Talk:Kinky hair/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

old

This article should also address the country's negative attitude towards natural hair. Such as The Baltimore Police Dept policy against natural hair styles (which is currently rescinded) or Six Flag's policy against "Extreme Hairstyles" which included dredlocs, cornrows, or Hampton University's ban on dredlocs, braids or cornrows for their business administration students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.183.146 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 12 January 2007

It would be great if you could find some good references for that and update the article yourself. You don't even need to login. Chovain 23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the term "African-American" refers to ONE particular segment of the African disapora. The term "natural hair" is used by many other peoples of African decent to refer to their hair in its unprocessed form, including Caribbean blacks, and those of European origin. For this reason, the definition of this term is incorrect in that it leads the reader to believe that popular usage of this term originated with and resides mainly with Americans of African descent. This is far from true.

Nappy

I'm wondering if the term 'nappy' is considered an offensive word? Note the recent firing of radio personality Don Imus over the use of the term "nappy headed hos" which was taken to not only be offensive to women, but also racially offensive. If this is the case, perhaps the term 'nappy' itself is considered offensive to some. If so, perhaps some comment to that effect should be included when using the word in the article. It is not a word I have ever knowingly used, but at the same time, it is not a word I knew to avoid. Is the word offensive in and of itself, or only when used in an offensive context? I'd be interested in hearing what people think.(unsigned)

I have tried to restore and expand the article to reference sections about negative connotations of nappy and other adjectives for natural hair. I do not have any sources at hand, and I can not currently find any free sources to read and site. Work is needed. DocGratis 11:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember Eddie Murphy in Coming to America -- his hair was 'nappy'. By the way, nappy-headed ho is not exactly the same as just saying 'nappy head' or 'nappy head dread' -- see Rastafarian about how this dialectal term is considered part of the Rastafarian language. 70.5.209.207 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing with the care

I just wanted to ask... I have my natural hair, it's about 10cm now and... well I actually do the opposite of the advices given in the article. I wash it about every day and I don't use some special shampoo, just plain simple stuff. And my hair is everything but broken and messed up. So I don't really get the sense of this hole care-taking thing... why did you add that? Everybody does the haircare like he/she always did it and everybody does it different. It's not like you would give some advices at the page about jacking off or something like that (I hope you get the metapher)... --ቢትወደድ 19:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What the hell with the care thing ?! What did black people do before the invention of conditionner ? The section should be purely deleted or it should be mentioned that in the US it is the way some hair dressers would recommand to treat the hair. This method is far from being universal or seen as the best way to take care of hair.

I agree. I put the Essay template up because I didn't want to just delete it without soliciting a bit more input (I don't like to make big bold edits like that--I usually leave that for other, more decisive people). But I should say that type of info belongs over on Wikibooks. It might be salvageable if it can be sourced and turned into a discussion of research surrounding proper care using ATTRIBUTED SOURCES, but WP is not a place to put how-tos. cluth 08:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, to a point. The article is about the nature of Natural hair. The nature of care issues, definitely belongs. But the current section needs significant work. DocGratis 00:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be removed. There is not one universal way to care for this hair type. Any hair care advise is subjective, not the rule. I'm deleting it as I don't think it's necessary to have a hair care section anyway. Generalhoneypot 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is messy

I just tried cleaning this article up. But it's quite difficult because it's trying to explain how people from across different countries/continents/cultures refer to "Afro Textured Hair". This article is trying to present one accepted world view of Afro hair and there just isn't one, not least because there are many different types of African hair. As a result, it ends up with a rambling disclaimer at the beginning, which excludes North Africans and other Africans without "Afro Textured Hair/Black Hair/Natural Hair". 99% of it then goes on to be about what Afro Hair means in relation to America, but then maybe that's the point. Maybe it should be Afro Textured Hair in America so the pretence of this article being international can be dropped. Generalhoneypot 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone is drive-bying wiki, ask, and about with copy-paste spam. This article goes delves too far into theories about the evolution of straight hair and assumes North Eurasian invasion models to explain away straight and wavy (even straighter than Euro) hair in darker skinned people across the globe but the fact remains that people had straight hair before becoming leucodermic, which doesn't fit with their theory, but then that's what the North Eurasian invasion comes in to cover up. The sources on their theories for the most part, sadly are studies on the original skin color of homo sapiens. I'm starting to think that this article should only be here for the sake of the term's use in American and Western culture. Theories about selective forces behind variation in hair form in homosapians? That can go to the main hair form article.. Infiniti28 2:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect article title

Really, this was surely not what I expected to read about when I saw an article named "Natural hair". It's a simple sentence really, it's hair that happens to be natural (not dyed, for example). I fail to see what this has to do with "afro-hair", or better, I fail to see how can the main topic of this article be about "afro-hair", when it could at most be just another example.

It is because "natural hair" is how many people refer to the natural texture of black hair, as many Black women, especially in America, use chemicals to alter the texture of their hair. Itsmeiam 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The article title implies that other races cannot have "natural hair" -- that it can only be possessed by black people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.43.48.129 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Hey, I don't know how to correct this, but the link to the Disambiguation page at the top of the screen reads "“Nappy hair” redirects here. For other users, see Nappy (disambiguation)." I think it should say "For other USES," not "For other USERS."

Afro textured hair

this is a better title, than natural hair. Muntuwandi 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

degrees of afro texture hair?

are different degrees of afro texture hair? Plus I was wondering if any one has a better picture. The current one is not typical of afro texture hair.YVNP 01:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hampton University

Why was the part about Hampton University limiting its hairstyles (i.e. cornrowns/dreadlocks) for its business major students deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.8.67 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Reason Why I changed it.

The reason why I changed the 'Black African' to 'Native African' is the same reason you are arguing with me about the correct usage of the word 'Native', this can also be said of the same word 'Black' no single person of African descent truly has black skin we might have at the most extreme very dark brown skin but definetly not black skin. I do agree with you that black is beautiful but we might overly stress the color association with our descent in society this is why I changed it to Native African because before slavery and coloniztion we did not have this color association with ourselves we were just simply Africans. We are the only group of people who assiociate themselves sometimes more with a color than with their native land and one day I hope to change this in a big way. I agree with the Doctor who also does not like the term 'black people' as it denotes a color assiociation versus contential or regional association. I also would like to add that somebody deleted the refernces to the ethnic groups of Nubia, Tigray, and Somalia that I had put up in to mention those of Ethnic African descent who do not have afro textured hair. I would like to hear back to you and see what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In thinking....

In thinking of your terms of Black Africans it should be noted that this name has been changed many times by many users which show a higher degree of progessiveness among those who rather not be futher Disenfrachised by still having them denied the full unmitigated African Heritage. And not 'Black African' which in some ways makes Native Africans a minority population in the same way 'Black American' are in the U.S. In addition, it should be noted that there is an Objection to the use of the word Black when describing Native Africans as noted by Owen 'Alik Shahadah as well as a small but notable objection to the use of Sub-Saharan Africans. And finally it should also be noted that any population that has at one time left in whole from one area to another over a substantial amount of time are no longer Native to that area and furthermore in a thousand years Native Americans will still be the only Native Americans. The term Native is not meant to disenfranchise those of Arab or North African descent but the people of this group would more than likely self indentfy as Arab or perhaps Middle Eastern before they describe themselves as Africans which is probalby the most important thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in denying the obvious that it is mainly Black people who have Afro-textured hair unless they are admixed or aren't really black at all. It seems to me that certain people who have contributed to this article will do any and everything to deny this obvious fact, and would prefer instead to hide behind ridiculous, empty labels like "Native African" (FYI, Africa is made up of many races, not just Black folks) when it's specifically Black people that have Afro-textured hair. It's almost as if these contributors were ashamed to admit that that type of hair is, in fact, what sprouts out of the head of over 95% of blacks, no matter where in the world the latter may dwell. Instead of assuming their blackness with pride as Afiya has perceptively addressed, these folks instead run away from it and name-drop peoples that aren't even related to them in a bid to show that not all Africans have kinky hair. But this isn't an article on all Africans; it's an article on Afro-textured hair and by consequence all the populations who actually have it i.e. almost exclusively Black people.

I dont want to think.....

I dont want you to think that Im getting into because Im having an edit war or dont like you. But my point is that there have been many terms to describe people of African descent Colored, Negro, Black. People of African descent have worn each of the labels proudly too but none of these say where these people come from or mention a shared cultural thing or region of origin like the words Arab, Asian, Native American, Latino, Indian. We dont call far eastern Asians; Yellow Asians, and call Indo-Asians; Brown Asians or Native Americans; Red Americans, so with that in mind why do 'Black' Africans get called Black Africans. There is no doubt that in the U.S. and some other western countries people of African descent get called Black and we where it proudly But within our continent we get get Black African like if Native African is too 'empowering' or something or because it disenfranchises our Northern Arab neighbors. I'm not saying that Im saying that we should be called what we think is accurate and respective to all other, after we stood up and said dont call us coloreds anymore, dont call us 'boy' anymore, dont call us Negro anymore call us where come from with out the use of the color adjective, also when you think about it there's a thing called Pan-Africanism not Pan-Blacknism or Pan-Black Africanism just Pan-Africanism. James Brown was the first to say it Im Black and Im Proud, I have that and whole lot a African Pride too ;). I hope you understand where Im coming from. Let me know what you think. Oh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, but it still in no way changes the fact that it is black people/Black Africans/Negroes that are defined by Afro-textured hair, not "Native Africans". Berbers and co. are just as "native" to Africa as black folks are. However, they most certainly are not defined by Afro-textured hair, which is the subject of this article. Using the name "Native African" completely disregards this fact. Since it is almost exclusively blacks who have Afro-textured hair, using the term "Native African" in lieu of "Black African" rather chauvinistically misleads readers into believing that either the term "Native African" only refers to blacks at the expense of Africa's other native non-Black inhabitants, or that Afro-textured hair is also characteristic of Berbers, etc. (which it of course is not) since they too are native to the African continent. Either way, it's misleading and inaccurate. The subject of this article has nothing to do with James Brown, or Pan-Africanism, or any of that stuff. It's about Afro-textured hair and the people who have it, not "Native Africans"; just a particularly type of African/displaced African: Blacks/Black Africans/Negroes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.222.34 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How did Afro-hair come about?

Greetings: I just finished an entry explaining the scientific evidence concerning why Africans (et al) may have initially developed this unique hair type. Its in the 'adaptation' section. Let me know whether it is comprehensible. Thanks. Afiya27 (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It came about as an adaptation to create less hairoverall. This is the same reason Africans have less body hair. Afro texture hair grows slower and covers less of the headYVNP (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A question: Do you think that there was also possibly a benefit to Africans (et al) in developing and keeping this hair type not only for its ability to block UV rays, but also because it acted as a Heat sink? Such a trait would be very valuable for those trying to stay cool and comfortable in hot equatorial climates. fyrewede 75.104.128.36 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Structure section issues

The structure section is lifted directly from someone else. Just because you say who you plagiarized doesn't make it any different. Before anyone says, "but it's a quote!" consider that at most a quote is a paragraph, and when so it is especially indented further on the page to avoid confusing the quote with the body of the article.

I'm tempted to just delete the whole section, but it's a very important one. I think it should mention the role of hydroxyproline, hydroxyserine, and Gly, Pro and Ser. I don't know enough to actually write it out though, nobody should put their theories and ideas on WP. I am too busy to even be writing this, too :p hectic holiday hell.

In short, this section needs complete workover, and the rest of the article suffers similar problems. i'm just alerting everyone. Mr0t1633 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Black American Or African American

I was just thinking that with your explanation of African peoples like the Berbers and the Northerners it would mean that they would also be called African Americans if I apply your reasoning. However they are not, and until such a time occurs then we should respect that difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense, especially since I've already corrected every instance in the text where the term "Black American" is used in place of "African American". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.222.34 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How is Ontario this time of year. So according to you there are no African Americans, right?

What kind of response is that? You still persist in misleading readers by insinuating that the term "Native Africans" = Blacks when it does not. Africa is not just inhabited by blacks and never has been. By using the term "Native African" in lieu of "Black African", you're also creating the impression that Berbers and other non-Black native Africans have Afro-textured hair when they do not; only Blacks/Black Africans/Negroes do. That's like saying "Americans" have Afro-textured hair when only "African Americans" do. It's deceitful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.222.34 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings,

I have two points to make:

First, the practice of calling immigrants from the MANY countries throughout Africa "African Americans" is disrespectful in my opinion. It disregards the validity of each of their DISTINCT experiences in their DISTINCT countries. Yes, the descendants of ENSLAVED (sub-Saharan) Africans are VERY likely a random mixture of various West African groups (et al.) and/or don't know where their ancestors are from (and thus refer to themselves as "African" American). But those who DO know where they're from (ex. recent sub-Saharan African immigrants) should be referred to by the names of their COUNTRIES. For example, just as Chinese-Americans, Korean-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Indian-Americans etc. are given such respect, so too should Nigerian-Americans, Kenyan-Americans, Ethiopian-Americans etc. If we payed immigrants from the various countries within the African continent the appropriate respect, there would be NO issues over the identities of Northern (or Southern) Africans who happen to have lighter skin and/or straighter hair. For, they would be called Libyan-Americans, Moroccan-Americans, Egyptian-Americans South African-American etc, and anyone with an inkling of geographical and/or historical sense would be aware of the distinct possibility that they may NOT necessarily have dark skin/Afro-hair.

Second, we all have eyes to see and brains to think and process trends/patterns. Thus, it is clear that it wouldn't be completely inappropriate to ALSO assert that the vast majority of African descended people living in countries SOUTH (sub) of the SAHARA DESERT, express various shades of deep dark brown skin, AND natural Afro-hair textures (just as the vast majority of individuals of East Asian descent express epicanthic folds, relatively light yellowish-brown skin, and coarse, straight, black hair). SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH CALLING THE GEOGRAPHIC "HOMELAND" OF PEOPLE WITH AFRO-HAIR SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN!?!? That would resolve the argument against reducing them to just a color (which I understand to an extent) AND it would clarify the specific people we are talking about within Africa (as has been the basis for the argument FOR using the term BLACK).

Any comments? Afiya27 (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - By the way 'Wufei05', I looked up the link that you sent me on the guy who is supposedly against use of 'sub-Saharan African'. But the page referenced by whoever wrote the wikipedia site makes no mention of the term!

Yes its me again Wufei05 I had let this fall to the side after fighting with many about this, but first of all if you dont know what the phrase 'baby hair' means then it you should be commenting on this subject at all. Second of all if you arent of African descent then you really shouldnt be commenting on this subject at all because you dont live it with everyday. Third of all given that this is a race related topic if you arent of this race then its condesending to tell those of African descent how you KNOW SOOO MUCH MORE than we do about it, it is very racist, yes I said it racist if you want to know why its racist I can given you a history lesson about it. And Last but not least the term Native African or Ethnic African the latter which is probably more accurate givens credence to the fact that the Black people (and no not the ones in the Vanauta, Australia, or Phillipines) are the first thing people think of when they of the term African as most North Africans dont identify as Africans anyway. And i know you are tryin to be accurate and fair to them but really do you think people think of North Africans peoples in the terms of being "African" and more importantly do they think of themselves in that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

With your comments above, you have demonstrated that this is a very personal issue for you. You have indicated that you are black since you believe that people who aren't of "African descent" (whatever that means) "shouldn't be commenting on this subject at all". That is classic conflict of interest and ownership of articles, which are both against Wikipedia's policies. You've also accused others of racism with no proof whatsoever. That in turn is a personal attack, which is also a breach of Wikipedia's policies. I have neither the desire nor the time to debate with someone who is obviously editing from a certain POV. I therefore strongly suggest that you stop trying to impose your idealogy on the article. 70.50.8.147 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have neither answered my question about this topic at all you simply discount my knowledge and once again tell me that I should let you handle this. This is a personal issue because its about something that I know it great detail more than you for that given reason. I have accused you of racism because you are acting like many historians in 19th century who were big proponents of scientific racism. And you know this a race related issue so dont be naive and think it isnt personal to alot of people. Respect my life experience and knowledge. -Wufei05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.221.144 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have answered all of your questions and in detail in our discussions above. I won't, however, answer any of your personal attacks other than to point out that they are verboten by Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, one cannot "defend" oneself against another editor's charge that one is "acting like many historians in 19th century who were big proponents of scientific racism" because that is known as an unqualified opinion, and a mean-spirited, unwarranted one at that. Again:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

With your previous comments, you've also already more than demonstrated that you have major conflict of interest and page-ownership issues: "Second of all if you arent of African descent then you really shouldnt be commenting on this subject at all because you dont live it with everyday" -- who are you to decide who should or should not be commenting on this or any subject? The article's owner? I don't think so.

You have therefore effectively "outed" yourself as the exact sort of editor that is least likely to produce a balanced, neutral article. Kindly stop with your POV; it's neither helpful nor fair to the general public that reads the article and takes what it says as legitimate rather than the extreme views of one very biased editor. 70.50.8.147 (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Also if you have any question about Angel Lola Luv http://www.lola-luv.net/photos/albums/upload/photoshoots/2008/blackmenssxtributeissue82magouttakes/001.jpg being African then you need to look at Janelle Monae http://www.jmonae.com/photo.php. Who is an African American and looks very much like Angel Lola Luv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

India

The following was added to the section on why/how straight hair came to be in locations near the equator:

According to the Haploid genetic view of South Asia there has been no extinction or replacement of the initial genetic footprints since the initial Out-of-Africa migration, furthermore Indian-specific mtDNA clades are virtually absent from the adjacent other mtDNA pools. It is also believed that South Asia is ultimately the home of the M17 genome group which soon spread to Europe and greater Eurasia. Many North Africans and Middle Easterners possess straighter hair due to less UV radiation occurring in those regions as well.

So I read the article. It is indeed intriguing that there appears to be little evidence of significant gene flow between India and the 'far North' (ie Europe/East-Asia). In fact the cited article asserts that the low level of European/Middle Eastern genes that WERE detected were the result of low level post-HOLOCENIC interactions (though I question whether this can be definitively asserted in that paper--the low levels could be from the Pleistocene). India is a puzzle. My next hypothesis would be the possibility of sexual selection for straight hair (as well as certain facial features) following pre-Holocenic indigenous encounters with one/some of the low level migrations from Eurasia. But that would have to be pretty powerful sexual selection for it to have ultimately been passed down to the ENTIRE indigenous population. I guess it's possible though. I thought that I saw an article that suggested that a bottleneck of this magnitude may have occurred in Paleolithic India (it may be the one that I cited, I'll look).

But I don't think that the Middle East is comparable to India given that there is both archaeological and genetic evidence for continual migration into northern Africa from Western Asia. Bottom line, MOST of the genetic signature of the Northern Africans/Middle Easterners is decidedly "non-African". So their changed appearance was not an in situ occurrence in Africa (as it may have been in India). There was thus clearly admixture with those who were (relatively) indigenous to the continent to an extent that completely washed out the Afro-hair trait. This probably occurred multiple times both on the continent (as the Saharan pump theory would indicate) given the migration of southern populations to northern regions during wet periods, then their subsequent isolation there due to re-desertification. Those Afro-haired groups who were thus isolated were highly likely to be subsequently absorbed into the gene pool of Eurasian migrants to northern Africa (the reverse also occurred during this cycle such that there is evidence of pre-historic low level Eurasian gene flow in sub-Saharan Africa--some of which might have occurred prior to the latest dry phase of the Sahara). The loss of the Afro-hair trait also occurred among those sub-Saharan (Afro-haired) Africans who migrated into the Middle East (ie the Afro-hair phenotype/genotype was effectively "bred out" of groups such as the proto-Semites (Afro-Asiatic speakers whose ancestors very likely arose in sub-Saharan Africa) due to admixture with a majority straight haired indigenous population.)...So I don't think that the "less UV in the Middle East/Northern Africa therefore straight hair was needed" argument holds--at least, again, for the Middle East and Northern Africa. Admixture was the rule of thumb there. It's fascinating that this doesn't seem to have been the case for India! Afiya27 (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Education

I do agree that the title of the article needs to be changed. African-Americans/Black-Americans are so used to seeing life through their eyes rarely realizing that there is a whole world of African descendants outside of America. If you change the title and show that there are different types of textures to African/Black hair then it would open everyones eyes and brige a mental gap in which...African Americans sitll have a lot to learn about themselves and bring new hair care alternatives about. Its time for a new perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeon0nline (talk • contribs) 04:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is by far the most intelligent post on this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.201.185 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I disagree with this page. First of all, I have no idea how there can be different textures of tightly curled/afro textured hair. If afro-textured hair ranges from straight to tightly curled (that alone doesn't make any sense because 'afro textured' is synonymous with tightly curled), what makes it 'afro textured'? There are three basic hair textures, straight/wavy, loosely curled and tightly curled. Only Black people have tightly curled hair and I'm very proud of that. I also have no clue how the woman whos picture is displayed can possibly be considered as having tightly curled/afro textured hair. I'm not interested going back and forth with the editing, please stop redirecting people from my ATH page to your Natural hair page (which also doesn't make sense because most human beings, Black, White, Red, Yellow or Brown, have 'natural' hair.). I started this page but I'm letting it go without arguement, I simply want my own ATH page and you can have your natural hair page. Thank you.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Do for self (talk • contribs) 19:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Come together.....RIGHT NOW

The reason people want a distinction between every one that originated from africa is because there are now actually native africans and people from the caribeans who migrate to these countries...they have hair styles that may be similar or different to the other blacks in their country. We all descent from the same continent but we all different heritages. due to these different heritage hair texture of african descendants have changed and different hair styles may be acceptable in one country than the other

Here are the groups- decent, heritage, then nationality

Native African or African- those in or from africa African America- african descent w centuries of american heritage and american nationality Native african American - those native to africa w african heritage of american nationality Afro-European- those of african descent that has been in Europe for centuries Native afro European- native to africa w african heritage of European nationality Afroasian- african descent of asian heritage Afro Caribean- african descent of caribean heritage (more specific if country alone is stated) Afro Caribean american or Caribbean american- african descent caribean heritage but american citizens

this makes it easier but in the end the hair texture comes from the continent of african even if you are mixed the dominate trait is the afro hair texture

yes Northern africans have different texure hair and it needs to be mentioned. majority of blacks out side the continent of africa came from the west of africa hence why he mentions west african hair more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.201.185 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Natural Hair?

That may be natural hair for some, but not all people. Rename this article to Afro-textured hair. --66.218.17.209 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that too. Also, when i think of natural hair i think of hair thats NOT colored/dyed or treated. ie, Natural. Coojah 07:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with a name change, however sources for a better term would be need. Previous discussion has pointed out how "black hair" and "African hair" are not very accurate. Additionally, the term "Natural Hair" legitimate term. DocGratis 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed, and the part about not bleaching or coloring should be taken out, as coloring your hair is not the same as altering texture. The colored hair would still retain the afro, nappy, natural, etc. texture. Itsmeiam 02:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree aswell, why is this article called natural hair when any type of hair could be natural and this article is specifically reffering to afro-texutured hair, most common to sub-saharan african descendants. The tittle is to general and it could constitute of any hair type, that's why the tittle should be cahnged to something like "Afro-textured hair" to be more accurate.

I also agree and have moved the article to the proper name. AnwarSadatFan (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

East African

You may want to modify the page a little. Many people of North Africa and also East Africa have different textured hair. See Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan.

I agree, North Africans and East Africans have various textures present in their phenotype. I also propose adding peoples of the Sahel, who also exhibit varying phenotypes, like the Foulah, and the Tuareg. Some examples:

Somalian boy

Nigerien women

Peul

Tuareg girls —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garnettgotit (talk • contribs) 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Ditto to both of the above. The opening sentence currently reads "Afro-textured hair, or Black hair, are terms used to refer to the typical texture of Black African hair that has not been altered". This would have been appropriate given the context in which this article originated -- from American and black American -centric perspectives based off of "the archetypal black American" point of view (and even black americans note that's general and not everyone's hair is exactly the same even among genetic paternal and maternal siblings). The original name of the article was after all "natural hair".

The main thing is it just makes no sense to marginalise black or African hair types to a typical type. Black is an ethnonym in reference to melanin level and African is a geographical label. Some black *skinned* peoples around the globe have hair that is on average curly, some wavy, and others that is on average straighter than that of Europeans, who, for people of such a skin color and lattitude can have quite curly hair. Same thing for African groups like the Tamasheq of West Africa. Compared to Europe, as one moves Northeastwardly from Europe and Afric the rest of Asia actually gets less diverse in terms of hair form as you move away from Africa and from non-African groups that have been found to have retained phenetic traits of the populations ancestral to all non-Africans. I don't think it'd be the end of the world were they to change that sentence to "predominantly seen in black people or people of tropical African descent". This is a little OT but the sad thing is that nappy means something completely different in other English speaking places (diaper) and can be derogatory where i'm from. Infiniti28 Infiniti28 —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC).

'Native' African?

Someone keeps changing the term 'black' African to 'native' African. IMO, native African is confusing. What makes one a native? The lighter skinned Berbers and the Arabs in North Africa have been there for 1,000+ years. Aren't they natives? What's wrong with calling dark skinned people with natural Afro-hair 'black'? Does the term have negative connotations to someone? If so, haven't you hear of the 'black is beautiful' movement following the American civil rights movement? It's OKAY to be called black. It can be liberating in a way. Yes, no one's skin is really pitch black, but its more symbolic than anything else. What's the big deal? Afiya27 (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They probably specify that to the purpose of excluding straight haired individuals from being native to the continent. Infiniti28 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A call for the revisioning the section on the hypotheses on how afro hair may have arisen

Anyone else notice how much the article strays from nuetrality and relies on original research going from the section, "Straight hair in tropical regions" to the section "context in which Afro hair likely arises"?

After most of a good but not as concise as i would prefer "Current Distribution" section, i come acrossthis paragraph lacking a single source and almost flat out deleted alot of it:

Further, the current distribution of afro-hair has to do with the pre-Holocene retention of that which was adaptively essential at the equator (ie dark skin) and the loss of that which was no longer essential (ie Afro hair) following admixture. Specifically, after the migration of a group of modern humans out of Africa, those who settled in warm sunny regions similar to sub-Saharan Africa, like the Andaman Islands and Melanesia (and, in addition, remained isolated from straight haired northern migrants) did not experience adaptive (nor admixture) pressure for their hair to straighten. Thus it remained Afro-like. Those who did not settle in such Africa-like regions came to express straight hair.

Another thought: lighter skin is what theoretically (as substantiated via genetics and common ancestry, by the way) would have been under highly negative selection in the tropics and for this theory we have temporal interpretations of hard data (genetics) with hypotheses on lifestyle changes (furr loss / and skin shade adaptation) -- This is not the case for hair form.

Even melanin while efficient doesn't fully protect the skin and the people of equatorial Africa have the greatest within-population diversity as a region (aside from maybe an albino you'll notice a light yellow brown 10% where ever you go because light skin isn't obsolete; this is becuase UVB rays help synthesize vitamin D which is why people in the shade or without said vitamin get lighter, often very noticeable among blacks). If they have the greatest phenetic variation in UVB-sensitive traits like skin complection (as do they in a plethora of other phenetic traits):

"Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits."

why not for a trait that may after all be UVB arbitrary? And if so, present ranges may reflect initial ranges which would moot the hypothesis that straight hair was ever completely lost and completely regained. And concepts like "straghter", "kinkier", and "curlier" don't hold up to scientific scrutiny as they are subjective. A more objective approach would be quantitative -- such as anything that helps us find out a range. There are differences between the diameter of straighter and curlier hair you know. Even with all of the above in place, without hard science (genetics), claims of origin points (time, place) for certain types of hair are bunk.

Ultimately though theories about exactly when "this hair type" arrived or whether "that hair type" died out and regained are superfluous in the context of an "evolutionary advantages" section.

Above study from

Hum Biol. 2000 Oct;72(5):773-80. Related Articles, Links

Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.

Relethford JH.

Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 13820, USA.

The article also does not seem to be up to date. A *need* to let UV rays pass through the skin for vitamin C synthesis has been disputed. It would appear that the skin color just eventually settled to levels that more fit the environment, barring possible influence from demic movements.

Take the following for instance, from:

Vitamin D and the evolution of human depigmentation

George Chaplin, Nina G. Jablonski

Published Online: May 7 2009 3:43PM

The evolution of light skin color: Role of vitamin D disputed

Ashley H. Robins

Published Online: May 7 2009 3:43PM

"Matsuoka et al. (1991) demonstrated that after single-dose, whole-body UVB exposure black subjects had distinctly lower serum vitamin D3 levels than whites; but differences between the two groups narrowed after liver hydroxylation to 25-OHD and disappeared after kidney hydroxylation to 1,25-(OH)2D. These findings suggest that there is a compensatory mechanism whereby, in the presence of vitamin D3 suppression by melanin, the liver and kidney hydroxylating enzymes are activated in tandem to ensure that the concentration of the biologically active 1,25-(OH)2D metabolite is normalized and kept constant regardless of ethnic pigmentation (Matsuoka et al., 1991, 1995)."

The following data which measure mutual exclusivityon, infers South Asians' present morphology, atleast in the way of skin pigmentation, is not reflective of changes that took place in the way of Europe or East Asia (which are also unique from eachother in that regard) and are in fact very unique to those in the way of SLC24A5 but not so much in that way with any other populaton included in the study (including indigenous America, West Africa, and others):

"High Fst values [concerning the three genes TYR, MATP and SLC24A5] between Europeans and darkly pigmented populations such as West Africans and Island Melanesians are not unexpected if these genes have functional effects. However, the notably elevated pairwise Fst values relative to East Asians (the population in our panel that is the most similar to Europeans in pigmentation phenotype) is striking. Populations intermediate in pigmentation (Native Americans and South Asians) also exhibit Fst values falling in the top 5th percentile of their relevant Fst distributions with Europeans for these three loci. In the case of SLC24A5 A111G, South Asian pairwise Fst values also fall in this top 5th percentile when compared to both Europeans (Fst = .389, p <..01) and East Asians (Fst=.519, p<..01), but not when compared to any other population. At all three loci Europeans have the highest frequency of the derived alleles relative to the other five populations."

- Kittles et al 2006

Therefore I propose a new, functionally more sound structure for less messiness.

Selective Environmental Forces Involved

Possible pros for the hair texture

Possible cons for the hair texture

Context in which Afro hair may have arisen

The Global distribution of Afro-hair

Current distribution

Straight hair in the tropics

Infiniti28 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: there is an entire section of affirmations completely devoid of sources (leave for one source on *when dark skin evolved*).

The section consisted solely of the restating of material covered in prior and ensuing sections -- save for its own unique explainations [i.e. independant research]. These expansions may have been authored in well-intentioned hopes of buttressing or clarifying other material, but they could have simply been added in to other sections, although the whole "Adaptation/Evolution" section's already bogged down with enough independant research for another 3 sections.

So the sub-section listed below, "How Afro hair has persisted", is gone.

Yo, the last paragraph on African genetic relationships, ain't even about nuthin.

How Afro hair has persisted

Once dark skin evolved approximately 1 million years ago (Harding, 2000), Afro-hair texture was less crucial in terms of protection from UV rays. However, this texture has been sustained in some areas (such as sub-Saharan Africa) at frequencies approaching 100%. It is possible that this hair texture has the capacity to prevent UV (and possibly heat) from entering the body through the head. Alternatively however, it is also possible that the trait sustained high frequencies in the founding/original (sub-Saharan African) human population because most of the various genes that determined this trait retained phenotypic monomorphism in the population due to the genetotypic dominance of coiled/curled hair genes over straight hair genes. In other words, an ancient selective sweep likely occurred for genes coding for Afro-hair while skin was darkening 1-2 million years ago. This change has been sustained in sub-Saharan Africa, the Andamans, and Melanesia since the 200,000 year origin of humans due to high levels of isolated inter-mixture between those expressing the trait, and/or the genetic dominance of the factors determining the phenotype. Notably, sexual selection is another possible factor.

Also, because inter-mixture within the large sub-Saharan African population remained relatively low for a significant portion of its pre-history (compared to those who migrated outside of this region), severe, sustained isolation and its associated intensive endogamous reproduction (i.e. bottlenecks) occured there , as shown by pigmy populations.

Infiniti28 (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the hair texture shown in the picture typical afro-textured hair, or the exception?

Seems like afro-textured hair, or typical afro-textured hair, is more tightly coiled than the hair of the woman shown in the article. And if that is the case, shouldn't the picture (which gives an example of afro-textured hair) depict the norm rather than the exception? Why show the exception? Are we that ashamed of pure afro-textured hair? 74.185.0.47 (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This comment was made as if afro hair doesn't merge into "curly" hair and isn't a subjective and non-scientific term in the first place. All "Afro hair" is is hair that is "very tightly curled" whatever that is -- and one thing it isn't is quantitative (objective). It'd be better to use something that looks as little as possible like a curly-afro mix though. I agree we'd be better to portray the extreme for clarity i guess. I could call that lady's hair in the picture "curly". Would you call her a curly head? Infiniti28 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Loosely coiled hair is usually a result of mixing. Pure afro-textured hair is more tightly coiled. That is a fact, not a subjective opinion. 74.185.0.47 (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

-> Nothing wrong with this, just fyi: using "more tightly" than "Loosely" is like telling someone to get you gum that is "more sweet than plain gum" - totally leaving a range at the whim of POV. Nothing wrong with this -- actually, "Loosely coiled" [your words not mine] is what you invariably get when you take the blackest brutha from Nigeria, DR Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and compare them to say the "lightskin" Khoi Khoi who have hair so "coily" it's rarely an inch off their head and whom are found in countries like Namibia and Botswana, have the oldest genetic lineages known to mankind and which lack genetic lineages with extracontinental input. So by your definition those jet black Congolese, that tricologists will measure as "Afro" hair between curly and Khoi, are "usually a result of mixing". Infiniti28 (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• My article has been completely ruined. The woman in that picture, clearly, does not have tightly curled hair. None of my original post has remained. Adding info. is fine, not completely removing entire sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.55.61 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• • What's "tight" is subjective but i'll give you that, it ain't really vintage "Afro" hair. Infiniti28 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tone and POV of this article is not neutral

I just read this article for the first time, and found it not to comply with out neutral point of view standard, even though it's well-referenced and written in an encyclopedic tone and style. It's a bit subtle, but much of the article is focused on how afro-textured hair is different from straight (i.e., normal) hair. It would be better if it could be integrated into some other article.

If this seems unclear, compare Wikipedia's articles on straight hair (not actually an article), black hair, and brown hair -- and what they contain. Would there be a long, footnoted section about the possible reasons those provided evolutionary advantages in the way that these do?

I'd appreciate feedback from others before I start making any changes.

Thanks,
BCorr|Брайен 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone back to an older version of article as the basis of doing a better job on this, especially since the removed information is covered better at Head_hair#Texture. I will look at other differences and see what can be resonably added back in.

Thanks
BCorr|Брайен 22:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits make no sense. You complain about the neutrality of the article, then turn around & revert to an even less neutral & more unreferenced version of the article, as if that solves anything. You've indicated that you planned on making changes, but if that's your idea of change, then perhaps it's best you didn't make any at all because the edits you have made have not improved the article; they've only made it more POV & its content less verifiable. Please stop with this bull in a china shop approach to editing. Instead, fix the individual areas you feel need work; don't remove sources. 70.49.121.155 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-read the article and I see what your concerns are now. Much of it really is non-neutral. A lot of it is clearly original research or barely if at all related to the topic of the article, particularly in the Evolution and History in the Western context sections. Apologies. I've cleaned up the article, gotten rid of some of this deadweight & sourced a few other areas. Please feel free to have a go over areas I might've missed or you feel need work. 70.49.121.155 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

where is the rest of this sentence?

It has been debated whether hair straightening practices arose out of a desire to conform to a Eurocentric standard of beauty, or some combination of both. (both what?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elleng (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

name of article

I think the article should be called "Afro-hair". Natural hair is not the proper term for this. It doesn't make any sense as everyone's hair is natural (unless it is a tupee). AnwarSadatFan (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

When thinking about what to name this article, maybe it helps to think about why we need an article about this at all. And the answer is: we need an article on this because it's been an issue in the United States. For that reason, I would support the article being re-titled to "Natural hair (African-American)" or "Black hair issues in the United States". Anything that isn't specifically about African-Americans in the United States can be moved into a new article about the variety of hair types in the world. 69.159.196.72 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not just black!!!

I noticed that this article only talks about black people with curly (Afro) hair, which isn't right! I am of Scottish, Irish, and Dutch descent, and I have ridiculously tight little ringlets. If this article is going to inform people about curly (Afro) hair, it should mention the other cultures with naturally curly (Afro) hair. Don't get mad at me, I'm just throwing in my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.86.121 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New Title? Kinky Hair Maybe?

I think the article should be changed to Kinky Hair or Curly Hair or maybe we should make up some adjective to describe this SPECIFIC type of hair. As many people have said this type of hair is not expressed by ALL African peoples, it is not even expressed by all of the black peoples of Africa. It is not uniform across all tropical regions of Africa, nor is it only found there. In every part of Africa there can be people found who do not have stereotypical "afro-textured" hair.

It is also possible to find people outside of Africa with a similiar type of hair for example in some parts of India or within Melanesian and certain European populations.

So, I think it would be more appropriate to refer to the hair type and not associate it with all of Africa. Not doing this can help to create division in the African and Diaspora communities, I believe. It can also shy other ethnicities away from embracing this type of hair that they have.

I also think the article should remove all references to "Sub-Saharan" Africa. We do not refer to people south of the Sahel as Sub-Sahelian, we do not refer to South Americans south of the Amazonian rainforest as Sub-Rainforest, we do not refer to people South of the Rio Grande(marks border with mexico) as Sub-North Americans.

It is a stupid classification invented by white people to separate the people they thought were less ignorant from the people they thought were hopeless. To study African history and languages and customs, you will see that the Sahara desert is not the greatest boundary as the White Academia has made it to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.103.60 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

fine hair?

the article is referenced saying african hair is FINE. Fine means a thin, skinny hair. My experience is the exact opposite. African hair is coarse and wide. So much more coarse than caucasian hair (when i look at white people's hair i am shocked, it seems their hair has been on a diet, so skinny). Does anyone here think similarly to me? African hair has more girth than caucasian hair? The lighter the hair the finer it tends to be, the darker the more coarse, this is a general rule of thumb on hair texture. African hair is no exception to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.184.141 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what, don't ever recall looking at this of this in the context of "fine hair" but i've seen measurements in hair diameter of that had straighter hair in the 80s, wavier and curlier hair under, and "afro textured" like below 65. Some one should look this up. Maybe that's what whoever made the edited in the "fine" comment was referring to. I'm aware of the everyday context usage of fine hair. Infiniti28 (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is denying anything.

Im not denying anything but if you look at my earlier responses I explained the over use of the term Black people as something that has gotten some people of African descent away from the self association with a continent a more with a color i.e. your blackness. If we are going to relegate to being called by our self associative color and not by our motherland then its not the right direction nor is it accurate term when describing any group of people. With all that being said no one has a problem being called a black person but if is going to being cultural and physical accurate then it should reflect the heritage and the shared background more than it should the 'percieved' skin color. And lets not forget colored & negro dont reflect any orignative heritage like the word AFRICAN does. Let me know what you think ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufei05 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. Africa is not just inhabited by black people; how hard is it for you to understand that? It is therefore not only wrong, but outright misleading to use in the article the hollow term "Native African" in place of "Black African" when it is specifically and overwhelmingly Black people that have Afro-textured hair. This gives readers the wrong impression that Afro-textured hair is somehow also characteristic of other non-Black Africans when it is of course specifically characteristic of only Black Africans. Like I wrote earlier, this all smacks of self-hate on the part of certain contributors and a reluctance on their part to truly admit what the rest of the world already knows and has always known: that Afro-textured hair really is a "Black thing". The question is, are these contributors truly "proud" enough to admit that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.228.214 (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Red-herring; using the term African as a self-descriptor is that person's busines and doesn't infer they assume the continent to be ethnonymically homogenous. It is however assumed by you that all people with "Afro textured" hair go by what i assume is the American ethnonym "black". Additionally saying it's only a black thing and qualifying this with "black African" neglects Pacific Islanders, Andamanese, Fiji Islanders, and other "Vedic" and "Negrito" populatins in and off of "other continents", some of whom have physical features not seen anywhere else including Africa. You can call who ya want black but don't call people out for things they ain't say dawg. Infiniti28 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan African?

Wufei, please explain what's wrong with this term (sub-Saharan African) according to the scholars you quote? Thanks. Afiya27 (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but if i may ... used strictly as a term for people located South of the Sahara today is perfectly fine. Using this term in the context of antiquity is tricky however; at times the North African desert has reached further, at times much of Algeria was "sub" Saharan, and at a time the the marshy swampy Northern Delta was the uninhabitable place for humans. This may be what Woofey was referring too. Infiniti28 (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of photo of Alice Walker because she is an "obviously mixed race person"

After someone deleted the other recently added photo, I restored a photo of Alice Walker, but it was removed with an edit summary saying it was a blurry photo of an "obviously mixed race person." I think that is veering back into an area with tinges of scientific racism and racial purity. BCorr|Брайен 13:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And I think you're trying too hard. Alice Walker is indeed mixed race with both White and Native American heritage, a fact she herself readily admits. Her hair is therefore hardly representative of what typical afro-textured hair looks like, as anyone can see even from that fuzzy picture of her. Unless your specific intention is to conceal what afro-textured hair actually looks like in its natural state (as if it's something to be ashamed about), then you have absolutely no reason to complain about that picture of the accomplished Ghanaian economist George Ayittey sporting afro-textured hair in its natural state. 70.49.122.18 (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's erroneous to suggest degree of 'racial mixture' based on hair texture. Afro texture hair comes in a variety of grades. It's not all tightly, tightly coiled and kinky. Alice Walker is a great example, she has a looser Afro. The article should reflect the diversity of different types of Afro-textured hair. Micheal Jackson, pre-enhancement, sported an afro texture of the tighter more coyly nature, however Michael Jackson was of African-American, Indigenous American and European descent (cited in his and other family member's articles). One's mixed racial ancestry isn't always apparent in one's social identity or phenotype. Another example, Lenny Kravitz has natural hair texture closer to Michael Jackson's original hair texture, yet Kravitz was born to a Black Caribbean mother and a white Jewish father. I think it's very important to show more variety of Afro hair textures in the article, and to not limit the perspective of this hair texture being only associated with dark skinned people, or sub-saharan Africans. it's should be illustrated with pictures of individuals of different skin shades, and from other non sub-Saharan groups who have Afro-textured hair like Melanesians, Micronesians, some Asians like Negritos, and some Caucasians, like Jews. Bab-a-lot (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article deals specifically with Afro-textured hair, not with hair texture that is intermediate in texture between Afro-textured hair and other types of hair. The physical description of this hair type -- as exemplified in the well-sourced Struture section of the article -- pertains only to Afro-textured hair, not to intermediate types of hair that may have arisen due to miscegenation. Alice Walker's hair in that blurry picture is also not a "looser Afro". It's actually not an Afro at all, but braided/twisted hair that is, to all outward appearances, intermediate in texture between Afro-textured hair and other types of hair and specifically because she is mixed (as she herself readily admits). You'll also never find Caucasians with actual Afro-textured hair as described in the Structure section; they simply do not exist. 76.68.249.240 (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bab-a-lot. The article isn't supposed to be about racial purity, but about hair texture. I'm sure everyone would agree that young black Michael Jackson had an Afro and it is a scientific fact there are people with hair nappier than his. The afro-purity complaints are buffoonery ... exactly like the Madam in the restaurant who sNarls "What is this? I thought I TOLD YOU I WANT SPICY!! You call THIS SPICY!? No WAY I'm tipping..." exactly. Infiniti28 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

what is the proper scientific name for this type of hair?

what is the proper scientific name for this type of hair that sub-Saharan black populations have? I doubt it's even called Afro-textured hair but that is the best name for the article for now. But we really need to use the scientific term and I doubt it's even this. AnwarSadatFan (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

lol, was wondering the same while it dawned on me that nappy, kinky, coarse, etc, could all be inferred as biased. I think perhaps we should use wooly hair. I agree afro can go when we find the scientific name... Infiniti28 (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone figured out the proper scientific name yet so we can name change the article? AnwarSadatFan (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think scientists spend much time putting hair into categories. At least, not since the racist anthropology of the 1930s. (By the way, the word they would have used in the 1930s was "Negroid".) 69.159.196.72 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

People with this hair type are referred to as "ulotrichous" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.12.216.207 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Geographic Variation

One really basic thing this article fails to describe, is exactly what indigenous populations do and don't have this type of hair. One might infer from this historical section that it is populations from Africa, Polynesia and Melanesia, but is this accurate and complete? A map such as is used in the article on skin color would be ideal, but short of that, surely the article should give clear account of what regions of the globe this hair type is and isn't in indigenous and how / if the degree of spiraling varies between groups.--Ericjs (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Complete vandalism

I was the one who started this page a few years ago. Rather than just adding on, editors completely removed everything I wrote and it's a completely different article (maybe some of the original is left, I don't know because I don't even want to look at it anymore). It's completely ridiculous, there should be some kind of way for wikipedia to prevent completely removing entire pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.167.235 (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic hair

Why not name it Ethnic hair? It's used in the industry, and people recognize it. 75.208.228.108 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the term ethnic hair is not exclusive to Afro-textured hair. Ethnic hair could be Jewish, Latino, hair, etc... Which industry are you referring to, by the way? Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Re : not just Black

You know good and well that you do not have tightly curled/Afro textured hair, is it an absolute must for Whites to deny us any kind of ethnic pride whatsoever? Can we have anything to ourselves, must you always butt your way into our private affairs? It's pathetic. Tightly curled hair is found among sub-saharan African, Negrito and Melanesian descended people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.167.235 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is so aggressive and proud that it's racially condescending. Please avoid using that tone on wikipedia. Wikipedia does not recognize contributors' history or background, only facts and arguments. AbbasAD (talk) 07:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Edit is messy

Half of the sub-points are part of an argument by the same two or three contributors about the same subject. I think we should look into grouping them all into the same sub-point for convenience.

Also, regarding the point about what to call the race we all mean, I think the issue of "accuracy" is really overblown. I say this because the Caucasian race is named after a region, even though it's quite clear not the entire race is from there. Also, the "Mongoloid" race. So the importance of accuracy can be toned down in order to agree on a term which refers to what everyone means. In this case, "Black Africans" is far more appropriate than "Native Africans". When using the first everyone knows what we mean (which is the point), when using the second, however, it inevitably includes other races. AbbasAD (talk) 07:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of photos of bald people

Please do not remove photos that show hair texture with those where hair texture is not visible and instead is of bald people. This is an article about afrot-exture hair capice? Please use talk page and stop making vandalism edits. If you can make a case for why photos of almost bald people should be on a page about afro-textured hair while photos showing texture are removed, I would like to hear it. Priorsolve77 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ground rules for gallery photos

1. Should be of actually afro-textured hair 2. Should be long enough to actually tell if it is afro-textured (i.e. no bald photos! there are enough photos (4 or so) of very short afro-textured hair, anymore and it's just not helpful for this article especially as there are many other avaialable photos of longer afro-textured hair 3.Should not be unkempt. There are enough photos of those with hair that is no unkempt. Why would we include photos of unkempt hair that distorts the actual texture of afro-textured hair

Can we agree to these groundrules? I would love to have other input before photos are deleted without reason. Like why was the wole soyinka photo removed when (1) he is among the most notable africans of today (2) with longer natural hair (3) and the only photo showing how afro-textured hair looks on an aging person (change of color)??? This seems to be just bad-faith editing on the part of soupforone. Removing photos that show afro-textured hair with many BALD photos???????? Priorsolve77 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Galleries

A new account made some rather large changes to the image galleries with no prior WP:BRD discussion, re-introducing inadequate old images. He or she complained about "unsourced changes that put pictures where you cannot even see the texture of the hair", yet replaced a close-up image of a Tanzanian woman with natural afro-textured hair with another more distant one of a woman from the same area with very stylized hair, where the actual hair texture is not instantly apparent. The user also substituted clear shots of a Kenyan man, a Congolese infant and Senagalese children with afro-textured hair, with highly-stylized pics of a Dogon girl and a back-view shot of two Kenyan women's heads, as well as an image of Wole Soyinka, who has rather atypical hair relative to his countrymen. The other changes were in this same vein, including the removal of a close-up shot of a Tutsi man with natural afro-textured hair. Soupforone (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You placed BALD people. We need pictures of the HAIR texture. until we find them, bug off and stop putting pictures of bald people. How is that any better than photos of styled hair? Right now a picture of afro-textured hair has very few pictures showing texture. So STOP THE NONSENSE OR I WILL REPORT YOU FOR VANDALISM. I hope a sensible discussion can be had here of why you replaced the wole soyinka picture that visibly shows the texture of the hair with two pictrues of NEW BALD PEOPLE? Stop playing games. Priorsolve77 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

South sudan photo: unkempt hair, texture not clear. Why? when there are many photos of well-kept hair? AND DIRTY TO BOOT. Congolesee child: BALD no hair texture at all Tanzanian woman: NEAR BALD distant, cannot see hair texture at all Tutsi man: NEAR BALD cannot see hair texture at all Senegalese: unkempt hair. Why? when there are many photos of well-kept hair. AND DIRTY TO BOOT.

How are these better than styled photos when most Afro-textured hair in Africa IS styled??? And clean?? At least the texture is visible and is not blatnaty BALD or NEAR BALD??? These are bad faith edits and I would like some outside input, thanks. Priorsolve77 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Which photos are appropriate?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Images have been replaced and the result seems to be satisfactory for everyone involved. Checking the images, I don't see any evidence of the pictures displaying images of very short-haired people and the various textures are easy to discern (which was the main concern). If you think there's still a problem somewhere, discuss it. Regards, — Moe ε 03:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the article include pics of very short-haired persons, where it is hard to discern the texture (see edit history for specific examples)? Should the Wole Soyinka photo be included, or is it too peculiar? [Note: this is a re-framing of the original RfC question] --Noleander (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Note - Here are the original RfC issues, as posed by Priorsolve77: Pics of nearly bald people:

• We already have about 5. We do not need anymore. We need well-kept, photos of afro-textured hair where the texture is visible. hair is NOT dirty. This is the point of the article, not just photos of as many random black people as we can find.
• Should bald people be used as representatives on article for afro-textured hair while photos such as those for wole soyinka's hair be removed?
• Should photos of those with unkempt hair be used in an article for afro-textured hair while well-kept hair photos are removed?
• Should a photo of a notable African from one of the largest tribes in Africa be removed (Wole Soyinka) and replaced with photos of almost-bald non-notable persons in an article about afro-textured hair?
• Should photos be removed on a basis of "non-consensus" when the original changes were also made without consensus?

Priorsolve77 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with wild unkempt hair? What's up with this aesthetic prudishness going on? And who gets to define unkempt, anyway? He wears his hair in public, he's a well known scholar. The way he wears his hair does not affect his credibility as a person, nor as a professional. He's world renown, regardless. So, I ask the question, again: "What's WRONG with WILD UNKEMPT HAIR?" It doesn't make the person less civilized. Images shouldn't be filtered out based on that 'criteria'. It's unfair and rather unjust. Bab-a-lot (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me just clarify that I do not believe that Wole Soyinka's hair is wild or unkempt, to the contrary, I was arguing for keeping it. Cheers. Priorsolve77 (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Initial thoughts: The photos for this article should avoid nearly bald people; should show well-maintained hair (to avoid racist suggestions of uncleanliness); and should - where available - include photos of notable African cultural groups. --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, there is more to this issue than baldness :-) I'm trying to figure out the sequence of what happened here: It looks like

- There was a fairly stable version of the pics

- on 17 July, user Soupforone made some changes to the pics

- on 31 July, user Itemtried33 made some changes to the pics

- on 31 July, user Soupforone reverted the changes by Itemtried33

- on 1 August, user Itemtried33 (working under the new name Priorsolve77) made additional changes.

I think the next step is for both users to specifically identify which pictures they object to. Feel free to place a thumbnail of the pictures here in the Talk page so other editors can review them. --Noleander (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are two photos that Priorsolve77, I believe, objects to:

• 
• 
  Malcolm X, 1964

Priorsolve77: can you supply others that you object to? Ditto for Soupforone: can you put the photos you consider inappropriate here in the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Question - For Czarkoff: - On my talk page you indicated that the RfC questions were not accurate. Could you reframe the issue in wording that you think would be better? --Noleander (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I can't.

lengthy explanation

Until an actual discussion happens, the topic of this argument is unknown. Now we only know that: The number of illustrations on this article is high enough to make the choice among the possible options unavoidable. In course of this article's development this choice was made, and at least Soupforone believes this choice to be the result of reaching some level of consensus. Priorsolve77 (previously Itemtried33) believes that some illustrations fail the purpose of illustration. Soupforone disagrees; his arguments are unknown, as he wasn't active on Wikipedia since the first edit of this talk page by Priorsolve77. If my findings above are accurate, this RfC would only help with answers on the questions that are not yet known to be the source of the dispute. We have no reason to believe that the disagreement between Priorsolve77 and Soupforone concerns these topics at all! As people tend to avoid coming to the same page via RfC twice in the short period of time, the most probable consequence of the RfC is the exhaustion of the possible dispute resolution possibility. What is worse, we don't even know the nature of the disagreement: it may be virtually everything, from expert aspects of the article's subject to editing misconduct as asserted by Priorsolve77 at DRN. In some of possible cases (including both of these) this RfC is hugely suboptimal way to resolve issue.

Until the topic of the argument is unknown, this RfC can't be plausibly reframed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the quantity of images in the article, the WP guidance is in WP:Galleries which states:

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text. However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

--Noleander (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment -- The charges that the images of the Congolese infant [1], Tanzanian woman [2], Sudanese woman [3] and Tutsi man [4] are "bald" are patent nonsense. This can easily be confirmed by actually looking at the linked images. They clearly show peoples who not only have hair (though closely-cropped, as is frequent throughout Sub-Saharan Africa), but specifically afro-textured hair. What makes this argument even weaker is that there are several images that were, by contrast, retained in the article, which feature individuals with hair of a comparable length; for example [5]. Anyway, I don't really have an issue with the current formulation, except for this Wole Soyinka photo [6]. As already indicated, his hair is quite unlike that of most of his countrymen; especially those from his particular Yoruba ethnic group. I recommend replacing that image with this head shot of the former President of Rwanda. The gentleman's afro-textured hair here is clearly visible and well-presented, and the "bald" charges also certainly do not apply. Soupforone (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things. So you don't mind if the short-haired images you list above are omitted from the article; but you desire one image changed as shown below:

• 
  Remove this ...
• 
  replace with this

Let's see if Priorsolve77 can live with that change.--Noleander (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the situation and the change I propose. Soupforone (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced the pictures as indicated above. I think the next step is to wait and see if user Priorsolve77 has any additional issues they want to discuss. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Soupforone (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes this looks quite fine Juvenal can replace Wole, and the rest of the photos stay as they are. Thank you for your help Noleander! Priorsolve77 (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

− Comment: as there seems to be no consensus on whether the people in the photos are bald at all, I cancel the RfC until the actual dispute's subject becomes clear and appropriate formulated of questions can be asked. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all editors visit WP every day. Some editors only have time to check-in every 3 or 4 days. Let's give Priorsolve77 some time to respond and see if they have any more comments. There is no rush. Discussions on RfCs often last 10 or 20 days. The nominal duration of an RfC is 30 days. --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

sorry for being away. I am very happy that you all took this very seriously and helped resolve the issue. The current gallery of photos looks great and represents afro-textured hair well. I hope this discussion on this talk page will give a good guideline for what is acceptable. Thank you again for your help. Cheers.

Priorsolve77 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

PS- the above, I wasn't saying that wole soyinka's hair was unruly, quite the opposite, I was arguing to keep it. But in any case, Juvenal's photo is quite nice (can't remember how to spell his last name) and is long enough to clearly see the texture of afro-textured hair, and is not otherwise manipulated, dirty or unkempty or inappropriate for any other reason. Cheers. Priorsolve77 (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And to clarify czarkoff's issue, just to be clear for future editors, the topics concerned the lack of consensus and the replacement of photos that showed the afro-textured hair adequately with very short-haired nearly-bald photos that did not, in comparison. Priorsolve77 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So to be clear as I will probably not return to wikipedia for a while, I am extremely satisfied with the resolution of this RFC. Cheers and good night. Priorsolve77 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Text of article oblivious to fact it depicts.

"Afro-textured hair" is not the hair of Black Africans (alone), there are peoples with the same texture as shown in the photo section on Austronesian peoples. The actual (premodern) footprint of this trait includes subsaharan Africa and a substantial Oceanic part. 72.228.190.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

name of article

I started this page under the title Afro textured hair. 'Natural hair' doesn't make sense because White people with straight blonde hair have natural hair. The woman whose picture is displayed cannot possibly be considered as having afro textured hair, that is clearly frizzy/wavy hair. The information is fallacious and downright silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.9.141 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

since when did afro-textured hair only come in the form of an afro? it ranges from tightly coiled to completely straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.80.90 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the article to "Natural afro-hair". If you can come up with a less awkward title go ahead and retitle it.

Wikinist (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

'Natural hair' still redirects here I tried to have it redirect to 'hair' but it dosen't seem to work.89.139.58.235 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed Natural hair to a disambiguation page, I don't know how to edit the title to include disambiguation in brackets however, so someone with better knowledge of editing will have to do that. Walker Slake (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Thats a pretty bad, non-encyclopedic picture... did she take it herself on some webcam? There should be a better picture of the actual hair, with better resolution.

What's up with the text under the pic? Young "ape"?! Does the pic even need text? Am I being neurotic, out-of-touch -- ape is totally offensive, right? If we are going to worry about nappy. . .

Hampton University

Why was the part about Hampton University banning certain natural hairstyles (cornrows and dreadlocks) for their business students taken out?

Asian hair heterogeneity

In the table of hair types, type 1c (coarse straight hair) had the notation "Most Asian women fall into this category". I changed this to "Most East Asians fall into this category" because coarse straight hair is characteristic of both sexes in the most populous parts of East Asia (e.g. China, Japan) but not in other parts of Asia (e.g. India, central Asia). The original terminology may reflect the common usage in the USA of "Asian" to mean East Asian, which may be confusing to readers from other countries, e.g. UK, where "Asian" is often taken to mean South Asian.CharlesHBennett (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Fiji

What is the politically correct way to describe natural hair that resembles Afro and Afro-textured hair (these articles really don't leave room for non-African hairstyle that resembles them) on non-African people like the Fijians and Micronesian people?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I believe they're all referred to as "Afro" altogether.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)