crochet hooks and wool and do -- according to the article). And they're not the same as the look achieved naturally with coarse, nappy hair. They don't look the same, don't feel the same. I'd no more have a photo of a white guy with dreads to illustrate the style than I would a white guy with frizzy hair illustrating Afro, or of a bleached Mary J. Blige or Lucy Liu illustrating an article on "blondes" or "red hair." The photo has been restored. To my knowledge, there has been absolutely no evidence presented that would lead one to suspect it is a copyright violation. deeceevoice 14:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks ("vanity") and constant racial references are not the way to go on Misplaced Pages.

Dreadlocks do not belong to a particular race. The article makes reference to dreadlocks amongst the very white Celts. Also, your opinion on whether white people with dreads is natural or not is entirely irrelevant. If you wish such a belief to be represented in the article, then find a notable person who has expressed it and quote them in the article. You and I both no doubt find plenty of topics covered on Misplaced Pages to be unnatural, but that doesn't mean we get to censor them. The fact is that whether it is a good thing or not, many white people have dreads. In fact, the majority of dreadlocked people I have seen are white. Therefore they will be represented on Misplaced Pages, as per policy.

The ideal situation is to have one example of a white person and one of a black person. This article has for a long time had a good pic of a white guy (until it was removed without comment by an anonymous racist vandal). We are now just waiting for a pic of a black person. When you find one, feel free to add it alongside the other picture. I have no problem with you giving the pic of the black person precedence at the top of the article. You just do not get the right to remove the original picture just because it goes against your prejudices (which is not an attack; we all have prejudices; the point is to rein them in on Misplaced Pages).

Incidentally, your analogy about what pic to use to illustrate the article on Blond is rather poor, since if you take a look at that article, it has for many months been illustrated by a picture of a bleached blonde. In addition of course, the analogy is poor because dreadlocks are grown intentionally no matter the race of the person, whereas a certain hair colour is something totally natural and unintentional that we all have until we resort to chemicals.

The rasta pic has been listed on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems and by policy you may not use it on any article until the matter is resolved. It will either be deleted, or full copyright information will be found, in which case you will be allowed to add it to the article alongside the picture illustrating dreads on white people. Alternatively, you can find another appropriate picture.

On a general point, I'd like you to review Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and WP:RV#Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert rule). — Chameleon 17:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Describing your actions on this article and that picture specifically as "Vanity" are by no means personal attacks; they're just descriptions of your actions. Screaming racism, especially when I have made it clear that the race of the person in question is not an issue here is what would be the dictionary definition of a personal attack. Secondly, I never changed my opinion of this picture. It was a bad picture from the start, and that isn't an attack on your skills as a photographer, it's an attack on the quality of the picture. It needs to be removed and your violation of the 3RR as well as the vain nature of this process is not welcome on this article. --The Grza 20:03, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

You don't get to make personal attacks by arguing that they are accurate descriptions. Otherwise we could go around mentions people's "moronic behaviour" with impunity. No, the mention of "vanity" is both a break of Wikiquette and an argumentum ad hominem as it has no bearing on the validity of the picture for us; instead it is used to poison the well by implying a bad-faith reason for edits. The honest way to argue against an addition is to discuss its merits rather than questioning motives in a pointless and inaccurate way. The allegation of vanity is particularly odd when we consider that the photo is not of me but just of someone I met.

The allegations of the picture being bad are not in line with reality, as the picture is perfectly fine. Try nominating it on Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion as an unnecessary and low-quality image, and see what they tell you. It is clear from the general tone of the comments above that the essential problem that Deeceevoice has with the picture is that it is of a white person. This is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. A lot of white people have dreadlocks and it is good to illustrate this, whether or not white people should have dreadlocks and whther or not you think they look good. The picture stays until a better-quality picture of a white person is found. Additionally, it is currently the only properly-licensed image we have of dreadlocks, so it is doubly necessary for it to remain.

I have tried to avoid calling anyone a racist on this page, although consistent hostility to there being a white person in the article has been displayed. I have done my best to Assume good faith and give people the opportunity to explain their opposition in sensible terms that don't include exclamations like "Jeeze! Why the photo of the white guy" (just try making similar comments but substituting the word "Jew" and you'll see how Misplaced Pages comes down on you like a ton of bricks).

Don't try to quote policy at me. I know it far better. Please review WP:3RR. It is factually false that I have violated the three-revert rule. Please do not make false accusations.

In summary, there is plenty of space for two images in the article. It would be great to have one to illustrate rastas and one to illustrate the very common fashion for dreads in the mainly white countercultural movements etc. We have a valid photo for the latter but not the former. If anyone has a better photo for the former, please upload it. If anyone has a properly licensed photo for the latter, please also upload it. There is nothing left to discuss. — Chameleon 21:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Boy. Some white folks just love to cry "racist" -- don't they? :p Chameleon, don't bullshyt me. Don't post a subhead like the one under which your posts have appeared and then pretend you've "tried to avoid calling anyone a racist on this page." Don't play the race card and then pretend you ain't in the game. Equating well-founded objections to posting a photo of some white guy with "dreads" to a policy of systemic racial segregation is offensive to those of us who have faced real the real thing -- not to mention an insult to our intelligence. I (or someone else) will find a copyright-free photo of a BLACK person with dreads that is suitable for the article. And when we do, we will post it. You're right on one point: there is nothing left to discuss. deeceevoice 22:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, not really. "Crying racist" (I would phrase it as "pointing out possible racism") is clearly done more frequently by black folk, and with just cause. White folk rarely do. So when one does, it is important not to discuss the "cry" out of hand. I extend the same courtesy to you. Please also note that the type of comment you have just made: "Some folks just love to cry 'racist' -- don't they?" or "Some just love to cry 'racist' -- don't they?" would generally be considered racist. That's not an accusation, but an invitation for you to moderate your tone, and avoid using language that is likely to make people misjudge you. Anyone reading this page is likely to dismiss you as a racist, when they should be dismissing your arguments as badly thought-out.

I am glad that you are looking for a suitable picture of a rasta or similar. As I have indicated, I think it would be a valuable and overdue addition to this page, and also the page on Rastafarianism. Do not imply that in doing so you will have won a point; that would be a case of a straw man. For that matter, attacking me for "crying racism" is also a clear case of a straw man argument, since all I did was argue against the logic of your avowedly racially-motivated deletions, rather than extrapolating from those deletions any further race-based ideology you may have. I am specifically trying to avoid doing so in accordance with policy WP:FAITH.

Whilst touching upon the issue of logical fallacies, I might point out that your comment "Equating is offensive" is an example of argument by appeal to emotion typical of offendocrats, as well as being a straw man. The comment on intelligence is a further Red herring thrown in. One could even point out the ad hominem implicit in the act of needlessly bringing my race into the debate.

I notice that you have continued to remove from the article the only picture we have. That is unacceptable, and you must not repeat that behaviour. You must make a case based on Policy and not in emotive terms punctuated with non sequiturs. — Chameleon 22:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)]

Thank you for pointing out the section title. It was meant to be light-hearted, and I wrote it before this debate started. In accordance with your comment, I have renamed the poorly-named section. I hope you prefer it like that. You are right that the race card should not be played, but you must be aware that I was simply asking about the possible race-based motivations for the removal, and my suspicions are becoming more substantiated with every edit. You, on the other hand, blatantly and apparently maliciously played the race card by needlessly mentioning the race of other editors and making insinuations based upon it, something which I have definitely not done, and would appreciate a retraction for. Please also revise our policy on Wikiquette, and avoid using swearwords. They, especially when combined with nonstandard English, only make people misjudge you as uncouth and unintelligent. — Chameleon 23:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't presume to school me on what is racist and what is not. And don't you DARE lecture me on when I may and may not use AAVE because I might be judged "uncouth and unintelligent" -- lest you come off sounding like some high-handed, arrogant, ignorant, presumptuous crakkka supremacist. An' lawd knows you wouldn't wanna do dat! :p Besides, I hate to break it to you, but I long ago stopped giving a flying **** what white folks think of me. Furthermore, a who-ole lotta white folks love to scream "racist" when black folks raise the issue -- that "you're another one" syndrome. And, usually -- as in this case -- it's been my experience they haven't a clue what the hell they're talking about. deeceevoice 23:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Hardly presumption. We are having a debate about the content of a Misplaced Pages article, and the meaning of racism is important here. I am not concerned with schooling you as an individual (if you are ignorant you may choose to remain so if you prefer), but it is important to clarify the meaning of it within this debate. You do indeed appear to be operating under the illusion that racism only means racism by whites against blacks, when in reality it is any sort of irrational racial prejudice. You can operate under that misconception in your day-to-day life, but I'm afraid you cannot do so here if you wish to be taken seriously. You might respond with a racist comment such as "I don't care if white people take me seriously", but the fact is that you need to be taken seriously if your proposal (to ban pictures of whites from this page) is to be adopted.

You may of course use what you call "AAVE" (in my opinion a high-falluting initialism designed to rationalise failures of education; I certainly wouldn't use such strategies to justify the highly non-standard vernacular speech of my birthplace and social class), but you cannot expect others to respect you if you deliberately "talk stupid". Will you next claim that typos and non sequiturs are part of your inalienable heritage? I wouldn't advise it. I'd also like to point out that what you think is black is not. "Ain't", the word I was referring to, is a case in point.

What you call the '"you're another one" syndrome' is known to the rest of us as an incitement to adhere to Ethic of Reciprocity, or to avoid Hypocrisy, and is generally considered a good thing rather than a syndrome.

I'm sorry that the last three paragraphs dealt with you personally, but it was necessary to respond to your comments. I will happily return to the facts of the discussion about dreadlocks if you permit me. I'd like to again take the opportunity to urge you to check your understanding of the relevant policies, especially those relating to civility. — Chameleon 00:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow...that's obscene. You'd like to get back to the argument after castigating someone for something so significant as their manner of speech, all but calling them uneducated? That takes cajones. Oh, sorry...maybe I shouldn't speak mexican either.--The Grza 00:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

About "talking stupid" -- your ignorance (and racism?) is showing. Since you seem so inordinately fond of wiki links, here's one for you: AAVE. (What a jerk.) deeceevoice 01:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Puedes hablar el idioma que quieras, si es que realmente lo sabes hablar, con tal de que tengas en cuenta el hecho de excluir a algunos miembros del público que quieres alcanzar. De la misma forma, Deeceevoice puede escoger el registro lingüístico que quiera a condición de que se dé cuenta de las consecuencias. Por cierto, quieres decir cojones, y no el lugar donde guardas los calcetines.

I don't believe you can quote me castigating him or her for anything but breach of policy and guidelines (in particular regarding swearing and personal attacks). I did however, on another level, advise against a) those things and b) other things such as incoherent arguments, personal attacks, racist language and sloppy English, as being things likely to get his or her arguments dismissed out of hand. If he or she wishes to ignore this advice, that's fine, but it won't be my fault.

I'd like to point out that I did not force Deeceevoice to use any of those things I advised about, and I was largely responding to attacks upon me, which is necessary to avoid the straw man and similar rhetorical strategies from working (if one ignores them, people assume one was unable to reply). I sincerely wish to return to the main issue now that I have covered all the points raised. If either of you wishes to refuse to return to the main issue and continue to attack me for being white etc, then from a purely selfish perspective that is fine by me, since I "win" by default. — Chameleon 01:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have made a further edit. I had already linked to that article (AAVE). I'd also like to point out that you made two direct personal attacks on me: "racism" and "jerk". I won't link to the relevant policies, but I urge you to read and absorb them nevertheless. On a factual point, I'd like to point out the non sequitur in concluding racism from disdain for basilectal speech forms (double plural on "folk", use of expletives, misspellings, use of non-standard negation "ain't", etc) all of which have very little to do with the United States and/or black folk (two groups of people who have but adopted these features). Indeed, linking basilectal forms to either Americans or blacks (something that you, not I, appear to do) would be a much clearer prima facie case of prejudice. — Chameleon 01:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL. You a real trip, aincha, bwoi? Still tryin' to school me on racism, 'eh? I've forgotten more on that subject that you think you know. And let me draw your attention to the question mark after the parenthetical "racism" which you appear to have missed. Nonblacks who equate the speaking of SAE with intelligence and the speaking of AAVE with "talking stupid," are unpardonably ignorant and quite possibly/likely racist, to boot. And consequences? Me parece que no me has entendido. Wun mo' 'gin (otra vez): a mi no me importan ni un poquitín. Oh. And one more thing: this is not a competition for one to "win" or lose. Watch it. First your ignorance (and possibly racism). Now your ego is showing. :p deeceevoice 02:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you restrict us to a false dilemma between "SAE" (which means "stamped, addressed envelope" where I'm from) and "AAVE" would suggest limited cultural experience, which might explain failure to understand the issues sketched out here. But I won't go further than that, because it is personal-attack territory, which, I might add, you have strayed further into, to greater detriment to you. — Chameleon 02:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

What?!! Your understanding of what constitutes a "personal attack" appears to be about as limited as your understanding of racism. I'm bored with this. *yawn* *x* deeceevoice 03:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm just getting around to really reading much of this give and take, which I had merely skimmed before. I agree wholeheartedly with Grza's comments about the quality of the photo. Not only are, IMO, the guy's dreads nasty/tacky; the photo is, as well. It is, indeed, clearly amateurish; the flash lighting is terrible, which is precisely why I downsized the shot. It doesn't make the photo any better, but it makes its flaws less obvious. Of course, I expect that all will be remedied with a better photo by the by. :p deeceevoice 10:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. I have already indicated I welcome the addition of an even better photo, as with any article. — Chameleon 11:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I find Silversmith's edit to the page to be extremely suspiscious. Strangely, it was the same edit that you made to start this entire discussion, almost as if you were trying to make it appear as if there were several unconnected users who agreed with you, instead of it being your Fiancee whom you enlisted in the debate. Also, I note that you have just reverted my edits removing her addition of the picture. Maybe try some good faith edits sometime, it really makes the whole experience more fun.--The Grza 20:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I formed my own opinion, and my opinion is that there should be a picture of both a black person and a white person. In fact if one could be a female that would be even better. We need to show the diferent possibilities and outcomes, not just what everyone has seen a thousand times before. And I think the picture of the black man is terrible, please find a better one. I will try to as well. --Silversmith 23:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Any halfway decent photographer will tell you this photo is of not publication quality. The flash shadows are obvious and intrusive. This relatively short article stands quite well with just the one, quality photo -- a point which others weighed in on earlier when another individual kept inserting his photo (also of poor quality) on the page. The mediocrity/inferiority of the second photo alone is grounds enough for its removal. Reverted. deeceevoice 21:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, TheGrza, for obtaining permission to use the photo. It's a tremendous improvement to the page. :) I've also reinserted it in Rastafarianism.deeceevoice 21:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Drawing a line under the hot air (hmmm, that's a mixed metaphor and a half), it seems odd to claim that an article on dreadlocks – a hairstyle overwhelming worn by and associated with black people – should be illustrated by a picture of a white person It's as though Skirt were illustrated by a picture of Jean-Paul Gaultier; it's not that men don't sometimes wear skirts, it's that an illustration should point to the central, primary use, otherwise it's misleading. If the article were much longer, a photo of a dreadlocked white might be appropriate (though I'd have thought that it would come way down the list of priorities). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be fab if we had a pic of a Celtic person with dreadlocks as they have had them for centuries. oh well, not to be. I think as the article specifically deals with white people having dreads, it is appropriate to show the outcome. I think it is great for an encyclopedia to not just show the most common usage, as that is what most people see IRL, so why would they need a pic? An encyclopedia is meant to impart knowledge, not just reinforce what you already know. What is also interesting about the pic of the white guy with dreads is that he is Italian. Never thought an Italian would have dreads.:s There is plenty of room for both, and the pic of the black man is far worse than the other in terms of quality — you can't even see all of his hair as it's cropped! Until better images become available, please stop the bickering and revert warring and keep both on the article. --Silversmith 22:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, nobody is arguing that the only picture should be of a white person, so that is misleading comment. I am arguing that there is plenty of space for one of each, and there is. The situation is not similar to the one on skirts, because skirts are overwhelmingly worn by females, whereas dreadlocks are worn by people of all races. Most people I have seen with dreadlocks are white. If you Google for dreadlocks, you see perhaps ⁄₄ white people. The article points out that the groups such as the Celts wore dreads. It's really not the exclusive property of black people, so there is no need to censor the white pic, which is I might add the only properly-licensed pic that we have for this article. — Chameleon 23:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Call me picky, but when I've gone to the trouble to offer a reasoned argument for a position, someone making a revert shortly afterwards, without even an edit summary, much less a response to what I said, is considerably less than courteous, and is out of keeping with the Misplaced Pages spirit. I've removed the photo again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel, assume good faith. I hadn't seen your comment. — Chameleon 22:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Toward Silversmith's comment above the line, I find it pretty suspicious that someone who did not edit the page or become involved in this discussion until after their fiancee noticed he was the only one upholding his position to be questionable. I'm not calling sockpuppet, I was just making my suspicions known. Also, there is nothing wrong with the picture. 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. I agree with Mel Etitis on the length problems with the article. A much longer article, much more in depth article would call for more pictures. This article is not the size or the depth to require more pictures for minor parts of the article. If you two want your friend to appear on Misplaced Pages so badly, perhaps suggest that he do something worthy of an article and quit shoehorning him in here.--The Grza 23:30, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem not worth dissecting. — Chameleon 23:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. The vanity is a little too bold faced to hide itself beneath anything.

Also, Chameleon, you most definitely made your argument for a white only picture when you completely removed the black guy with dreads here, and here, both times removing the main picture instead of adding your own.--The Grza 23:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Are you being disingenuous or actually failing to understand? — Chameleon 23:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the links speak too loudly? Instead of contacting the proprietor of teh website in order to find out whether or not the picture could be used, you determined that it couldn't. I contacted him and he responded quickly that he would love to have his picture on the site. You did not attach the copyvio tag when you first noticed the picture, you attached it after several people had reverted your attempts to exhibit your dear friend Gabriel. Stop the act.--The Grza 00:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

More personal attacks and insinuations, incorrect ones to boot. Please read the relevant policies. Keep to the issues. — Chameleon 00:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to your comments specifically. If you don't like responses to your comments, don't make them.--The Grza 01:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

No, when you made a false statement I asked whether you had misunderstood or were being disingenuous. — Chameleon 01:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Back again. It is not the only properly licensed picture and you know as much. Your crusade against this picture is nonsense and needs to stop immediately. See here.--The Grza 23:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto to Grza's comments about the manner in which the copyright matter was handled. The Rastaman stays. deeceevoice 02:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw that SS had been appealed to (in his rôle of defender of the white man against oppression), and it's in character that he should launch into an edit war without bothering to take proper part in the discussion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Small edit break

Yeah, I noticed that as well. These are the things that make Misplaced Pages so frustrating; one tries to make an article better only to be stifled by users with less courtesy, less community-mindedness and more time on their hands.--The Grza 09:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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)

The comparison between a professional photograph and a picture taken by a guy in his apartment are significant, and there is a chasm between the two in terms of quality.--The Grza 09:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

3RR rule

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)

"without so much as a single word on the discussion page" — that's humour, right? — Chameleon 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. Missed the earlier para. But, yeah. Laugh if you want. The Rastaman stays. :D deeceevoice 01:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Effect or Affect

To Mel, I read the article to be talking about an affect (emphasis on the aff) instead of an effect. It still reads that way to me. Maybe a rewording?--The Grza 09:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)