Talk:Long hair
{{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = Talk:Long hair/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 125K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
}}
{{Article history
|action1=AFD
|action1date=03:15, 20 August 2007
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long hair
|action1result=kept
|action1oldid=152172773
|action2=GAN
|action2date=03:20, 25 September 2007
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=160171139
|action3=GAR
|action3date=18:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
|action3link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Long hair/1
|action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=883167931
|topic=socsci
|currentstatus=DGA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Fashion|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Metal}}
}}
Anti-Africa bias
"Throughout much of Africa, afro-textured hair is the most frequent hair form, except among the Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) speaking populations in North Africa and the Horn of Africa. In the latter regions, naturally long hair is instead more common.[61]"
It is inaccurate to say that Africans have naturally short hair. Long hair exists in all parts of Africa. Also I don't think it's particularly accurate to say that there is a completely separate "afro-textured hair" that is incapable of being long. It's inaccurate to say that hair divides into two categories.
The 6th reference does not exactly support the written statement
It is written: “straight hair allows more UV light to pass to the scalp (which is essential for the production of vitamin D, that is important for bone development[6]”. Was curious about such statement and thus checked if really someone has researched straight or curly hair abilities to pass on UV light and thus produce more D vitamin for bones. The paper “The Essentiality of Arachidonic Acid in Infant Development” and as far I understood it is not really a research about straight or curly hair ability to pass on anything to the bones. 193.238.216.184 (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
"evolutionary psychology"
There are several nonsensical references to "evolutionary psychology" and human attraction that have little to do with the article or even the paragraph they're in. Perhaps the purported biology of attraction to long hair could be expanded upon and put in an article about "evolutionary psychology" theories instead of being randomly peppered in an article about long hair? 158.174.24.23 (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Intro is really weird.
I don't think the section of "hair fetishism" should be in the introduction. That's it. Tungster24 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
:I agree -- we could put it in the psychology section? Malvoliox (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)