Talk:Dreadlocks

Looking to get my information put back up if it has to be retyped to the owners liking message me

I brought up Celtic Coinage that depict Dreads from iron age and AD. And explained how Celtic style dreads inspired Elflocks and Faelocks in medieval litterateur I used Greek litterateur as well about the Gauls. Which is 1st Century BC Locs have been in our culture sense the dawn of time like other cultures. That that part of history should be more accessible which is why I posted the Celtic Coinage with dates and scholarly reads included. And how it's preserved in Celtic culture today find it odd how everyone else gets mentioned but when a historian provides information from Universites and books and more. Y'all delete it. Yet keep the pictures of the Celtic coins showing dreadlocks... How will people know what they are? This should be away to make knowledge more available. Especially with Credible sources Drecelto (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra (u — c) 16:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Dreadlocks → LocsLocs – I am not able to amend the page correctly, but I believe it is worth asserting that many individuals, diasporas, and people groups advocate against the term “dreadlocks.” I understand it’s necessary to include this term on the page for reference and historicity. I just believe it should be renamed and lowered in priority as the term of first reference.

Thanks. 209.76.207.20 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Dreadlocks" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. Zacwill (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RGW. 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME (see Ngram for example) and RGW. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose move and snowclose. The obvious common name is "dreadlocks". O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

  I would object to a speedy close. It's a loaded topic and I would allow the normal 7 days for other perspectives to emerge, even though I disagree with the proposal here. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Dreadlocks being WP:COMMONNAME Squawk7700 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Common name. Carlstak (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose clearly did not consider that "locks" are just hair -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2025 (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.

Inaccurate Information

This section is an oversimplification of Black British hair culture.Seems to be alluding to Caribbeans being influenced by Black American political movements,rather than being influenced spiritually by Rastafarianism, which is an integral part of Caribbean religious history,unlike in America. Lillyx01 (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

False Citation

This sentence, "Enslaved Africans spent months in slave ships and their hair matted into dreadlocks that European slave traders called "dreadful."[16][106]" is not supported with citation 106 and citation 16 is bad scholarship. There are only a few sentences in 106 (White and White) that mention dreadlocks:

"The dreadlocks of black West Indians also spoke of pride, since that hair arrangement celebrated the very texture of black hair that white racism had devalorized, a texture that alone is capable of being shaped into the dreadlocks' distinctive configurations. Afro and dreadlock styles also signified political empowerment, through the association with the black power movement on the one hand and the radical Rastafarian movement on the other." (page 53)

"It may be tempting to regard hair that was untended or worn long and bushy as African in origin, but it was no more African than were the Afro or dreadlock fashions of later periods.21 Typically, the hair of eighteenth-century West Africans was not bushy and unkempt; women from these areas, using braiding and wrapping techniques, had their hair arranged in highly elaborate configurations, while West African men generally cut their hair rather short.22 Neither sex tolerated untidy hair. The most likely explanation for the appearance of long, bushy, and unkempt hair arrangement in the New World is, of course, that slaves lacked both the time and the implements required to style their hair differently; however, this may not have been the whole story." (page 56)

White, Shane, and Graham White. “Slave Hair and African American Culture in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” The Journal of Southern History 61, no. 1 (1995): 45–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2211360.

For citation 16 [Sherrow, Victoria (2023)], the actual entry in Sherrow's work cites other authors, and so their work should be cited and not this derivative encyclopedia. Sherrow claims this sentence comes from Ayana Byrd and Lori Tharps but does not cite a specific work.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35628-8 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree and I believe the sentence should be removed, which I went ahead and did. Cringechancellor (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Does the world-records section need to exist?

I feel the "Guinness Book of World Records" section is a footnote at-best, as it was not the only record to be ammended at the time, and might be more appropriate in an article about those ammendments.

Regarding the accuracy:

The citation provided links to a blog post (granted, on the official website) with just text, which incorrectly (possibly correct as of publication) states the category was discontinued because of the difficulty in proving fraudulent attempts.

The blog post was published around the start of 2011, and the attempt was recorded in 2009. However, a decision was made, in 2006, to split the category to "cover both natural and artificial locks".

The person who achieved this, Asha Mandela (Sometimes Asha Zulu), was featured as recently as 2022 on Guinness' news blog; exhibiting the previous record, and the difference in length between the attempt, and publication date.

Article from 2022: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2024/11/rested-guinness-world-records-titles-and-why-we-no-longer-monitor-them Rhys Tedstone (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)