Talk:Jewfro

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2006. The result of the discussion was MERGE with afro.

this is nowhere near a NPOV...

Hebrew word should be added

Hi. I'm not sure if the Hebrew word for Jewfro, ליפה (lee-fah) should be added. Feel free to add it. It's Israeli slang and a definition can be found in HaAretz, an Israeli newspaper - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtUnd.jhtml?itemNo=542533 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.59.82 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

In Wikipedia, an article you submitted is not "yours". Anyone has the right to edit it to make in better. In the case of Cdc and I, we were just trying to improve the article to make it more NPOV, as per Wikipedia policy. For a definition of vandalism with respect to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Where 00:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoV

this edit, and later reversions to teh same contetn, attempt to introduce much more exterme PoV content. To speak of a particualr person's hairstyle as a "diasaster", or of a style as "alrming" is clearly to express a PoV, adn is inappropriate in a wikipedia article. Please see the policy on neutral point of view DES ^(talk) 00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the phrase "Judaism's take" implies that it is somehow an official tenet of the Jewish religion. Further, where is the proof that Kaplan, Diamond and Garfunkle had such hairstyles? This is clearly opinon. Finally, it doesn't seem that Kaplan is pointing to his hair in the photo. Crunch 13:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof?!?! Have u ever looked at a picture of either diamond, garfunkel or kaplan? if not, then u prob should. 24.187.38.113Whoermaster

Sources

I'm not sure I see how the sources added are relevant, since I don't see that they use the term "Jew-fro". If anything, they're more relevant to Afro than here, I'd say. Friday (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

Moved from Where's talk page. Where, based on what do u have the ability to say that one encyclopedia is more credible than the other? I was wondering who made you the final say on the reliabilty of every web encyclopedia there is? 24.187.38.113 03:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)AlexKovalev[reply]

No one said I was had the final say; it is up for debate. The information that you removed is, in my opinion, relevant to the article and quite interesting. The information that you added that quoted the Urban Dictionary is redundant to the sentence at the beginning of the article. It would be inappropriate to move that sentence to the beginning of the article as it is not a good idea to start an article with a quote. I am reverting your edit; please explain your motives if you choose to revert my revent. As a side note, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia:Civility. Where (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, u stated pretty conclusively that one site is more credible than the other; when it was chnaged you reverted it back...it would appear to me that you only wish to present what YOU deem relevant...I think it is clear that the sentence you put in has no relevance to a Jew-fro whatsoever. Jewfro and Afro are types of hairstyles, which aren't the same, so why would they be merged or even mentioned on each other's pagers? As a metaphor, Buick and Hyundai are two types of automobiles, do you feel there is a need to merge them together, or is it clear they are two different things? Please enlighten me as to how you came to the conclusion that Website A is "more credible" than Website B; If you can not substantiate that claim with sufficient proof then i respectfully ask that you refrain from removing the reference from the Urban Encyclopedia. As a side note, I too would like to remind you of Wikipedia:Civility. 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)PeterPiper

Sorry that I made you all agitated but let's try to calm down a bit. The issue is not if one website is more relevant than another; I made a mistake when I made that comment. As a side note thought, The Encyclopedia of Popular Culture is a book, and not a website. But all that is irrelevant. On examination, I can see that the two sentences that we are fighting over say completely different things. Sorry if I confused you with that earlier remark.

I feel that the sentence from the Urban dictionary is redundant. That is why I took it out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to say about the same thing as the first sentence in the paragraph.

I think that you raise an interesting point about mentioning different things in different articles. However, it is a precedent in Wikipedia to mention other topics when they are relevant. For instance, the Jewfro is mentioned in the Afro article. Airbus is mentioned in the Boing article. And Ford is mentioned in the General Motors article. I think that the pop culture encyclopedia reference is equally relevant, but I'll leave that for you to decide.

I am having trouble understanding what part of Wikipedia:Civility I have broken. If you could point this out to me, it would be greatly appreciated. Also, I do not believe that I am in violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism either.

I think you did a good job merging the Urban Dictionary sentence in and there is now no reason to remove it. I just added a link in to the Urban Dictionary. Where (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where, I believe the reference to The Encyclopedia of Pop Culture has no place in this article, and whether or not the afro fell out of favor with Afrian-Americans is compley non-sequitir. If anything, it should be placed in the Afro article. If you wish to replace this irrelevant and redundant statement, please state why on the discussion page. As a side note, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia:Civility.

Your input as to how I violated Wikipedia:Civility would be greatly appreciated. I do not understand why this statement is redundant - nothing about it was said before. The question is whether it is relevant. I would argue that it is, since the statement tells about the effects of the Jewfro on society. Why do you think it is not relevant? I will wait a little bit for a response from you before acting. Where (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New vote

Since the vote on whether or not to delete this page took place i have noticed the use of the term Jewfro in at least 6 national publications. This leads me to believe that this term is not a neologism after all...I am not aware of how to list an article for deletion or merging, so if someone could please set that up so that there can be another vote, that would be neat. Please do not delete this article or merge it with any other article as Jewfro is quite possibly a more relevant term than we may have thought, and moving it without a new vote would be undemocratic and would constitute vandalism-Ebert

Bifro

I propose starting a page entitles 'Bifro'. Bifro is a term that I have heard more and more often over the last few years and a quick Google search quickly reviews it's meaning.

"An afro hairstyle of a white person. May have originated form the character 'Biff' in back to the future who had a small version of a bifro." (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bifro)

I'm not too sure how Wikipedia views Urban Dictionary in terms of reliability though. What does everyone think? Or perhaps a section should be devoted to it in the 'Afro' article, with a link from the Jewfro article. It should also be noted that it would probably be more accurate to say that some of those listed as having a Jewfro actually ave a bifro - i.e. Seth Rogan.

Let me know what you think Zestos (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urban dictionary is not a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.235.128 (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of similarities between Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia. -script kiddies playgrounds -inventing new words -trying to shift the language (promote minor definitions and slang) -user-created content —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewfro picture

Whoever changed the caption of my picture of a kid with a Jewfro, that isn't "Adrian Miller" so please do not pretend to impersonate the person in that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki1259 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. are they even Jewish?

Don't you need to be Jewish to sport a Jewfro? Otherwise, wouldn't it just be a 'fro, or some new kind of 'fro (if not, why not afro--why would religion trump race for irrelevant categorical overlap?). Which brings me to my question: are all of the people listed as having a Jewfro Jewish? ...Like the Jonas brothers? If not, then what they actually have is a white-anglo-saxon-evangelical-teen-pop fro. Which would need its own page. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

According to the notice at the top of the page this article was to be merged with the Afro article. I see in the history that this happened a couple of times but it didn't stick. Was there some other consensus reached? I ask because, frankly, it's not a very good article. The three sources provided apparently don't even use the word "Jewfro". So now is it time to merge it? SQGibbon (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, this article should be merged with the article for Afro. You want to read a definition of Jewfro, just go to urbandictionary.99.6.143.133 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]