From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Hair is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 29, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.
WikiProject Mammals (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Wrong references to Easy Rider[edit]

In the movie there are no description of shaving long hairs with rusty razorblades, but only a mere suggestion that it could happen to the two main character when they got jailed by "parading without a license".

Despite adopting counterculture lifestyles, Wyatt and Billy are not hippies and this assumption is colaborated by they both leaving the hippie commune in favor of the road ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Officer Boscorelli (talkcontribs) 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

When does language qualify to get into an encyclopedia? In reference to the student expelled from a Brazil school, using the phrase 'he winned it' is inappropriate for its remoteness. This is a reference document for any and everyone in thge world, and should be weaned from the idiosyncratic urban slang of failed linguists. When you win a case, we say you won it... saying winned is plain pathetic, socially low and linguistically lazy. Amend that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


What was all this about a few hours ago? Someone tried to delete the page? Oddity- (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs re-posting .. [[File:File_Menschenhaar_200_fach[1].jpg copy.jpg]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaterhaz (talkcontribs) 00:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Overall[edit]

…is terrible. I see the signs at the top, but really, for such a common topic this article is atrocious; it should be moved up the list of articles to be completely revamped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this article overall is terrible. I'm considering a re-organization of the content. Thought should begin with general information and move into more scientific topics later. Also, most of the technical content can be found in other articles and shouldn't be repeated here. DrPD (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also amazed at the state of this article. It's a shocker. I have limited time at present, so I have just made a first sweep to sort some of the worst stuff - e.g. the redundant and repeated points, incomplete sentences, the worst of the grammar and unencyclopedic terms. Some inaccuracies too. Lots of work still needed.
Not enough info on variations in hair structure, cross-section variation of curlier hair. No mention at all of functional hair - eyelashes, eyebrows, nostril hair, ear hairs. I don't know enough to help here. Centrepull (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Some man grew hair —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Anyone who could add something about how you inherit different hair colors (chek the eye article for tips). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Aging - Air Bubbles?[edit]

As far as i know, "air bubbles" don't affect hair color. This sentence makes no sense to me: "In fact, the gray or white appearance of individual hair fibers is a result of light scattering from air bubbles in the central medula of the hair fiber."

--I removed this section, as it is untrue. Hair turns white because pigment-producing cells stop making pigment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is our hair a dead cell?[edit]

IS HAIR LIFELESS? Hair is erroneously considered lifeless because of lack of any visible connection with the brain. But, the brain is not controlling/communicating with our body through nerves alone. Hormones, which are chemical mediators also regulate various body functions. The immune system of the body fights infection with the help of coordinated action of cells, which have no visible connection with each other, or with the brain. So, presence or absence of nerves alone cannot determine the connection of a particular part of the body with the brain. If the hair was really dead to the brain, how then does it come to know that it has been cut, and respond by growing it again to the specific length? Once the specific length has been attained, further lengthening ceases. Thus, undoubtedly the brain is well aware of the condition of the hair, cut or uncut, even upto its tip! This is a sure sign of life. Also, the hair, like any other living organ of the body, responds to ageing, in their length, thickness of growth and greying. The condition of the health of a person is also reflected in the hair, its lustre, shine, etc.

Lack of sensation in hair, is no indication of its being dead, for, even the brain shows no such sensation. There is also a phylum (Porifera), the animals of which do not possess a nervous system at all. A blow to any part of their body produces no response whatsoever. Do we call these animals dead? Most plants do not show any sensation either.

Further, a part of that we call "dead" may be without sensation but definitely not without function. Rather, its function is as important as any living part of the body, if not more. For example:

What would be the fate of an egg without the shell? What would be the condition of the body's living cells without the covering of the dead cells, i.e. upper layers of skin? How can teeth perform their function without enamel? What life would a bird lead without feathers? How would many freshwater animals overcome unfavourable conditions and not become extinct without cysts? How would plants disperse and reproduce without formation of seeds? Actually, different parts of the body or different cells cannot be categorised as useful/not useful. Each is only specially modified to perform different function for the benefit of the same individual. What the cells of a kidney can do, the cells of pancreas cannot. That does not mean that the former are more important than the latter, or vice versa. From: SIkhiWiki

YES, HAIR IS DEAD. Unlike the outer layer of the skin (stratum corneum) there isn't really any functional biochemistry going on in hair fibers. The hair follicle is certainly _not_ dead. But the fiber really is. DrPD (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Image Deleted[edit]

Can someone please help? I can't seem to get the image to disappear. It is unnecessary. We all know what brown hair looks like, also it is not even a good example of a brunette colour as the lighting is strange and it is more featuring the "model" rather than a hair colour. I don't think any sort of promoting (wrong word) should be on this page and it ought to be deleted. Especially when it would be just as fine without it. Also the caption "human hair" is a bit silly.

You can edit the page yourself, however just removing the image is probably a bad idea. Even when it should be pretty obvious to most what the subject of the article look like, an image can liven up the article. If you have a better replacement that would be fine though. --fvw* 02:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried to edit it myself but it somehow never worked. I see how it can liven up articles but the picture is just wrong imo. I will look for a replacement but the copyright thing is tricky. I think there are already enough images on the page so that it wouldn't suffer if we removed the human with the brown hair . .Thanks for your response. Papa leaf 08:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Sorry just learned how to sign my name properly.

Well, we do have some better pictures in this article than the one at the top, perhaps switching them around would be worthwhile? The red hair one further down seems a more appropriate one. Also, I think the pictures could stand some diversifying: At the moment all we have is head hair on women. It all depends on what kind of images we can get our hands on under a free licence of course. --fvw* 23:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree about the diversifying. Since there are two pictures of women with straight hair in the "structures" section, I'm replacing one of them with a picture showing two men (James Baldwin and Marlon Brando) with contrasting hair structures. It's not an ideal illustration, but I think it's better than having all women and not much curly. --Allen 04:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That first image is taken from the Pubic Hair page, explaing why it looks odd. Earth_Worm_Eater (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the one of a woman with straight hair is also unnecessary. It's not even her real hair, it's a wig. If that image could be deleted or replaced it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Curly Hair[edit]

Someone want to talk about how the cross-section of hair determines whether it's straight or curly? --Dante Alighieri 12:14 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC) I second that emotion! I need info on curly hair, people.

Someone with more scientific knowledge than me should really add some information on curly hair and the reasons for it. This could be a start, but like I said, someone who knows more about this should probably figure out to add the informationto the article. --newsjunkie 19:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Newsjunkie: I added scientific research on the possible adaptive significance of the various hair textures, as well as how curly hair arose. It is under the 'hair texture' section. Let me know if its clear. Thanks. Afiya27 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

-- This has some info...cortex apparently has to do with it. BtW this Wikipedia article seems very sparse, nothing on biology, it's all about society?? what about ---cortex, cuticle, medulla?? Hairdressers, colorists please help this poor article out!

" How do you describe your hair. Do you say it’s stick straight, curly, wavy or kinky? The type of hair you have is determined by how much bend your hair has. Did I say bend? All hair has some natural bend which can range from just a little in straight hair to a lot in curly hair. Your hair type is also determined by the shape of the hair shaft. Straight hair is round while wavy hair has an oval shape. Curly hair is almost flat. "

" The centre part of the hair, called the cortex, makes up most of the hair shaft. It is the cortex that gives hair its special qualities such as elasticity and curl. The cortex is packed with strands of keratin, lying along the length of the hair. These keratin fibres are made of the low-sulphur keratins, and are compressed into bundles of larger fibres. These are held together by a mass of sulphur-rich keratins, the matrix. The fibre-matrix combination is extremely strong and resists stretching and other strains such as twisting, much as does the glass fibre-resin mixture from which many boats are built."--

Can someone give any information on how hair can be straight and fine in younger years, but come to be more coarse and curly as a teen and later?

I have to comment on the section of the article which claims that afro hair enables BETTER cooling of the scalp. I once let my hair grow for just over four years, and eventually cut it off because it was so uncomfortable in warm weather. Air DIDN'T get to the scalp at all. In addition, someone please correct the statement about shaved hair growing back thicker. This is only where the hair is finer like with the first time, otherwise, we would have hairs several millimetres across after a relatively short while of regular shaving. The hairs mainly feel thicker, as the new sharply cut ends come through the skin. Beards and moustaches start out feeling scratchy when short, but if you let them grow out, they get nice and soft as the hairs get longer. (I have had both over the years) (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell.

Deleted Paragraph[edit]

I deleted this para:

"Depending on some of the above, hair may be suitable for caressing and other touching by the person him/herself or by a friend or lover, or this may spoil the arrangement."

This has no place in an encyclopedia article. It is self evident to anyone with hair and/or a lover. I know that possibly eliminates many wikipedians, but probably not the majority of people who might read it. Stay focused on the encyclopedia, stop letting your daydreams influence your editing. GRAHAMUK 11:35, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't object to removal of such a rather lame sentence, but it certainly would be appropriate for this article to mention various intra-personal, inter-personal, sensual-sexual-selfimage psycho-socio-cultural aspects of hair! 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hair grows thicker when shaved?[edit]

I've often wondered - is there any truth in the commonly stated belief that rate/quantity of hair growth depends in some way on hair length (i.e. shaving makes hair grow back thicker)? It would be nice to see some information on this in the article.

most information i've seen says that the hair only appears thicker because it's shorter at first, or else because one begins shaving right as the hair would have come in thicker anyway, it creates false causality. still, it'd be a difficult thing to prove, wouldn't it? one would probably need twins.

There's no truth to it. You also wouldn't need twins - it is reasonable to suppose that hair in the same area would have similar growth rates, so just try shaving a patch and comparing it to the unshaved "control". You'll find that when it grows back, it is indistinguishable from the originally unshaved patch.Graham 12:58, 9 February

Body hair growth cycles[edit]

Quote: head hair for practical purposes grows continuously, whereas body hair alternates regular periods of growth and dormancy

I know for a fact this isn't correct. What should I do?

I personally don't know either way, but if i was positive (as you seem to be) i would go ahead and delete the section and make not of it on the talk page (see above) --Hes Nikke

On a related note, if hair does grow in cycles, does anyone know if it is seasonal? or is it unique for different parts of the body? (eg, 3 or 4 sets of follicles all grow in offset cycles)

Not true, all hair follicles pass through the hair cycle and the hair cycle is obviously different in different parts of the body. There are diurnal and seasonal variations, especially for animals that shed. --User:DrPD —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Copyvio image[edit]

The image used here was a copyvio from - Texture 19:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All hair has a cycle and falls out. Head hair has a longer one before falling out but it grows continously. Body hair grows but then stops growing after a period of time and eventually drops out sooner than head hair.

Bad information[edit]

The article describes bipedal locomotion as exteremly inefficient, it is in fact the most effient a fact used to explain why humans slow sprinters but capable runing long distances. The reverse is true other animals are better runners over short distances because quadrapedal locamotion is extremely inneficient and they expend more energy very quickly, hunans can run long distances at slower speeds because bipedal locomotion is the most efficeint.

I fixed this but some misinformed person changed it back ( i just quickly went through the revision history, at least i thought i fixed this)

This needs to be fixed there is no ambiguity, the statement that bipedal locomotions is inefficient could not be more wrong.

Why in the world are we discussing this on an article for hair? I'm glad to see that no mention of whether or not bipedal motion is more or less efficient is referenced in the article. Banaticus (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

men hair lengh[edit]

the article says:

Before the First World War men generally had long hair and beards.

is there a ref on this? Xah Lee 13:38, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Good call Xah, I’m going to have to raise the BS flag on this one; the masculinity of short hair in western culture stems from the Roman army not the Great War.

It's true though, I mean, it had never really taken off outside of cultures that had pedo-homosexual tendencies and wanted men to look like little boys. The romans did start it but it wasn't big in the West in general until lice broke out in WW1.

Hair brushing from the ends[edit]

I've heard that it's better to brush your hair starting from the ends? Why is this? I'm sorry if this question doesn't seem related to this article; I've had trouble finding haircare-related articles on Wikipedia, and I'd be happy to be directed to more relevant ones. -- Creidieki 02:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) It's not worth mentioning on the wiki article but i'll answer you. It's simply because if there are tugs your brush won't end up jammed half way down your hair. If there are tugs (tangled hair) and you start at the bottom you could brush them out and go up the hair, brush those ones out if you find more. If you start at the top and you have hair tangled hair at the top AND further down it is almost impossible to brush the first one out because it will get caught in the one nearer at the ends. 04:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC) The reason to brush the hair beginning at the ends is indeed so that tangles or tugs can be resolved lower on the hair shaft and more gently, like untying a loose knot. Brushing from the top down "knots" any tangles more firmly, making them harder to undo. This is done not only for comfort, however, but to prevent damaging the hair itself to allow the hair to grow longer. Vigorous combing and brushing beginning at the top down results in more damage to the hair as it is tightly knotted and then forcefully unknotted, and thus requires more trimming of damaged areas to keep it looking healthy, and as such the overall result is shorter hair. (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC) April 18, 2009

resolving deleted paragraph[edit]

I just removed the following paragraph from the article. It struck me as grossly out of place for several reasons.

Some persons of African descent have hair that if left alone will grow in tight curls and develop into a unique hairstyle known as the afro; since the development of the concept of Black Power, there has been a debate as to whether such persons should use products that straighten their hair.

My issues are:

  • Discussion of Black Power doesn't seem neccessary when talking about the structure and properties of the hair follicle. Perphaps this belongs in an section on contraversies about hair style.
  • The wording is too focued on an individual instead of the HAIR or a racial group.
  • While valid, additional information about properties of other racial hair types would make this more inclusive.


Not only unnecessary, but inaccurate and very poorly worded. I count five wrong statements in the quoted paragraph. Not bad for a single sentence. Centrepull (talk)

Non-mammalian hair?[edit]

What about hair on spiders, insects etc? It may not be formed in the same way, but it's certainly a type of 'hair'. --Calair 03:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In the first paragraph it says that insect hair isn't really considered "hair" Rafi5288 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can hair turn gray from depression?[edit]

I don't know if this is an urban legend, but is it true that hair can turn gray or white after a period of severe depression? I've also read that hair can turn white almost on the spot because if intense fear or panic. -- 12:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Something like this happened in the film Evil Dead 2, when a section of Bruce Campbell's characters hair turned grey after he saw a monster. I don't know if there are any real life examples. DANZIG666 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

: "Can hair turn white overnight from fright?" Шизомби (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hair strength[edit]

The article says:

Hair is strong. A single strand can hold 100g (3.5oz) of weight. A head of hair could support 12 tonnes. It is equivalent in strength to aluminium or Kevlar. Wet hair, however, is very fragile.

This statement isn't very informative, and unclear. It implies (but does not say) that hair has high tensile strength; of course hair does not have high shear strength as it can break easily. Different diameter hairs will have different ultimate stresses, a range of max. stresses could be mentioned. Furthermore, kevlar and aluminum have very different tensile strengths, so that comparison does not really work. Finally, why is wet hair more fragile? This is not obvious.

I removed some of this section. This reference indicates that the tensile strength of human hair is about 190 MPa. I couldn't find a good source for data on Kevlar; while a post in this discussion thread claims 83 MPa for Kevlar-29 (one of the weaker formulations), FAQ gives tensile strength as 2.6 GPa for Kevlar-29 and up to 4.1 GPa for other varieties of Kevlar. Obviously one of these is wrong; I'm inclined to guess the former, but until we have a good source the claim should be omitted. The article on aluminium lists a tensile strength of 49 MPa in pure form and 400 MPa alloyed; since most structural use is presumably alloyed, describing hair as 'stronger than aluminium' might be technically true but is misleading.
At tensile strength 190 MPa, and assuming circular cross-section, an 18 µm-diameter hair should be able to sustain a maximum load of about 0.05N (~ 5 grams) and a 180 µm-diameter hair should hold about 500 grams. (I'm assuming those diameters are correct.) So the claim of 100 grams seems plausible. I've left this in (with more emphasis on the variability of that number) because the section probably needs *something* that can easily be grasped by readers without a scientific background, but it would be nice to have a source for the figure of 100 grams.
Googling tells me that the number of hairs on a human head varies with hair colour, with the maximum being about 120,000 hairs for blondes. (If somebody feels like taking the time to verify these numbers, they might be useful to add to the article.) Multiplying 120k hairs by 100g/hair would indeed give an answer of 12 tonnes... but the article mentions that blonde hairs are at the finer end of the scale, so it's not safe to assume that this figure is meaningful. Removed; can be re-added if someone can find a good source. Haven't checked the 'wet hair' bit. --Calair 22:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I would think the estimation of the entire head ought to go back, perhaps rounded to one significant figure (i.e. 10 tonnes). With 1 sig fig this automatically implies a degree of variability, but still gives the reader something to grasp, which is nice since 10 tonnes seems far above what anyone would expect. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 23:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds still problematic to me. You must be very clear that you are only refering to the aggregate theoretical strength of the hairs, working together in an artificial matrix. The scalp etc certainly cannot support such total tension loads. 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: wet hair

Wet hair is indeed more fragile when it's wet. Hair is made of tiny protein molecules which are all connected to eachother in a chain. However when hair is wet, there are water molecules inbetween. This results in water-water bonds & water-protein bonds. Those are obviously less strong than a protein-protein one (dry hair) That's the layman's version. You can look up in depth facts easy enough if you want. I don't think it's particularily worth mentioning in the article though. Good to see that silly hair weightlifting part was removed. It should stay out imo.

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis[edit]

The fourth paragraph under "Human Hair" should be rewritten on the basis that a debate on the merits of AAH is innapropriate.

The objective of this paragraph, and the succeeding ones, should be to inform the reader as to what the scientific consensus is on the origins of human hair. It is sufficient to state those theories and give any links which are needed to expand upon them. A detailed debate, particularly one which deals with matters other than hair, is not appropriate. Moreover, a theory with little or no scientific credibility should not be evangelising in this space. (One of the tactics of ID is to position itself in a debate with credible evolutionary theories on the basis that ID will thus itself gain scientific credibility. The use of AAH here smacks of the same ruse.)

The debate has also caused the English to become a little clunky and disjoint. A rewrite would fix this.

I propose to rewrite paragraphs 4 & 5 as detailed below, and I shall leave a few days before I do so for comment and debate. A link to the AAH wiki entry should be added to the list of links in the "See Also" section.

Proposed Text:

Several theories have been advanced to explain the apparent bareness of human body hair. All are faced with the same problem that there is no fossil record of human hair to back up the conjectures nor to determine exactly when the feature evolved.

Savanna theory suggests that nature selected humans for shorter and thinner body hair as part of a set of adaptations, including bipedal locomotion and an upright posture, for a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the African plains. There are several problems with this savanna theory, not least of which is that cursorial hunting is used by (other) animals that do not show any thinning of hair.

Another theory for the thin body hair on humans proposes that Fisherian runaway sexual selection played a role here (as well as in the selection of long head hair). Possibly this occurred in conjunction with neoteny, with the more juvenile appearing females being selected by males as more desirable; see types of hair and vellus hair.

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis posits that sparsity of hair is an adaptation to an aquatic environment, but it has little support amongst scientists and very few aquatic mammals are, in fact, hairless.

Steve 11:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I think a 'see also' is adequate here, and the AAH article seems to cover the relevant material. --Calair 12:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am currently trying to form an objective opinion regarding the aquatic ape hypothesis, and I do not feel that the latest amendment is wholly impartial. First of all, very few scientists will agree that there is a "savannah theory" at all; a common objection to the criticisms put forward by Elaine Morgan is that there never was a "savannah theory" and I do not believe that there is any sicentist out there at the moment actually supporting anything similar. The modern consensus among the opponents of the AAH is that our ancestors adopted bipedalism and lost most body hair in a "mosaic" environment where they were living at an interface between forest, savannah and water, and do not exclude a minor role of the aquatic element. In fact the only scientist writing on the subject and admitting that he was a proponent of the 'savannah theory' is Phillip Tobias, who has declared it to be dead and buried. Secondly, I think it would be instructive to include a very short summary of the AAH, as the current sentence dedicated to it does not really say anything about it, except to say that it has little support amongst scientists - this may give the impression that a multitude of scientists are actually opposed to it, when as a matter of fact most scientists are avoiding to commit themselves on it, apparently waiting for a consensus to develop spontaneously. In other words, the article as it stands is objectionable to all three groups, to those in favour of the AAH, to those against it who deny the existence of any 'savannah theory' and to those who are not committing themselves.

I also do not agree with the comment that those who ask for a discussion of the merits and demerits of the AAH are hoping to indirectly establish AAH as a credible theory through such discussion, the implication being that otherwise the AAH would have no credibility at all. I think there is a far cry between ID and AAH, and that the analogy is out of place. I think that there are many questions as yet unresolved and that the AAH is neither the answer to all the questions it raises nor comletely unfounded, and merits serious discussion. Arguing that discussing it gives it more credibility than it deserves only gives support to the position of those who are ignoring it in the hope that it will simply go away.

Gfglegal (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are the men?[edit]

Just a quick thought while browsing: there seem to be an awful lot of good pictures throughout this article, but I am somewhat surprised and interested to note that there are none displaying the hair styles of men. Perhaps a small task would be to find some in Commons and put them in! --Chromakode 06:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How often wash?[edit]

How often should one wash one's hair? Every day? Every two days? What about people who never wash their hair and who maintain it naturally takes care of itself over time? etc. --Sonjaaa 05:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm --Sonjaaa 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


How long does it take hair to grow back if you pull it out? (OK, so it will probably vary from person to person and depending on what type of hair, so how long would it take, on average, for facial hair to grow back when pulled out?)

Gray Hair[edit]

What about people's claims that stress causes an increase in Gray hair? Is there any truth to this claim? 14:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

grey hair is not only in old people. my friend has strands of grey. what i have also noticed is that this seems to be more common with black. i haven met a white person who has strands of white hair.Angelofdeath275 03:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It may seem more common on black hair simply because in contrast it is easier to distinguish. White hair on blonde is much harder to find, and brown hair similarly difficult.

Grey hair is also sign of stress, correct? If you are stressed enough, you can get grey hairs, right? :D Unintended Disaster 04:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Balding prevention[edit]

Is it true that if you brush/comb your hair a lot, the stimuli to the hair follicles will keep them active longer and thus prevent or delay hair loss? 15:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Baldwin/Brando photo[edit]

What is the relevance of the Baldwin/Brando photo in the 'Structure' section? --Calair 05:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That was me; I was editing due to the discussion above at Talk:Hair#Image_Deleted. Before, most of the pictures were of white women and I added several pictures of men and non-whites to try to diversify the pictures. I put the Baldwin/Brando photo in the Structure section because it discusses common differences between the hair of people of African and European descent. It's not a great illustration, but it was the best I could find on the Commons. I'm not attached to it; feel free to replace it with something better or to just remove it. --Allen 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, right. I think image size is part of the problem here. Looking at the large version, the distinction between different hair types is much more visible there than in the smaller version appearing on this page.
Perhaps it would be possible to crop the image more tightly, so it can be shown at a better magnification here? --Calair 02:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rate of Growth[edit]

"The rate of growth is approximately 1.25 centimeters, or about 0.5 inches, per month." Not only is this statistic uncited, but it's in centimeters per month, which is a variable measure of time. I don't have the expertise to fix this, but, as an amateur hair enthusiast, I am interested. [Oops. I didn't sign my post.Alex Dodge 18:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)]

Cultural attitudes[edit]

I think this section could be expanded somewhat. Lines like Mostly women had to be hairless as a sign of their virginity. are very unspecific. In what culture? At what time?

>In Western societies it became a public trend during the late twentieth century, particularly for women, to reduce or to remove their body hair is also rather unspecific. Does it mean all Western societies? Are the armpits of Continental Europe as smooth as British and US ones?

And what about religious requirements? Sikhism is obviously relevant and Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11, is really interesting, particularly as it claims that in some sense male hair is naturally short and women's long. Desmond Morris (in Bodywatching I think) thinks he probably got this idea from Roman soldiers. It certainly doesn't seem to square terribly well with Hebrew tradition - indeed, for Samson long hair was a source of strength.

Anyone know a bit more than I do about this? Garik 14:52, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Actually men's hair is generally thicker than women's, and generally has a greater terminal length. Which means that Paul was wrong, the opposite of what he claimed is almost always true, it sounds like he was trying to impose his personal preference. ~Anon

Indeed, the Jewish tradition does not female head-shaving, yet covering hair in public is customary as a sign of modesty. I am removing the point on head shaving as I feel it is derogatory. If someone can fnd a relevant source (to which there is none being an orthodox Jew myself I don't know of one). -- (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation/verification comments[edit]

I made a quick run through the article, trying to improve its grammar and organization as much as I could for now, and found the evolutionary and historical discussions somewhat incomplete. I inserted comments where I felt some clarification or additional information was needed (the savanna theory is not even described, so the objection about cursorial hunting in apes seems a non sequitur). I also commented out the paragraph about long hair as a traditional mark of weakness as lacking details of this idea or the rationale behind it, and in any case sorely in need of citation to verify it. Lusanaherandraton 03:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of unwanted substances?[edit]

Hi, I just stumbled across this article, and the paragraph near the top about the removal of unwanted substances from the body struck me as a little suspicious, I've never heard of hair being useful for that, and I've certainly never heard of moles growing hairs specifically to dispose of dangerous chemicals. Source, anyone? Kupos 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; that paragraph immediately struck me as absurd pseudoscience. I tried to find some sort of scholarly verification, but I only found people citing this entry. It needs to go. Macaria 03:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hair - a means for the body to remove crap

I'd like to add a little paragraph about how growing hair is an excellent way for the body to purge crap. Commonly referred to as 'toxins'. Hair may also serve as insulation, or as a means of showing social status, or a brief history of your health -- but first and foremost it's a crap-removal mechanism.

Look at men who eat meat every day. They have thick black hair all over their bodies. Obviously because they're so full of shit. Literally, not metaphorically.

Look at moles. Definitely a sickly part of the body. And they often have long, gross hairs growing out of them.

Look at women. Made of sugar and spice and everything nice. Their hair growth is under control.

Anyone here not think I'm a crackpot? Or should I come back and try again next year?

Chris 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

my first reaction is that crap is usually removed at the other end of the body, but if you have reliable sources then let's hear it. Pete.Hurd 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It is true that hair does contain a fair record of the toxics that one is exposed to, but it would be an absurdly inefficient mechanism for excreting such. The article should not favor such a theory unless someone has some very strong evidence for it. 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that people have lost their hair because of clothes.[edit]

The obvious theory for people losing hair is clothes. Else Nordic types would be hairy as all hell. Why is that theory missing here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 01001 (talkcontribs)

Just cite your sources and add it to the page, unless it's a theory you just made up in your head.--Sonjaaa 17:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not all obvious. Tailored clothing is thought to be 20,000 years old (Klein 1999: The human career: Human biological and cultural origins, U Chicago Press, p536) scraped hide clothing about 300,000 years old (Toth and Schick 1993: Making silent stones speak: Human evolution and the dawn of technology. Simon and Schuster. p161). Mutation of the MC1R gene associated with the loss of human body hair is about 1.2 million years old (Rogers et al 2004. Genetic variation at the MC1R locus and the time since loss of human body hair Current Anthropology 45:105-108). There are several theories in the scientific literature to explain the loss of body hair, please don't just put made-up stuff into Wikipedia, eg. You should be familiar with WP:OR by now. Pete.Hurd 19:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The theories expressed in this article are logically full of crap. There is no way in hell, mammals, i.e. man, can survive without fur and without clothes when the temperature is low. Mammals have fur to keep themselves warm, and the only possible explanation for man's lack of fur is clothing. Also, WP's OR policy leaves something to be disired as proved by this article. Apparently nonsense has been verified, but it is not true.01001 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Humans evolved on the Africa savannah. In that environment, for a species that runs a lot, fur is a liability. Also consider that the original humans had skin that we'd nowadays consider "black," and that people generally didn't live long enough for cancer to be a serious issue, thus there wasn't intense pressure to invent clothes either. I suspect, though I don't have sources, that advanced clothing technology followed rapidly upon humans' migration to colder climates. (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia in a nutshell: it's what User:01001 feels is "pretty obvious" versus peer reviewed science... Pete.Hurd 06:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and Lamarckianism fell out of fashion 150 years ago! -- Samir धर्म 06:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The theory for man losing their fur is very poorly written.[edit]

After reading this article and the cited articles more carefully, it is pretty clear that this article has missed the boat. The cited articles all concede that clothes, fire and shelter make it possible for man to have shed his fur. This is known and all the rest is pure conjecture. But the obvious reason and the one stated in the anthropology 101 textbooks as I remember is that sweating is a very effective temperature control mechanism. So man has lost his fur to take advantage of this. Further as stated in the cited articles, clothes offer a much more flexible temperature control system than fur. Also, as stated in the articles fur can become infested with parasites, which is a further advantage of hairlessness.

This article is missing the forest through the trees, missing the important points and focusing on some very far fetched theories.01001 05:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the cited articles are not the best. One of the articles mentioned Darwin's thoughts here which would certainly belong in this article. This article really points out some serious problems with WP OR policy, as truth is more important than verification, whereas WP OR puts verification before truth. This article is basically reflecting one not very well written verified source, making for a rather weak article.01001 05:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought one of the main theories about our hairlessness was to combat parasites. I am surprised to see that not even mentioned in the article. 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning behind "... enabled them to survive in the cold European climate by way of the practice of wearing animal furs. Hence the development of fur was rendered effectively unnecessary" doesn't make much sense to me, Creating furs to act as clothing takes time and energy, which could be used to create/produce food and other necessities, hence "Hence the development of fur was rendered effectively unnecessary", seems a bit speculative, I'd like to see the evidence for this claim. Anton.lauridsen (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hair in insects[edit]

I've noticed that some insects, like moths, are quite hairy. What is this hair made of, is it made of chitin or something else? Gary 14:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


The list of famous people known for their hair is listcruft. I think it should be deleted. Does anyone have any dissenting opinions? Gary 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the list here instead of deleting it completely. Now it is free to grow to monumental proportions without messing up the Hair article. Gary 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis revisited[edit]

I thought I'd changed this back in February but for some reason either I forgot, or something went wrong. As per my comments of 21 Feb 2006, I now propose to rewrite paras 3 through 5. Though some edits have been made to that section in the intervening period, I don't think they've contributed anything substantial nor solved the problem of clunky English. The new para 5 seems superfluous. It just expands on the Fisherian hypothesis, though with some useful references. It would be better just to add these to the links section. Consequently, I propose to keep the wording that I proposed earler. Your comments would be appreciated.

Proposed new text:

Several theories have been advanced to explain the apparent bareness of human body hair. All are faced with the same problem that there is no fossil record of human hair to back up the conjectures nor to determine exactly when the feature evolved.

Savanna theory suggests that nature selected humans for shorter and thinner body hair as part of a set of adaptations, including bipedal locomotion and an upright posture, for a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the African plains. There are several problems with this savanna theory, not least of which is that cursorial hunting is used by (other) animals that do not show any thinning of hair.

Another theory for the thin body hair on humans proposes that Fisherian runaway sexual selection played a role here (as well as in the selection of long head hair). Possibly this occurred in conjunction with neoteny, with the more juvenile appearing females being selected by males as more desirable; see types of hair and vellus hair.

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis posits that sparsity of hair is an adaptation to an aquatic environment, but it has little support amongst scientists and very few aquatic mammals are, in fact, hairless.

gray hair area[edit]

I have a question, why the gray hair started in the area close to forehead and spreading up toward the areas behind ears? 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hair Pairing[edit]

I have noticed that about 1/4 of the hairs on my leg (at least where I was looking) are 'paired', that is they appear as two hairs which protrude very close together (from about one to four hair-widths apart). They are very clearly paired and seperate from random distribution. Actually, looking at them now it looks as though about half are in pairs! Some pairs are made up of roughly equal-looking hairs, some have one long and thick hair shared with another short thin one. I did a little searching of 'hair pairing' and 'double hairs'; found nothing on the former, and the latter search brought up "double hairs in in various arthropod parasites", which wasn't all too comforting! Please tell me I'm normal... Many of my arm hairs are paired aswell.

Sir Spike 16:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a few places that mention 'double hairs', but only in reference to hairs which protrude from the same opening. These 'paired hairs' which I describe definately don't do that! Yeck!

Sir Spike 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's normal. I have that myself, and I have seen it on several other people. I wouldn't worry about it too much! 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


It has been suggested that Head hair be merged into this article. To reach a consensus on what to do, leave a note on Head hair's talk page, not this one. Kamope · talk · contributions 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nostril hair different?[edit]

Mention if hair inside the nostrils and further inwards is of different structure then the standard issue hair or not. Jidanni 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Advantages and Disadvantages of hair[edit]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leomedia (talkcontribs) 14:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC) 

It might be interesting to mention some of the more logical reasons for why someone might want their hair cut (be it body hair or otherwise). Within hot climates, it might be argued that a clean-shaven beard ensures that the body can more easily maintain lower temperatures (under the assumption that, for example, it takes a significant amount of energy for the body to reduce its temperature in hot climates). There may also be issues concerning hygiene (when considering body hair).

It might also be a good idea to point out that parasites and mites, etc... would certainly have a harder time surviving in the locality of one's hair if one were well-shaven. Surely, either this article, or an article that could be made to link to it, could state some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with having a hair-cut.

In mosquito ridden environments, it is a good idea to note that a thick blanket of hair can reduce the number of mite and mosquito bites that one receives. If one also has an anaemia-based/sickle-cell based mutations (I think that these aid in protecting against malaria), then it is the case that hair is quite advantageous. This paragraph doesn't contradict the paragraph above (different mites/parasites are referred to, I think).

Can anyone else think of any more reasons? Aside from cultural reasons – why do people get their hair cut anyhow?

ConcernedScientist 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-cycling Hair[edit]

Given the amount of hair that an (industrious) barber could collect during the course of a week – what possible uses might be suggested for that hair? For example, there are some uses that I have seen on television for hair : As a collecting agent for oil spills. Hair is very good at aDsorbing pollutants and chemicals from the environment and probably would have some useful applications here. As a fuel. Dry hair is meant to burn quite well. Is some form of hair useful for starting camp fires (I reckon that this is why Rambo had long hair). For the creation of wigs. Though, given some of the points in`` The Advantages and Disadvantages of hair, I can't think why you would want hair to begin with.

ConcernedScientist 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A friend of mine 'donates' his hair when it's cut to some people who turn it into wigs for people who've lost their hair due to chemotherapy. PolarisSLBM 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Our hair's metallic. That should be in the article. Is all hair metallic? Cat hair doesn't look very metallic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sugar Puffs[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that burnt hair, in particular that found on the forearm, smells like Sugar Puffs? Hold a lighter to your arm and see for yourself. Can anyone explain why? DANZIG666 18:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying that, as I shave bi-daily and my forearm hair is quite short. However, it might be because you apply scented deodorant, and anti-perspirant to your armpit. Shampoo to your head. So that could be it. Anyways, this isn't the best place to ask. Here you discuss the article, not the topic. --Puchiko 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)--Puchiko 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

cosmetology & Shampoo cocktails[edit]

Does anybody remember how to do "shampoo cocktails"?

Please respond Debbie Willems email:

Thank you Debbiewillems 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Practical Purpose[edit]

This article doesn't seem to list any practical reason for having hair, or why people would have more hair on their heads than elsewhere. I was under the impression it was insulation, or to help reduce the amoutn of thermal loss from one's skull (and therefore their brain, keep brain from freezing). PolarisSLBM 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with Hair Loss topics[edit]

What if we were to include information on types of hair loss and what causes it. Such as illness, hair pulling disorders, cancer treatments, and what people do to cope or compensate. Then the inverse situation of those who have hair ("virgin" healthy, no chemical treatments, no blow dryer) and would like to donate or sell their hair to those without. Maybe a list of sites used to donate or sell hair could be cited or included. What do you think?

Thank you.

--RileyMM (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't need commercial links on this page. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hair growth rate[edit]

Just wanted to know where in the article it would be suitable to put a statement on the growth rate of human hair? Rafi5288 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Evolution as a Fact?[edit]

I find this article very informative; however, I don't believe that it is acceptable to phrase everything from the standpoint that evolutionary *theory* is a fact, when it cannot be proven and is indeed still a theory. Whether or not the majority of readers believe this theory does not make it a fact, nor does it mean it should be presented as such. I'm not advocating the statistics and things related to evolution be removed, but simply that they be stated in such a way that it demonstrates evolotion as a theory and not a fact (ie, "proponents of evolution believe that [blah blah blah]..."). (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)D

If you don't KNOW what a scientific theory is, just say so. Evolution is both theory and fact. The theory is based on observations of the facts. The theory EXPLAINS the facts. I take it you don't believe in the mere THEORY of Universal Gravitation? In any event, am I to take it that you would also like to have additional comments like, "Many creationists believe that...blah de blah", just to balance things? (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell
To revive this discussion, I would like to point out that the evolution section does talk about things happening as if they were trying to achieve some goal. Evolution does not happen to "allow" various other things to happen. It is very much a matter of chance. In addition, the cited remarks about the straightening of hair seem to be based on one or two individuals untestable conclusions. They may be good guesses, they may be scientific hypotheses, but they cannot be proven using the scientific method. Even if evolution of hair in this manner is true, it must not be described in terms of hair straightening but rather in terms of those with straighter hair surviving. (EarnestyEternity (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC))
I think it's worth mentioning that the theory of evolution also cannot be proven using the scientific method, since the scientific method was developed fairly recently (at least in the scope of evolutionists' timeline). No one can have observed evolutionary changes taking place over hundreds of thousands (let alone millions or billions) of years, as the earliest known scientific method was around 1600 B.C. If we began an experiment today, we may have invented time travel before we can collect sufficient data! Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 21:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Science is essentially a series of shortcuts to the truth. People didn't need a tape measure to know the distance between the earth and the moon. The same with evolution, it does not have to be witnessed to be true. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking of truth. The scientific method specifically calls for observation. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, Dansiman. See CA202, CA230 and other relevant entries. --Cubbi (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand, Cubbi: Are you saying the scientific method does not call for observation? Or are you saying that it is possible to have observed events that occured prior to man's existence? Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 23:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Dansiman, maybe you have a point. We should probably also delete all articles about events that happened before 1890 too- I don't think anyone was around to observe those. The Wikipedia page presents things like the American Civil War as "fact," but no one alive today observed it.Punkrockrunner (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)punkrockrunner
GOD GAVE US HAIR TO TEST OUR FAITH Oddity- (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Observations are made by looking at DNA of hundreds of people of different decent. MVPrimus —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We observe that certain animals appear similar (apes, including us). We have observed the fossil record, which has enabled us to observe the emergence of animals that did not exist previously, as well as the fact that there were many animals that used to exist that no longer do. We have observed DNA, and noted the fact that it can change. These observations, among others, have led to the theory of evolution, and so far there is nothing that we have observed that refutes it as we currently understand it. Creationism, on the other hand, explains none of these things, and in fact requires believers to deny that fossils exist (or that they are not what they so clearly are), and that animals have always been the same as they are now. There are none so blind as those who will not see. ( (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Too much noise for nothing. A scientific theory needs observation to become fact. Observations on very fast growing species are evidences of the fact that Darwin's theory is true. We observe it every day on bacteria. Nothing else to say. Jcverrot (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Growth rate[edit]

I was wondering why the growth rate of the hair on the head isn't specified in the article? --BiT (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Head hair does not grow at an even rate, so i have found. For the last six or so years i have been growing my hair for a years time and measuring it through out the year. My hair has been repetitive with the fact that my hair, in the first four months, grew half the total length. --Michael V. Primus...not wanting to have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


There is little discussion of the diameter of various hair types on this page. The width of a (human) hair is one of the standards for small sizes, and I saw only the most cursory discussion of dimensions stated in this article. Additionally, some hair types are not circular in cross section, but rather more ribbon-like. I would encourage anyone with the knowledge of hair metrology to provide these basic parameters for various hair types (human and otherwise) to this mostly anthropological article. -Walter B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. More of that! And more about various kinds of hairs. And Human "hairlessness" could go to a separate article, since it is kind of speculative. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 17:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes! The article doesn't answer a very basic question: what is the diameter (typically) of human hair! Hu (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Example of a Culture Which Preferred Body Hair?[edit]

In the article there are a couple examples of cultures which preferred no body hair, and it is mentioned that some do prefer body hair but there are no examples. What culture(s) would make a good example? I know there have to be a couple at least. I just can't find a decent source for that sort of thing. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

- Just find a website that says that it is socially accpeted in western cultures for men to have a lot body hair and that it may even be sexually apealing.

JohnWycliff (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Women with short hair were once looked at as lesbians in the West[edit]

- Do we really need this subjective comment? There is no reliable source cited. Mosre importantly, is it of any improtance? It's like saying men with long hair were often seen as efemminate, and that those with long spiky mohawks are seen as counter culture. These are all subjective opinions that are really difficult to prove and are not notable and are unfairly stereotypical toward the people in the past or present. Woman have had short hair for all sorts of different reasons - and the public has and used to understand that having short hair did not always mean they were lesbians. Also, nowhere does it say from what time period to what lime period was this belief prevelant. Was this belief prevelent in the 400s or the 1200s? From where to where? Was this beleif shared amoung the croatians, the danish, the Germans, the italians, and the czechs? For these reasons, I have deleted this "comment."JohnWycliff (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They still are. And there is some truth in it as lesbians usually try to be like man, although they hate man and see them as competitors. -- (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The stereotypical lesbian having short hair stems because they didn't want to be feminine not that they see men as competitors eventually though its just really become a fashion thing nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No, deleting it was good. It varies so much by national culture and time that it is a trivia "fact". And it is too hard to support by citations. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 17:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of hair in mammals[edit]

This article seems to be solely about human hair, but that is rather annoying since hair in general doesn't seem to be covered anywhere. Or have I missed something? FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Try fur. Afiya27 (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

hair ornaments, hair decorations[edit]

Can somebody please add a section about things usually attached or used with hair.

Such as these things and these things

I don't really know how they're called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talkcontribs) 14:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Those would be Headbands and Hairclips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hair art[edit]

See e.g. about Leila's Hair Museum , which collects hair wreaths, jewelry, etc. and mentions the practice of saving a baby's first hair. Шизомби (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of (loss of) hair in humans[edit]

Left a ref as annotation. Basically the take-home message is that all that has been proposed looks reasonable but categorically does not figure if you think it through, contain other taxa, loook at the evolutionary tree and do the maths.

As far as anyone can tell, neither thermoregulation (the hair would actually have become longer) nor sexual selection (two words: pubic hair) nor clothing seems to have played a major role.

The annotated paper is not without flaws; it asserts some things too boldly. But it takes a very close look at the issue rather than telling adaptionist so-so stories without looking at the actual facts. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Who is Kovstro (and the seven hounds)? I haven't seen this referenced anywhere but this article. Some additional information, please? (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

does hair stop growing at a certain length?[edit]

Try as they might, many women can't seem to grow their hair past a certain length. I have been trying to find scientific articles that can answer this question, but I can only seem to find forums with a variety of opinions, with no real scientific explanations. So, does the hair on your head just stop growing when it reaches a certain length or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Hair does have a time frame in which it stops growing and is shed, often this period is considered to be between 2-7 years, with variation between individuals. Nutrition and general overall health play a role, as do genetics. In what is likely to be a more precise answer to your question, however, the main reason some people are unable to "grow" their hair long has little to do with the actual growth of the hair. It has much more to do with breakage of the hair that has already been grown. Certain hair types, (coarse, curly, etc.) are dryer and more prone to breakage. Others, (fine) are more fragile as the hair itself is smaller in diameter. How you handle your hair is extremely important if you wish it to "grow" longer. What you are really doing is preserving the already grown hair in good condition for longer periods of time. This means not damaging the cuticle of the hair, either by using harsh detergents,(most shampoos)vigorous brushing or combing of the hair from the root down, and styling with heat, chemicals, or tight elastic bands. Once you realize that it isnt the growing that is the problem, but the prevention of damage to the hair already existing and you treat it very gently with an eye to preservation, you will find having longer hair is not difficult at all. (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor sentence structure[edit]

The article contains numerous instances of incomplete sentences, particularly in the last few subsections. Some of the paragraphs seem to be a cross between prose and lists and should be corrected. Silverchemist (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to post something about this. I went through the history of the page, and found that this is the result of an incredibly badly done list-to-prose conversion. The edit is Not only was this badly done, but I think most real people would prefer lists anyways. Will somebody please manually revert that edit? Thanks. (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hair washing[edit]

What's the issue? Why does this not merit inclusion? Material has been provided with a variety of sources as well as a request for the section to be expanded and improved. Wikipediers, over to you....

Maybe because it's not an issue for a page discussing hair itself, and only PERHAPS in articles about grooming or environmentalism. It's quite bizarre and I'm not convinced it doesn't constitute synthesis to make some point. LaVidaLoca (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre in your opinion, why does that appoint you judge and jury before anyone else has had a chance to voice an opinion? I thought that wikipedia was supposed to be a team effort? You may not be able to see the relevance of this info to this section, that doesn't mean that everyone has the opinion as you. There's plenty of info around on this subject and a request has been made for others to contribute. Im my humble opinion the obvious place for this info is the page on hair. Can I respectfully ask, do you have some sort of hidden agenda here? Why is it so important to you that this info is removed so promptly? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Why is that you seem to be against the expansion of the content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I do believe you've been advised previously to discuss the content and not the contributor. The issue here is the context in which you've presented this material. It is entirely of bad faith for you to even ask if there is an agenda here on my part, because quite frankly, it appears to me that you have one in the way you've added content on this. The problem I have here is the misrepresentation of content. You presented content in a way that implies that Cate Blanchett has not washed her hair since 2007, despite the fact that it was clearly shown to you on her talk page that the quote you used was not presented in the way it had been stated. Regardless, you returned the content after having responded there. The content you are presenting is about the use of shampoo products, not about whether hair is given any grooming attention, which is how it is written. There is not widespread discussion regarding the cessation of hair-washing, there have been a few articles, two of which are about people who don't use shampoo products at all, and a slight trend to decrease the frequency of use of product. I would also remind you of the undue weight issue you were reminded of on Talk:Cate Blanchett. I still maintain this is better covered on grooming, not on hair itself. LaVidaLoca (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi LaVidaloca,

Can I firstly apologise if my comments any offence. This was certainly not intended to be the case and again if any untoward negative feeling was cause, I wish to offer humble apologies.

A little history behind this. I was watching tv and flicking through the channels and stumbled on channel 5 news (19:00 Friday may 1st). I caught the end of a feature about hair washing that quoted Andrew Marr, Cate Blanche and Jessica Simpson as non hair washers. I was intrigued as to what this was all about so I took a look on wikipedia in an endeavour to find out more. I was slightly surprised in that as far as I could see there was no such info in wikipedia. Next stop was a search on the web via yahoo. Lots of articles were returned with info that appeared pertinent to the subject in question. I started taking a look at that these and the jist of it seemed to be that unwashed / unshampooed hair would develop into a self cleaning process after approx 4 weeks. There seemed to be plenty of info out there on this and people arguing against the benefits of this also. Since none of this info was in wikipedia, it seemed like a good idea to start the ball 'wikipedia hair washing' section rolling.

The hair page seemed like the best place for this as what appeared to be key to this is the fact that people are arguing that hair has the scientific capability to clean itself. This in my humble opinion seems more appropriate a location rather than the 'grooming' page. So I stuck some stuff in and left it to others to add and enhance the page as they deemed fit. I stuck some info on this also the pages of the 3 people who were named and also on Matthew Parris since Andrew Marr quoted Parris as being the source of his inspiration on the topic. I noticed that someone has added a comment to one of these saying that the optimum place for this info is the page on 'hair'. Fair enough. What ever goes into this particle feature on shampooing as you have now changed it to (and with reasonable logic for doing so from what I can see), I have no truck with. I welcome knowledge share and people can add and correct the info in there as they wish. If we work together, it will get better.

One final point; with the person Andrew Marr referred to now having gone 10 years without use of hair soap, does this mean that one day we will have a bottle shampoo writing a book called, 'One night in Parris'? I can hear you groan from here at that one.

All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, this section is, in my opinion not germane to the topic of 'hair.' It could easily be moved to hair care. In fact there are many regimines used to care for hair by different cultures, ethnicities and hair types. Picking just one out for inclusion in 'hair' is a bit capricious.--DrPD (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I have removed all the material about the hair-care preferences of journalists and well-known people, it has no place in a general article. Also, it is inaccurate to say that 'hair is usually washed with shampoo'. The US/Europe is not the whole world, or even most of it. Centrepull (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Vellus hair[edit]

I may be being picky, but I feel it is a bit misleading to say that vellus hair covers the majority of the body, as terminal hair in fact covers about 95% of the average grown man.

Also, in reply to the post about white hair, it is indeed white due to accumulation of air bubbles in the shaft. The lack of the pigment (melanin) causes grey hair, but air bubbles contribute to white hair. Definitely true. So, if it's still removed, I'll try to add it back in. People shouldn't just delete things because they haven't heard that its true. Do the research first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimborip (talkcontribs) 20:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

15/05/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimborip (talkcontribs) 20:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


The word 'nappy' is not the correct adjective to describe African hair. The word 'nappy' has negative connotations and is offensive. The words 'curly' or 'kinky' would be more accurate and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it offensive? What negative connotations do you think exist? (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Unless the clear intent is to offend, discussions about whether or not a word is offensive have no place when discussing an article in an encyclopedia, and neither does consideration when writing an article as to whether or not something may offend the reader. The adjective describes the texture/appearance of African hair; the alternative meaning of the word is irrelevant. Besides, "kinky" has negative connotations as well, and in Australia at least, it would be the more offensive word, if such things mattered.( (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

hair growth after death[edit]

hair and nails continue to grow after you die. Is this true and if so, I would like to know how ltte tamil leader Prabhakaran's deadbody seems clean shaved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not true, the fact that the hair and nails appears to grow is a mystery to me, but I guess it is because the skin shrivels or contracts for some reason (possibly because blood is lost, again I do not know, I am not a coroner), which gives the illusion of hair and/or nails growing, but in fact simply reveals sections of hair and nail which were previously hidden from view by skin. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism[edit]

Isn't there an inordinate amount of vandalism on this page? I just clicked thru the last two months and it seems like 80% of the edits are destruction and reversion. --dvdrtrgn (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Someone seriously needs to go through this article and purge it of its vast crimes against complete sentences. It feels as if someone tried to right this article using some "artistic prose", which is inappropriate for an encyclopedic-type article. Save that crap for your emo fanfiction. But in all seriousness, it interferes with the clarity of the article, and at times is very painful to read (if you are literate). (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to make the desired changes. This is a cooperative project. I do believe that you meant to write "write" and not "right" above unless, of course, you are referring to some previous attempt to correct the entry. Wperdue (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
I noticed this as well, particularly in the section Hair, power, punishment, and status which is mostly sentence fragments. I don't know where to start to correct it, but I at least felt I needed to mention it.Mal7798 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Extremely long hair of some Indian holy men. Huh?

Isn't hair Dead?[edit]

The actual cell or part of the hair is dead as there is no actual cellular activity anywhere except in the root. Just like only the base of the nail is alive. I notice its not noted anywhere in the article as such. Neosiber (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hair on head?[edit]

Is it anyone else than me that have hair attached to the head? (Implying, of course, the template Template:Human hair sidebar). If so: welcome to the club! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 17:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise: welcome to the other club! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now i am not alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It seem rather odd that head hair is not included, as that's what most people think of when they hear hair. And also the Hairstyle page points to head hair which redirects to hair, so maybe it was deleted? Or never made in the first place? As a person with hair on their head as well this is quite mystifying. -- (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As of August 2011, nothing has changed in this respect: Head hair link is still unavailable and the article absolutely misses any relevant information about head hair, even as basic as a number, growth rate or diameter. I am no specialist, but the French article fr:Cheveu could be a good start for a translation. Better than nothing, at least. Fabriced28 (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rate of decomposition[edit]

Hair decomposes more slowly than most other bodily cells. Could a knowledgeable editor add a section discussing why, and typical decomposition time? (Prompted by a question seen at the Reference Desk.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rate of growth[edit]

I can't see any reference to hair growth rate. For humans, I think it's usually around 1 cm a month, at least the hair on the top of the head. Sorry if I missed it in the text. (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


People like to compare the thickness of very thin things to the thickness of a human hair, but what is the average thickness of a hair? If someone could add it I'd appreciate it. Wizard191 (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sensory function of hair[edit]

I did post this under 'talk; androgenic hair' but it's relevant here too -

There is a widespread meme that general body hair has no evolutionary purpose and I hadn't realised how pervasive it is, even in reference type sources. I was surprised when I looked up body hair in Wikipedia that there is no mention of it's usefulness. I'm no scientist or academic but I know that body hair has at least one serious purpose that should be obvious and can be demonstrated easily... as an example:

Just recently a paralysis tick was walking up my leg (I live in NE of the state of NSW in Australia and these toxic creatures are quite common and can make domestic animals - and people - very sick and even kill them if they attach and aren't removed); I felt that tick and removed it before it had attached. Where there is no body hair I can't feel a sensation of something as small as a tick or small insect, but as it brushed against the hairs on my leg it was easy to feel. I can't believe this would not be considered an evolutionary advantage!

Body hair is an extension of our sense of touch. I suggest it uses the physics of leverage to cause even a very small force to be detectable within the hair follicle. Small air movements can be felt, insects can be felt that otherwise can't.

Anyone who wants to check the touch sensitivity of body hair can do so - just get a single fine hair from a comb or brush, touch areas of skin that have no hair with it - you'll be very unlikely to be able to feel it. Brush that hair against body hair and you can feel it easily. I note that (using my own admittedly abundant leg, arm and body hair as an example) when that hair stands on end it can extend as much as 50mm and more beyond the skin. This happens during moments of fear. I suggest that this has a purpose and that is to maximise sensitivity to touch and to air movement and could conceivably give an evolutionary edge over the completely bald.

Body hair amplifies touch sensitivity enormously. How is it possible that a conclusion so completely wrong (and can so easily be shown to be wrong) as body hair having no use or purpose be so widely perpetuated?

I'm tempted to add a section pointing out the sensory function of hair but can't find any supporting references and suspect that they don't exist. Anyone able to point to any? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Fabos (talkcontribs) 03:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

After some looking I have found references to the sensory function of hair but the most authoritative are paywalled - (R.K.Winkelmann's "Ennervation of a hair follicle") for example. Lesser sources include a chart showing follicle nerve endings and their function to sense displacement of hair shafts or this article at . Are these good enough to qualify as references for the purpose of editing the main page on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Fabos (talkcontribs) 01:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the sensory function of hairs to the main page under "Function" and added a sub section "Touch Sense". I'm still not sure the references are the best; I used a link to a paper - Controlled stimulation of hair follicle receptors Sabah J Appl Physiol.1974; 36: 256-257 in The Journal of Applied Physiology which is paywalled - puffs of air were used to stimulate the hair follicle receptors. The other refs aren't so authoritative but do clearly show or state that hairs have a sensory function. With respect to the evolution of (misnamed) human hairlessness I can't find verifiable references; it looks absent from consideration. With respect to goosebumps I haven't found any mention of how they impact sensory function of hairs despite it being a reasonable logical step once the sensory function of hairs is acknowledged; by standing hairs on end the distance that function acts beyond the surface of the skin is extended and by tending to part and separate the hair shafts there is less dampening of vibration and movement from shaft to follicle from being laid against each other and this would enhance sensory sensitivity. Ken Fabos (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've edited one of the references so it displays detail of the article and journal.Ken Fabos (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I did an edit of Sensory Function - improved wording and added reference for ectoparasite detection and another reference for the presence of a sensory function of hairs. Ken234Fabian (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Human hair as a form of measurement?[edit]

I've come across a lot of instances where hair is used to convey size, (as far as a point of reference is concerned) e.g such and such is 100x thinner than a human hair, or 1000x smaller than a human hair. Should the measurement angle be included in the article?--Xelleo (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I sure hope that this would be added to the article. See my request at #Thickness. Wizard191 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mlloyola, 16 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} The section titled "Status"is a redundancy of the previous "Indication of Status" heading.

The entry would benefit from having both "Status" and "Indication of Status" combined into a single "indication of Status" subtitle.

In order for this change to be successful the entire paragraph below should be removed, as all of the information contained in it is mentioned under the previous subtitle. All other topics dealt with under "Status" are different from those under "Indication of Status".


The "Status" heading.

The paragraph: "Flappers in the 1920s cut their traditional long hair into short bob cuts to show their independence and sexual freedom. Hippies in the 1960s allowed their hair to grow long and largely unstyled in order to illustrate their distance from mainstream society and conformity, which at that time favoured short hair in men, and complex hairstyling for women."

Mlloyola (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me; thanks for the suggestion, and for making such a clear request. Done.  Chzz  ►  08:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done

Hair Texture[edit]

The section on hair texture, while very interesting, seems to suggest that only African peoples have curly hair, whereas in reality curly hair is found all over the world. Also, human hair texture is more of a continuum between curly and straight rather than the either curly or straight dichotomy described. (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed hidden text from Evolution variation[edit]

The following text was hidden in the code. I'm not sure if it should be added back or not. If someone can source this information and have it relevant to the rest of the page then it should be added back. Tamer_of_Hope talk 04:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

[The following is hidden - does not apply without the savannah theory] Some note that other primates and horses have armpits that sweat like those of humans and so this was not a new evolution, rather a possible preferential selection of perspiration over body hair. However, it can be argued that these two species also pant; a device that compensates for inefficiencies in the evaporation of sweat due to fur. Some counter the argument that dark skin was necessary following loss of fur by suggesting that tanning on exposed skin in primates is also seen and possibly was a retained feature, while hyper-pigmentation as in Africans and Indians, as well as albinism are later mutations. However, this argument doesn't account for the fact that equatorial UV light is such that the relatively minor tanning that occurs among chimpanzees (who, it should be mentioned, spend most of their time protected from the sun by way of a forest canopy), is insufficient in terms of providing full protection.

In addition, while some individuals affirm the hypothesis concerning loss of hair via the evolution of sweat glands, they assert that the question remains as to why such a large surface area is required for cooling when other animals in these regions have much larger volumes to surface area, yet are still covered in thick fur and are able to cool solely by panting. They cite examples that include monkeys, lions and zebra, (though as previously mentioned, they acknowledge that both zebra and monkeys possess the ability to sweat). However, this assessment fails to account for the fact that the speed at which the human lineage changed in response to higher cognitive ability far outpaced that of other species. Specifically, the fairly sudden invention of stone tools by primitive humans ~2.8 million years ago rapidly transitioned the human lineage away from the simple scavenging of protein from the bone marrow derived from the kills of large African predators (a fairly passive endeavor), towards active hunting that entailed spending relatively long periods of time chasing wild game in the hot equatorial sun. Such a pace of change was unparalleled among other species who, instead, acquired their adaptations to the African heat over considerably longer periods of time during which many of them moved into the equatorial region at a gradual pace. Thus, the significantly greater urgency amongst the members of the human lineage for heat adaptations that could keep up with the huge nutritional benefits that they were accruing from the practice of hunting (leading to an avalanche effect in which increasing protein intake fueled increasing brain size/intelligence) may explain these stark differences.

Amendment re ontogeny, phylogeny and teleology[edit]

Greetings. After saving this comment, I will save an amendment to the text regarding evolutionary variation. The amendment pertains to:

  1. The replacement of the term "developed" with the term "evolved". Species never "develop". Individuals develop, which is an ontological process. Species evolve, which is a phylogenetic process.
  2. The replacement of teleological wording "to facilitate" with non-teleological wording "which was facilitated by". There is a huge difference in meaning. Evolutionary processes never ever occur (in order) "to" anything at all - nothing. Evolution is a 'blind', non-teleological process. It only ever occurs as a result of natural selection of variation within prevailing contexts etc.

The replacement of the incorrectly used term "developed" is easy, both in practice and in spotting where it should be done. In practice, it's just the swapping of one word for another. In spotting where it should be done, it is extremely easy: if the sentence is about changes occuring in the lifetime of an individual organism, it is describing an ontological process, which is developmental - so you insert (or leave) "developed". If the sentence is about changes occuring in the 'lifetime' of species, genera etc, it is referring to phylogenetic change, and is evolutionary - so you insert "evolved". Once you grasp this, it is extremely easy. So easy you will be aghast at the extent to which these two different terms, with vastly different meanings, are missused. There are evolutionary writers who never make (or never made - some are dead) this mistake. They are amongst the best writers for getting a handle on how to write about evolutionary theory, completely regardless of the detail of their particular approach.

The amendment of teleological text to read non-teleologically is not so easy because it involves sentence restructure while leaving the intent of the explanation intact - thus taking more time. But it can always be done. I have never found any exceptions whatsoever - and you can be certain that if an explanation is inherently impossible to reword without being teleological, it is in fact not an evolutionary explanation (it might for example be an Intelligent Design explanation masquerading as a scientific explanation). Some explanations are more challenging, but that is about the cumbersomeness of non-teleological explanations, not about whether the explanation can be worded to read non-teleologically.

I have found it generally possible to come up with succinct, non-teleological explanations, but the doing of this is the bit that takes time. It is a singularly good exercise to do, because the more you do it, the better you get, and the more deeply embedded becomes your ability to think in evolutionary terms on the run. The exercise was once general practice in undergraduate zoology studies, and some of the best evolutionary thinkers I've encountered have had that background: they never make the mistake of inserting teleological explanations. Indeed, teleology is at the heart of some of the confusion that Intelligent Design proponents capitalise upon, Intelligent Design being an inherently teleological process. Intelligent Design proponents can thus be forgiven for thinking and writing teleologically, even if we don't agree with them and indeed worry about their tactics and agendas. Atheist evolutionists (like Dawkins - I use him simply as an easy example of that category) have no excuse whatsoever for writing teleologically: the onus is on such people to hone their thinking relentlessly (or stop attacking teleological belief systems - they cannot do both: attack teleological beliefs, and also use teleology themselves!).

A brief perusal of this article shows the term 'developed' where the term 'evolved' should be. As noted above, this is extremely easy to correct. I also spot teleological writing. This is more difficult to correct, but can be done. My Wikipedia input is necessarily very sporadic at present, and I came upon this article only because I wanted to see if an article by Nina Jablonski was cited anywhere, as I work through a few evolutionary hypotheses while attending to the necessities of my situation. For this reason, I have made only the changes noted above. They show how it can be done. The rest is up to interested editors. Correcting the ontological errors is easy. Correcting the teleological errors needs to be done more cautiously so as to not do injustice to the efforts of the original writers in the process of sentence restructure. It can be done, but takes time and effort. Wotnow (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Xunwen, 15 May 2011[edit]

Traditionally, adult Han Chinese did not cut their hair. According to the Classic of Filial Piety, Confucius said

As a result of this ideology both men and women wound their hair into a bun or other various hairstyles.

xunwen (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Bility (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Shorter Tighter Structure[edit]

This article has improved in the last few years but, in my opinion, is still a bit ponderous. My proposals... 1) Change the section on Evolution to a section on Ethnic Differences which will be simply descriptive of the differences between hair types with some more modern references to the genetics of hair growth and disease. The 'hairlessness' section which is mostly speculation should stay, because the 'naked ape' idea is important, but this section will be shorter. The discussion of vitaimin D would vanish almost entirely. 2) Change the section on removal to a very tight section on care with links to detailed pages. 3) Lighten up in the intro so that the reader can go a bit further before getting drawn into long words. 4) Include discussion of gray hair and secondary sexual hair? Or would this just be vandalism bait? DrPD (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Short hair[edit]

Currently is a redirect here, which is not that fair, considering that long hair is a GA-class article. Also, hair length redirects to long hair, whereas I think it should be its own article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Others before, and I, have asked on this same page why there is no article about head hair. Discussion on hair length could be included in such an article also. For the moment it could be better redirected to Hairstyle. An article about head hair would solve many of the questions seen here, but does not attract anybody competent and courageous enough to start it... Fabriced28 (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Straight hair[edit]

That man's hair is not straight, it's wavy. Whoever put that picture up is blind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! It is is a loose wave. But these editors will not allow Wavy hair to exist. I feel they prefer we die off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012[edit]

There needs to be a category for Wavy Hair! It is different then Curly hair or Straight Hair. The follicle is different & you must possess the proper root shape to grow wavy hair. This is not a complete page. There are millions of humans with wavy hair, that neither curls nor lies flat. Since you refuse to allow logical edits and additions to this page, then I request one of you to do it.

Thanks. (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm not sure exactly what's being requested. Also, do you have a reliable source for the change? That may help clarify things a bit. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 06:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking that we add new content under the Evolution > Texture heading, then what content would that be, and what sources do we have to support it. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 06:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wavy hair -This is the best I could do. This "hair" page is not complete people with naturally wavy hair Exist! Here is a cite..[edit]

Wavy hair[edit]

Wavy hair, the second type of hair found naturally amongst humans is the middle ground between Curly hair and Straight hair, it neither curls nor lies flat, to either curl it or straighten it requires quite some effort in styling and setting, as it refuses to do nothing but wave. This type of hair is rarely naturally found outside of Caucasians, but can be observed in other groups.

Research suggests that 45 per cent of European people have straight hair, 40 per cent have wavy hair and 15 per cent have curly hair. [2] Therefore naturally Wavy hair is a genetic trait. Viewing a cross section of a Wavy hair you would see that it is oval, whereas a cross section of Curly hair is usually flat, while one of Straight hair is round. Naturally Wavy hair can be strong or weak and can vary greatly from day to day depending on factors such as oils, humidity and other environmental conditions.

Ok, you can add it now that you found a reference from a reliable source but you have to put it in your own words, not copy and paste it from the article. Doing otherwise will create a copyright violation. And please don't add things that are not in the reference. All facts have to be verifiable. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Human hairlessness[edit]

The 'human hairlessness' section contains inaccuracies:

1. This sentence is incorrect and the cited reference is not related. ...Humans are the only primate species that have undergone significant hair loss and of the approximately 5000 extant species of mammal, only a handful are effectively hairless. This list includes elephants, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, walruses, pigs, whales and other cetaceans, and naked mole rats.[22]... Pigs definitely have hair. They are not hairless, effectively nor otherwise.

2. The section states humans are the only primate that harbors fleas. Many primates harbor various types of fleas. Here is a reference noting types of fleas found on various primates. (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC) BGriffin

Wavy Hair![edit]

I still do not see the category of Wavy Hair added to the Human Hair page. One of you will have to do it, since you will not allow me to do it. It is a actual real hair texture that millions of people have. Wikipedia is becoming less about the truth & more about PR & politics. Someone out there wants wavy haired people to no longer exist? Or do all of you editors have straight hair? You cannot even see that the young man in the photo has wavy hair & Not straight hair as you have tagged it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Industrial and commercial uses of hair[edit]

Either this article or the one on fur needs a section on the industrial and commercial uses of hair, both human and animal. The distinction between hair and fur may be cultural, but animal hair is a multi-billion dollar industry. Mohair for example is a type of goat hair. (Wool is commercially in a category of its own.) Horse-hair is used for shoe brushes and clothing brushes (what people used to clean clothes before dry-cleaning was invented). Violin bows are made with the hair of horsetails. Toothbrushes were traditionally made from pig bristles. Human hair is also a big industry for wigs, and more recently for soaking up oil spills. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Still not section category for Wavy Hair! Why is this?[edit]

Natural Wavy Human Hair is a real phenomena, that millions upon millions of Caucasoids possess! By not having this section declared Wikipedia, incomplete and unfactual. Nearly half the European population has Wavy Hair, NATURALLY! Many East Indians also have natural Wavy Hair. The young man in the photo under Straight Hair on this very page actually has Wavy Hair. Wavy hair, neither lies flat as in Straight Hair nor does a complete revolution as in Curly hair, ask a cosmetologist or beautician, they will tell you, consult the Van Dean Hair Manuals, it will tell you. Since you locked this page, you must write a section for Wavy Hair!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2012[edit]

The picture caption "A girl with brown hair reddish" is grammatically incorrect (as far as I've ever heard). It should be altered to "A girl with reddish-brown hair". Wickedsweetcake (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Already doneKuyaBriBriTalk 16:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced claim in human hairlessness[edit]

The claim was "Humans seem hairless not because of a lack of follicles but because of the predominance of vellus fibers which are thinner, shorter, and more transparent than terminal fibers. The density of human hair follicles on the skin is about the average for an animal of equivalent size." And it cited: Schwartz, GG; Rosenblum, LA (1981). "Allometry of primate hair density and the evolution of human hairlessness". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55 (1): 9–12. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330550103. PMID 6789685. 

I accessed this article and it makes no such claim. Beyond that, it has no discussion on the appearance of human hair follicles and actually argues the opposite: that human hair density is, in fact, far less than that of other primates. The first sentence of the abstract actually suggests that the sourced claim is wrong:

"Allometric analyses of hair densities in 23 anthropoid primate taxa reveal that increasingly massive primates have systematically fewer hairs per equal unit of body surface."

So regardless of whether or not the hairs are "vellus fibers" (neither word even appears anywhere in the article) the actual density is less.

100DashSix (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This was an unfortunate edit IMO. If the word "animal" were altered to "ape" the content would have been correct. Apes have lower hair follicle density than other primates but Humans don't have significantly lower density than other apes - it is a bit higher than chimpanzees, according to Schwartz and Rosenblum.

Humans are distinguished by being "hairless" compared to other low hair density apes because the hairs, especially in human juveniles, are mostly very small (vellus), not because of lower hair follicle density. Montagna 1985 "Evolution of Human Skin" for example, describes "hairlessness" in Man as "miniturisation of hair over much of his body". Pagel and Bodmar 2003 "A Naked Ape Would Have Fewer Parasites" state "Humans are not literally hairless, having about the density of hair follicles expected of an ape of our body size" - they cite Schwartz and Rosenblum. Ken234Fabian (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2013[edit]

add more stuff (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 00:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Naked Love Theory[edit]

This is a paragraph with two sources, one primary, the other a blog. It either needs better sources, proper sources, or to be gone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

REPLY: According to Wikipedia, 'Origianl research(OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist'

However, the primary source for this paragraph is a recent article in the journal 'Biological Theory' published by MIT Press, a highly pretigious scientific press by a major US research university.

Because of this it is not correct to say that this paragraph is based on 'orginal research' or material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist'

(Reference to the blogg has been removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selenatina (talkcontribs) 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I restate my case, except that the reference to a blog has gone. The other link is a primary source. It is a paper published by the gentleman quoted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

REPLY A further reference to a non-primary source has been given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selenatina (talkcontribs) 15:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No counter-argument? Isn't this "theory" (which it's not, it's a hypothesis) a bit silly? If it were true, you'd expect hairlessness to be common among e.g. carnivores, since their young do not cling to their fur. — kwami (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

REPLY First it is a theory. It is called the Naked Love Theory and is published in an MIT scientific journal. The editors of the journal have thus accepted that it is a theory and not merely a hypothesis. You might disagree, but that is unimportant unless you have some good arguments. Further, that is how it is referred to in it's published form, so that is how it should be referred to here. Second, your comment that it is a bit silly and your reasons for saying so show that you have not thought too much about the issue. All non-human primates cling to their mother's fur in order to be with their mothers. Why? Because primate infants are incapable of effectively moving along with the mother by themselves. Moreover, they require the constant presence of their mothers for protection. Carnivores are in a radically different situation. Carnivore young are capable of walking by themselves shortly after birth. Therefore they have no need to grasp onto their mothers in order to be with them. They can easily trot along with the mother if necessary. Further, they do not have prehensile hands or feet that would enable them to grasp anything. Finally, many carnivores build hidden nests in which the young can hide for protection while the mother is away. No primates do this. We do not know why primates don't do this, but it is probably because primate young--who are always playing and chattering--are not good at hiding and any mothers who tried to leave their infants alone quickly lost their infants and thus had their genes removed from the gene pool. When humans (or pre-humans) became bipedal, they lost their prehensile feet and infants could no longer cling to their mother. Thus the mother's had to hold them. Naked skin was then selected for to encourage this desire to hold the infant. Because no carnivores have a need to carry their young one would certainly not expect hairlessness to be common among carnivores.DowagerXX (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Theory" means it has experimental evidence supporting it.
It's still silly, another how-the-leopard-got-its-spots story. As for MIT, well, they're famous for their fables. I mean, they have Chomsky (my field).
Question: Do people dislike holding puppies because of all that yucky fur? Give someone a fluffy chick and a bald fledgling as see which they prefer to cuddle. — kwami (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

REPLY No, "theory" does not mean it has experimental evidence supporting it. A theory may have that, but that is not a necessary aspect of a theory. Some theories are based on pure observation, while others are bold conjectures that attempt to give a coherent explanation for a range of diverse observations. The essential thing is that "A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation"[3](you could've learned this by simply reading Wikipedia.) This is just what the naked love theory does. It provides an explanatory framework (bipedalism, loss of perhensile feet, maternal selection for hairless infants, etc) for the observation that humans are hairless.

As for your question, your examples are unfortunately irrelevant. Puppies and chicks are not human infants, and bald puppy skin and bald chick skin is not human infant skin. For your example to be relevant you should have asked: What do mother's prefer to cuddle: an infant that is hairless or an infant that is cover in a thick layer of body hair (a disordered condition called congenital hypertrichosis)? If human mother's would prefer to cuddle a furry human infant, then your point might be supported. My guess, however, is that most mother's would prefer to cuddle a hairless infant.DowagerXX (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's silly or not, a hypothesis or a theory, it only has two references, one primary and the other closely connected to the author (Giles teaches or has taught at La Trobe University, so its bulletin can hardly be regarded as an independent source). I agree with Timtrent – it should either have proper sources, or be gone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

REPLY Done.DowagerXX (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsensical definition.[edit]

Biomaterial is a substance. Hair is made of this substance but is NOT the substance itself. (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Seems to be Yes check.svg Done. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)