Talk:Natural hair movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spelmantaughtme.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YoDuff.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wash and go

There's no citation for the definition of "wash and go" and it's not a definition I'm familiar with. Am I missing something? Here are some links to articles on the subject: [1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MopTop (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Images

I was thinking about adding personal pictures of my natural hair and the various styles I've done with my natural hair. Maybe two or three pictures that would give a better understanding of styles and individuality.YoDuff (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Un-ruly.com

Does this source also need to be italicized? The other sources have a different formatting. T.scott0513 (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Girlwithbraidedpony.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Lacking NPOV

Much of the current language appears to be strongly misaligned with the principle of NPOV.

Consider three prominent examples:

• "Hair appropriation/cultural appropriation has been a huge issue within the natural hair community." This sentence injects a negative judgment into the editorial structure of the article. Compare this language to that featured in the article for cultural appropriation. The article identifies and describes a controversy regarding the value and relevance of the topic, without assuming a position: "Cultural appropriation is considered harmful by many", and later, "The concept of cultural appropriation has also been widely criticised".
• "Kim Kardashian wore Fulani braids... without properly acknowledging the source of these braids. She incorrectly referenced them as 'Bo Derek' braids'... Kim Kardashian... made no effort to correct or acknowledge her fault." This text expresses judgments on proper naming and proper behavior, not merely facts about which names have been used originally or prominently, and which behavior occurred. Who claims that acknowledgment is proper? Who claims that the reference is incorrect? Who claims that Ms Kardashian is at fault? Any individual may express these viewpoints, but Wikipedia may not. If a prominent critic or relevant group has provided such judgments, then the reference may be included in the article, as long as the motivation and effect is to express the full range of opinions, and not simply to inject the author's own.
• "Many women have found that they are treated unjustly simply because of the natural way their hair grows." This conclusion lacks proper citation and justification. Only two examples are given. If the actual prevalence of cases is so low, then the conclusion must be that most who might experience problems are experiencing none in fact. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, if many more cases exist, then some objective measure of the prevalence must be provided. If no measure is available, then the conclusion that the prevalence is high must be omitted. (Additionally, the characterization that such cases are unjust is a judgment, and must be omitted, even if a compelling number of readers might agree with the characterization. If some relevant party, such as a rights group or government agency, has characterized certain activities as unjust, then the fact of the particular party making the characterization may be given.)

Broadly, certain items in the article integrate opinions of some (but not necessarily all) proponents of the movement into the editorial position. Wikipedia is not an appropriate medium for such editorial expression, as allowed by its own principles and rules. Wikipedia may only represent the fact that such opinions have already and elsewhere been expressed, when such representation is relevant to a topic. --Epl (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of changes made

• "The unconscious relationship that some Afro-descendants have with their afro-textured hair can be approached in a reverse chronological order." Is deleted because there is no statement on the overall relationship of afro-decendants and their hair. This sentence is suggestive and pushes the reader to draw conclusions by the information below as if to convince of an argument.

• Correcting some of the grammer, some language sounds immature an unspecific. Changing around the sentence structure.

• "Around 2005, an underground documentary film hit the independent film circuit called My Nappy Roots: A Journey Through Black Hair-itage." added a link to the Wikipedia page of the film for reference.

• "Once mixed race children were born, Black people internalized that 'nappy' hair was 'bad', unacceptable hair." Deleted--unsupported claim, no references.

• "or "political hair" commonly referred to in the African American community" On light research of the term "political hair," I didn't find any definition that matches this claim, which wouldn't be the case if it was commonly used. And from the sentence, I am not sure if "political hair" means "good" or "bad" hair.

• Added sentence ".There are many reasons why African American women decide to "go natural." The main reason for the movement is for women to redefine what beauty is or means in the black community."

APA Citation

Wilkerson, K. (2019). The Natural Hair Movement: an understated revolution. [online] Digitalcommons.auctr.edu. Available at: http://digitalcommons.auctr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1007&context=continuum [Accessed 9 Feb. 2019].

• Wash and Go--added citation and expanded definition
• "Hair is a very important aspect of African life. The thickness and healthiness of the hair mirrors positive attributes from the culture for both women and men. Normally it is the elders who style the all of the hair in one's family and it is important for the others to learn how to do so. The tradition of braiding and styling hair is so sacred that there are actually a lot of rules and guidelines for it including: when and where to style, differences based on gender, different rituals and customs."--

added to history All of this information relates to the Wikipedia article because in order to understand this new natural hair movement, we have to understand how it got to this point. The Wikipedia briefly speaks about the past and again briefly about where natural hair styles originate. I feel like we should go more in depth of these topics to have a more well rounded discussion on the Movement.

Ama069 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Natural Hair Dictionary

Does this section belong on Wikipedia? I am unsure if it’s one of the causes for the infoboxes or not. Additionally, perhaps hairstyles shouldn’t be in the list, although they would be part of a Natural Hair Dictionary, because there are separate articles on hairstyles, such as Afro. Ech0inthef0rest (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)