Talk:Red hair/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caucasian? Please

Thus it is viewed as racist and derogatory by some Caucasians.

I'm white European, and I find the term "Caucasian" insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.148.225 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? Anyway, your opinion is irrelevant. Reliable sources are what count here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Ginger hair"?

I live in Britain and never have I heard a reference to "red hair" nor "redheads" - rather the word "ginger" is used almost exclusively. I think that it is widely-used enough to have some reference to it in the opening paragraph.SaintDaveUK (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your personal, and limited, experience isn't enough. Do you have any cites to back up your claim of exclusive use of ginger? Certainly I find it incredible that you have never heard of red hair. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
SaintDaveUK - [ This article] in the Daily Mail mentions Cilla Black's red hair. (7th paragraph) Does that help? HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In these following articles, ginger hair is used on its own as a synonym for red hair with not a single mention of the latter; Telegraph Daily Mirror Glamour Magazine Metro. A simple google search of "ginger hair" -red highlights this. I'm going to add a reference to "ginger" in the opening paragraph. SaintDaveUK (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the main reason other terms for redhead aren't used in the opening paragraph of the article, is so that they weren't listing all of these alternative names straight away. If "ginger" is added to the opening paragraph, then you should consider also, the Australian slang terms, "ranga", and "blue" or "bluey". Here is a discussion that was reached to include "ranga" in the opening paragraph, but it was decided to remove all other slang terms for red hair from the introduction. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The word "ginger" and derivatives of the word are used 17 times in this article alone. It is used exclusively in many articles across the Internet as I proposed in the initial post. This is not mere slang in the same vein as the Australian "bluey", it is a part of British English, and is far more widely used than "red head". I believe there is every reason to include it in the opening paragraph, if not the very first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintDaveUK (talk • contribs) 03:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you have an independent source for that, rather than just your personal observations? HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I provided references and further explanation earlier on in this thread in a previous post. Feel free to read it. SaintDaveUK (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I think HiLo is, in his brusque way, asking for a source to support "this is not mere slang", so that we don't risk using an editor's biased personal experience for the assertion (or at least the implication) that "ginger" is often just an unoffensive synonym for "red hair" in the UK. I've had a look and it seems a little tricky to find any source explicitly saying this, but maybe there's something out there. --McGeddon (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It should be "red hair" rather than "ginger" purely on the basis the "red hair" is clearly the more widely used term and it is descriptive of the article itself. I'm guessing that even if one has never encountered the term "red hair" before (unlikely), one would still be able to figure out what the term meant. The same is not true for ginger. Hydrofir (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to confirm, I also live in Britain and ginger is a commonly used word to describe people with red hair - and has been at least since my childhood in the 60s. I'd say, possibly colloquial but not slang and not perjorative. Here is another link: Collins dictionary definition of ginger - where it is classified as "colloquial". Collins is the official scrabble dictionary. Also for another tv example, in the Doctor Who British TV series ginger haired people often referred to as "ginger" or "ginge" (affectionate term for "Amy Pond", (Karen Gillan) whose hair is very red). You'd use red most often to describe a woman, as ikn "Redhead" which is used in UK most often to describe women, similarly to use of "Blonde" instead of "fair hair". When you say red hair it is completely understandable what it means of course - will listen out to see if I hear or see any examples of red used in the UK to describe the colour of British people's hair outside of context of "red head" Robert Walker (talk)
Ginger is certainly the standard in British English.

One question though - why "ginger"? Ginger root is pale green/yellow, really more blonde when it's dried. What is the etymology of "Ginger" as a colour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.170.27 (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Adolph Hitler reportedly banned the marriages of two redheads as he feared their children would be “deviant offspring”.

Would it be an idea to add this into the mythology section, the source is http://www.purgatory.net/kornelia/1603/red_hair_facts.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by SubaruImpreza2.0 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. "Strange but true fact" web lists on personal websites don't tend to be that reliable, and this one even qualifies it with "reportedly", which gives you even less confidence. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's all over the internet though that's the problem, I also even emailed them asking why they are putting this even on a site, it would be good to possibly add this and say it is a myth as quite frankly there is quite a lot of myths about red haired people, I myself are red haired and find it insulting so many of them even exist, Hitler though never discriminated against people on their hair colour.--SubaruImpreza2.0 (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Topless image in article

I've removed the topless image recently added to the article per WP:ASTONISH. Anyone looking at my contributions will see I have a deep appreciation for WP:NOTCENSORED but there needs to be a suitable balance. --NeilN talk to me 18:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems another semi-nude image was added again by the same user as before - NCSR11 - who it appears, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ncsr11 , as of today - is retired and no longer active. I believe it should be reverted again. --User:rigelan —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

The editor added the Retired tag in 2010 but they've been pretty active since then. The new image is somewhat more appropriate - I don't have any strong feelings as to removing/keeping it. --NeilN talk to me 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, for god's sake, why this obsession with torsos? Look at the hair, not the tits. That's what the article's about. Keep your mind on the topic rather than sex, and stop trying to impose your conservative values on the whole world. That's what Conservapedia is for, and it looks like it's winning. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the suitability of a topless image in the article is moot. See the licence info on the poster image. "Fair use" only applies when it is being used to discuss the film or the poster themselves. It cannot be used for illustration on other articles. I have therefore removed it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012


121.220.28.177 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done No request made. --NeilN talk to me 12:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Claim of Scots being 13% red

It's not in citation for it. It states: As many as 10% of Scots and Irish people have ginger or strawberry blond hair, while it is thought that up to 35% carry a recessive "ginger gene". Time to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.59.99 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Redhead"

Some people have been saying that they have never heard of the word "redhead". I'm Irish & and I have red hair and I more often get called a "redhead" than a "ginger", so I think the article is fine as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.198.177 (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

About Spanish reference

I deleted "In Spain the prejudice is extended to so-colored cats and dogs." in the article because not is true. The book "Red Hair" was wrote by Trow Leavitt in 1851, and this man didn't understand the meaning of the original Spanish words "De tu pelo ni gato ni perro", not is about prejudice against redhead or cats and dogs, is only a joke!. I think that Trow Leavitt found this phrase in the book "Diccionario Castellano con las voces de ciencias y artes y sus correspondientes 3 lenguas" writed in 1788!. Actually in Spain nobody remember this strange phrase, and doesn't exist prejudice against redhead. It is fair to say that a country is prejudiced against redheads, because it says a book of more than two centuries ago. --Kuronokoneko (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

add to red hair page

please add the insulting comments on The New Normal about redheads to examples — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.26.9 (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What's The New Normal? HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Apparently a TV "comedy". Looks like it's very PC with its treatment of gay-parenthood, but it's ok to find some other minority to insult.... --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, American. Perhaps that explains the absence of any attempt to put the comment in a global context. And probably eliminates any relevance to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone add a genetic explanation of why unrelated redheads appear to resemble each other more than people with other hair colors do? IanHistor (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence that they do? HiLo48 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Red Hair Never Turns Grey with Age

Instead it turns "buff" (a dull metallic color) and then later turns white. There are many sources on this fact that redheads never turn grey. This should be added to the article. 184.183.173.20 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We need at least one of those sources, so long it's a reliable one. Care to share? HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy Dalton

I remember hearing some stories where early on people questioned the quarterback's ability to be an NFL starter because of his red hair (an uncommon trait for NFL playser). If there is a source for it, I would think that would be a worthwhile addition to the modern discrimination section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.118.120 (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Remember that this is a global encyclopaedia. 95% of the world's population are not Americans. They have no interest in NFL, will have no idea what a quarterback does, and have never heard of Andy Dalton. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2013

Please change paragraph one by adding, from New SCientist Jan 19-25 2013 . Last Word section (last page), paragraph 4 : Add  : 13% of Scots are redhead and about 40%carry red head gene. Samoffat (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: Do you have a link to the source available? Vacation9 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Tesco Story

Can someone change the wording of this line: (In December 2009 British supermarket chain Tesco was forced to withdraw a Christmas card which had the image of a child with red hair sitting on the lap of Santa Claus, and the words: "Santa loves all kids. Even ginger ones" after customers complained the card was offensive.[69])

to read "... Tesco decided to withdraw..." or simply 'Tesco withdrew'? The term 'forced' implies that Tesco did not have a choice, which is not reflected in the source article. The sentence would still explain that they removed the card under pressure using either alternative wording.

Good point. Done. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Modify picture

Any chance the picture of the grimacing woman could be replaced with this picture of my friend Mat? Available here: http://fitboost.co.uk/images/red_head.jpg

I confirm that I own the picture and all rights etc. and give permission.

Thanks guys

2.28.70.158 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The existing photo is higher quality (more pixels and sharper focus). It also benefits from not being awkwardly cropped. I don't see any reason to make the change. I also question why you want to replace the main image instead of just asking to add your photo elsewhere to the article... but then we probably need a discussion about the other photos. DreamGuy (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Equally important is does your friend Mat give permission? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Current photos

I like the idea of having a wide variety of images showing different ages, genders and cultures. That being said the images still should be of good quality and should primarily be about red hair instead of just some photo that happens to have someone with red hair in it somewhere.

  • The image captioned "Woman with red hair, Papua New Guinea" is kind of busy with multiple people in it, but I like the cultural variation it brings. The resolution is high enough that we could make a cropped version.
  • The image captioned "Man with red hair" does add some variety, but it's not great quality and is cropped awkwardly.
  • The image captioned "Tajik children in Pamir, Tajikistan; one of them is red-haired." has the obvious problem of only one of the subjects having red hair, and that hair is only a small percentage of the image (difficult to see). It adds nothing to this article.

The rest are fine. The main one at the top is a great photo.

I've been editing this article off and on (mostly off) for years. I could have sworn we had a bunch of high quality ones in the past. If those still exist somewhere we should bring some of them back. If not, it seems likely we could find better photos than some of the current ones without too much effort.DreamGuy (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2013

this is an outright lie "In European culture, prior to the 20th century, red hair was often seen as a stereotypically Jewish trait: during the Spanish Inquisition, all those with red hair were identified as Jewish"i want to see proof not some guy who wrote a book in 1990,this bit "In European culture, prior to the 20th century, red hair was often seen as a stereotypically Jewish trait" so Scots in scotland saw red hair as a Jewish trait? what about Scandinavian red heads Jews too? lol this is a joke 125.209.164.203 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please give a reliable source to confirm your claim. Camyoung54 talk 20:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The content is well cited and says this was often seen as a stereotypically Jewish trait. Not always, "often". So Scots and Scandinavians can easily be among those that didn't. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Percentages

Discussion on sourcing for percentages of redheads worldwide, move from ANI. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the Red Hair article, I would appreciate feedback. The percentage of the world with red hair is not known and the citations for the statement do not go anywhere. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

Yes the citations do go to an article. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I made a point of correcting the link to a Washington Post article that corroborated the statement in the lede, though that, too, was reverted, as well as were a number of properly sourced sentences in an earlier deletion, as noted above. A Google search reveals a differing estimate from a Chicago Tribune article [1]; this can also be included, with the explanation that estimates vary. JNW (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the links has been changed now, the article actually states up to 2%, not "1-2%". I personally do not think this is an appropriate source but if you want an inaccurate statement left in the article I'll just leave that up to you guys then. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

  • This is why I opened a thread at ANI to begin with: is there any basis for not accepting the Washington Post article as reliable and referring to this as inaccurate, other than personal observation? I haven't yet seen an attempt by Durham to include a reliable source to support his/her contentions. JNW (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I originally removed the sentence because the link didn't go anywhere but it's been edited and now there is a link to the article (though not from the original site), personally it feels like I'm reading a blog post but it's not really the source I have a problem with. Like I've said, there is no official or accepted figure about the percentage of the world's population who have red hair, so I won't be supplying any alternative sources - because there are none, most external sources tend to state 0.2-4% which appear to be based upon guesses as far as I'm concerned, although most of the "1-2%"s appear to have been copied straight from wiki. (Durham.bug (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

The link in the citation says "Less than 1 percent of the human race may be redheads -- at most, 2.", how does that translate to 1-2%? (Durham.bug (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

  • It gibes perfectly. This is disruptive. JNW (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Could someone else maybe have a look at this since you don't seem to read anything I write. (Durham.bug (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC))
Since there no precise definition of "redhead" there's bound to be some variation in the statistics given. However, the crucial point is that more information is usually better than less. Surely we can say something like "up to" 4%, if that statstic can be sourced, along with themost common estimnate of 1-2%. Paul B (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Something like "some sources estimate up to 4% (or whatever appropriate) but most estimate it to be no more than 2%". Also, how is there no precise definition of a redhead? Your hair will naturally come out an orangey-red colour or you can take a genetic test which will tell you if you are or not. (Durham.bug (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC))
Please, Paul, feel free to copy edit for nuance. JNW (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for future reference; WP:DEADLINK - "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." Dead links show a requirement to repair the cite, or find another, not remove the content. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Evolution

In the Red Hair article I have read the link for citation 28 and it does not back up the statement in the wiki page. (Durham.bug (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

  • The links at [2] and its abstract [3] for the current cite 28 don't appear problematic. JNW (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


Abstract says, "Functional analyses show that this variant reduces MC1R activity to a level that alters hair and/or skin pigmentation in humans. The impaired activity of this variant suggests that Neanderthals varied in pigmentation levels, potentially on the scale observed in modern humans."

Wiki article read “A DNA study has concluded that some Neanderthals also had red hair”. The abstract does not state Neanderthals had red hair, it just says they may have had differing levels of pigmentation in their skin and hair. (Durham.bug (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

The title of the article is Ancient DNA Reveals Neandertals With Red Hair, Fair Complexions. Could it be plainer, or is this an intentional series of disruptions? JNW (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually the title is A Melanocortin 1 Receptor Allele Suggests Varying Pigmentation Among Neanderthals [4] (Durham.bug (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC))
  • [5]. As sourced and linked. JNW (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The source citied in the wiki page is just a title the website has given for the story but has provided a link to the study, however the study is called A Melanocortin 1 Receptor Allele Suggests Varying Pigmentation Among Neanderthals. They're saying two different things. I mean do you want wikipedia to be a place based on sources which use attention-grabbing headlines. (Durham.bug (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC))
Are in a position to determine what the study is saying from just the title? Have you read the full study? Are you an authority or expert on the subject? Science magazine, we can presume, has read it and is a reliable secondary source. Exactly what Wikipedia prefers. Its says; "A pigmentation gene from the bones of two Neandertals, reported online this week in Science (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1147417), indicates that at least some Neandertals had pale skin and red hair, similar to some of the Homo sapiens who today inhabit their European homeland." If you have anything to suggest it is wrong, from another reliable source, then please share it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


So if it's got the word "science" in it, it's a reliable source? No, the study is the science part. Not sure if I can trust a website which can't spell "Neanderthals" correctly either. The citation doesn't even link directly to the study. And I have a decent understanding of what's it's talking about since I have a degree in biology. Let's read the abstract shall we:

"The melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) regulates pigmentation in humans and other vertebrates. Variants of MC1R with reduced function are associated with pale skin color and red hair in humans of primarily European origin. We amplified and sequenced a fragment of the MC1R gene (mc1r) from two Neanderthal remains. Both specimens have a mutation that was not found in ∼3700 modern humans analyzed. Functional analyses show that this variant reduces MC1R activity to a level that alters hair and/or skin pigmentation in humans. The impaired activity of this variant suggests that Neanderthals varied in pigmentation levels, potentially on the scale observed in modern humans. Our data suggest that inactive MC1R variants evolved independently in both modern humans and Neanderthals."

The study does not conclude that "some Neanderthals also had red hair". Durham.bug (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's another news story citing the said study: Ancient DNA Reveals That Some Neanderthals Were Redheads. Search GoogleBooks for Moyra Smith's 2011 "Phenotypic Variation: Exploration and Functional Genomics", published by Oxford University Press. Here's her faculty page at the University of California, Irvine: [6]. Anyway, on page 32 of her book, Smith mentions the said study and states: "On the basis of these experiments, they propose that the Neanderthal individuals were red-haired and light-skinned". So I think it's clear that we can use the said study and the secondary sources which cite it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Ancient DNA Reveals That Some Neanderthals Were Redheads

"Ancient DNA retrieved from the bones of two Neanderthals suggests that at least some of them had red hair and pale skin". If you want to use secondary sources instead of the primary source just to keep a false statement in an article then I'll leave that up to yous because obviously you all know what you're talking about. Durham.bug (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of Neandertals. I think we can determine who knows more on the subject, you or Science Magazine. You haven't read the published paper, yet you think you are better placed to determine it conclusions than a publication that has. It's an interesting position to take, but not one you were taught in your biology degree, I think. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Me, I'd say. They have not claimed to have read it, and I'd doubt they have anyway because they are simply reporting a study being published. I can't read the paper because I can't get access to it. The abstract summaries it enough, if you bother to read it. Durham.bug (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not enough. You do not appreciate the significance of why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary sources. I don't seriously believe you are suggesting cited content be removed because of what you think a source might have not done, and what you guess a study has not concluded. So further discussion on this hasn't much point. It's best to concentrate on what reliable sources do say, rather than what you think they might not. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Papuan Women

It has been suggested that the Papuan women are not real redheads because they have dark roots. I've had a quick look at other images, and it seems that light hair with dark roots is not uncommon. I don't know why that is - whether it's a local genetic quirk or something to do with bleaching effects of sunlight. I don't think it's dye, as it seems to manifest itself in young children as well as adults, but I guess it's possible that it is some sort of local custom. All I can say is that it does not look like the kind of pattern normally created by growing out dyed hair. Here are the images I found: [7]. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it is a local genetic quirk which gives a distinct type of blond-reddish hair that's different from European fair hair. [8]. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Paul. Unless there's consensus that the deleted image is inappropriate [9], [10], I'd suggest restoration, especially as an example of an unusual occurrence. As with the other edits under discussion, I don't see that removal of the image was based on anything other than original research. Any experts in the field of follicles think otherwise? JNW (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The actual scientific article on this is Kenny et al, "Melanesian Blond Hair Is Caused by an Amino Acid Change in TYRP1", Science 4 May 2012, Vol. 336 no. 6081 p. 554. [11] Most of the reports talk about "blond" hair, but it clearly includes what we'd usually call redheads. The central point is that it's not associated with pale skin as in Europe, where paleness of skin and hair are connected attributes. I presume that accounts for the greater melanin content close to the skin. As the hair grows away from the skin it "fades". Paul B (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a known gene for blonde hair among Polynesians, which evolved separately from European blonde hair. Maybe you guys need your eyes checked but the woman in the image has dark roots coming through which means she has dyed her hair, simple as. If you read other parts of the wiki page you'll find it is very common in a lot of cultures to dye hair red (usually using natural products). Dying one's hair red does not mean you have red hair naturally. (Durham.bug (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

Rubbish. All the pictures I've seen of the Melanesian blonds have what you'd call "dark roots". Just look for yourself. It's not evidence that it's dyed. if you look at the elderly woman at the back you will see that her white hair has "dark roots" too. Is that dyed? You can also see white hair with "dark roots" on the sequence of images I linked in the first post in this section. Of course we've all heard of henna, but there is zero evidence that this is relevant here. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's zero evidence that's it been dyed, then surely there is zero evidence that it is natural? I'm also intrigued as to why they have these dark roots, what are they then? (Durham.bug (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC))

I dunno. I gave a guess above, but I haven't gone into it. Yes, we can't prove it's natural, but that's true of almost any photograph, including the lead image. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 April 2013

Please add to the Fashion and art subsection of the Culture section:

On March 16, 2013, the world's first ever beauty and fashion event for redheads, Rock It Like A Redhead, was held in New York City. Comedian/podcaster Julie Klausner and musician Ted Leo covered the event for How Was Your Week with Julie Klausner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cY_UENY3vvs

http://howtobearedhead.com/rock-it-like-a-redhead/

199.167.126.152 (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This doesn't seem like an event notable enough for Wikipedia. Could you please provide a few reliable sources to prove that the subject is worth including in an encyclopedia? I.e. newspaper articles. Thanks! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Vitamin K falsehood

The statement about redheads having altered pain perception and associated low levels of vitamin K has no evidence. The cited article is about pain perception but never mentions vitamin K. Furthermore, I believe this has been included due to sloppy research. A brief search shows the food ginger has low levels of vitamin K, it is possible the term ginger was confused since it is also a pejorative for red heads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.205.173 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No soul?

Redhaired people have no soul. I wonder why this isn't mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Because nobody here has seen a reliable source supporting that view. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
'Gingers have no souls' gives about 10,000,000 results on Google. Doesn't that mean that it somehow counts as a popular belief?
85,800 actually. Find a scholarly source that discusses this superstition and then we may be able to add some text. --NeilN talk to me 12:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, at least someone listens. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers.
I did a little research and found out that 'no soul' thing was started by South Park episode 'Ginger Kids'.
Here i found a source for that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/12/ginger-prejudice-michelle-obama-botswana
That phenomenon was reflected in popular culture for example here in Glee: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0144742/quotes
Emma Pillsbury: Being a ginger has plagued me my entire life. People say that I smell like copper, can get sunburned indoors at night, and according to recent legend I have no soul.
The only reason i am doing it here is because i had actully searched for the 'red hair' article on wikipedia to find out why redheads have no soul and where this idea comes from, cause that was the only 'supersition' i heard about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The article you are looking for is; Gingers have no souls. The South Park episode, obviously a somewhat heavy-handed satirical look at prejudice, misjudged the intelligence of a large number of its viewers who missed the implied message and embraced the concept. It is already discussed on the article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2013

I request that the first red-headed man picture be removed as it was a recent addition and there already is a red-headed man picture further down the page. This new addition is likely a vanity project and is redundant. Kydo986 (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Done I removed the recently-added image and brought up the one from down the page; I think it's good to have a man and a woman, but I agree that the new one was redundant and not as good as the one already on the page. Ignatzmice•talk 14:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't happy with the new image because I had the same suspicions (or worse), but had no sound reason for removing it. But if it's suggested that it isn't improving the article and should be removed, then I'm in total agreement. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Because the extraneous image is still in this page, I reopened this request. If someone has any good reason why the new male image is necessary, I would be interested to hear. As it stands there are two male red hair images and one female red hair image headlining this article, so the newer image seems extraneous and should be removed.

174.62.89.0 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Done again. --McGeddon (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's good to have both a man and woman on the page. The new image has been added to reflect a different shade of red hair. The hair colour of the old 'smiley man' image was too similar to the woman in the following picture so the new image has been added to reflect that red hair does not mean just one hue; and in fact ginger, strawberry blonde, auburn etc. are all valid tones. --SnollyPheasant (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The other picture was actually more different. Please don't add your picture again without getting consensus. --NeilN talk to me 00:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

SnollyPheasant continues to replace the picture with his own. Anyone change their mind and agree with his edit? --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SnollyPheasant's edit. I think the picture captures a different hue of red hair than the woman picture and it is nice to showcase both a man and woman at the top of the page. Remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have no evidence to suspect that SnollyPheasant is making a "vanity edit" and therefore, I don't assume that they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.61.213.48 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether vanity or not, the image quality is mediocre. Better images exist, and they are being used. JNW (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Fake redheads

Lucille Ball and most of the other actresses you mentioned are not, in fact, redheads. Christina Hendricks, Emma Stone etc....I would love to see true red haired actresses names used. Dye ones hair red does not make a red head as your article proves.

Also love the mention of Vit. K deficiency and issues with pain and anesthetic. As a natural red head I can assure you the article is correct. I have had to deal with a lot anesthesia problems and bleeding issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testarossa686 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What makes you say that Lucille Ball wasn't a real redhead? Our article doesn't tell us that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please Add

Under geographic location for redheads please add Iraq within the "Asia" paragraph. It is quite common for the Iraqi polpulation located north and west of Baghdad to have a high incidence of redheads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderKnight (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reference we can use for that? --NeilN talk to me 00:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Muslim dye their hair red because...

Muslim dye their hair red NOT BECAUSE MUHAMMAD (pbuoh) HAD RED HAIR! They dye grey hair with henna so they are distinguished from people of other beliefs who do not dye gray hair! I can't believe people write here without knowledge, by just making their assumptions! Shame on you, guys, who wrote the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.173.45 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The article was written by volunteers who have nothing to be ashamed about. Although the reference link used as a cite is dead, I was able to track down what seems to be a copy here. It says, "Red-hair is still honoured amongst Moslems as the Prophet Mohammed himself was reported to have red hair. [von Schwerin (1960) 27.]" Given the uncertainty of the exact source and somewhat synthy text, I have removed it. --NeilN talk to me 14:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Map of red hair distribution

This page has long needed a distribution map, like the one on the blond hair page. A report has appeared in the Guardian with some maps, although there is uncertainty about the source for the data. Could someone with some time please add them? Fig (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for addition of photo to "Red Hair" page.

I would like to add a picture of redhead fraternal twins. This is my own work, uploaded to wikimedia commons as Red Hair Siblings.jpg.Dpulitzer (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Dpulitzer (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It may be helpful to propose a precise location for the image (i.e., which section), and it might also help if you'd briefly explain why you think the image is especially appropriate. Link to the image: File:Red Hair Siblings.jpg. Rivertorch (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Scotland's DNA 2013 results for red hair frequency in the British Isles

http://www.scotlandsdna.com/app/webroot/files/press-release/ (go to the results of the Red-Head Project)

Would this research be authoritive enough to be included in Wikipedia? Their findings upset the old consensus by putting Scotland's percentage of red heads at just 6% rather than 13 (and England's at 4%), whilst also claiming that Yorkshire has more red hair gene carriers than either northern Scotland or northern and western Ireland. ProJared (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This article relies heavily on sources no more authoritative than that, and mostly does not have medical implications, so I would say go for it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013

I would like to insert the following into the article:

"Genetic studies of dizygotic (fraternal) twins indicate that the M1CR gene is not solely responsible for the red hair phenotype; unidentified modifier genes exist, making variance in the M1CR gene necessary, but not always sufficient, for red hair production. (ref)"

Ref: Box NF, Wyeth JR, et al (October 1997). “Characterization of melanocyte stimulating hormone receptor variant alleles in twins with red hair.” Human Molecular Genetics 6(11):1891-1897.

(Suggested area for insertion: new paragraph at the end of the Biochemistry and genetics section.) Donald R. Pulitzer, M.D. Dpulitzer (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Already done --Mdann52talk to me! 13:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Northern Caucasus red hair heritage.

I come from Dagestan, ethnically Lak people. I have red hair. Some members of my family are red haired too. I also know other natural red haired lak (Russian лакцы) men. Neighbor people living there is dargins (Russian; даргинцы). Many of them have natural red hair. I also know that avar people have redheads. I found almost no information describing red haired northern caucasus men. I'm not saying northern caucasus men are extremely redhaired but it's not uncommon here. Peoples here are not of Celtic or Germanic or Slav heritage, So I believe this article should contain more information. I cannot write it for myself because of poor language skills.

Thanks for your interest in improving the article. It might be very helpful if you'd be willing to draft some wording here on the talk page. Be sure to include reliable sources, since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, and keep in mind that we also pay attention to giving due weight. Rivertorch (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Lock?

Why is this page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable redheads

Isn't Gillian Anderson more notable as a redhead than the lasses off how I met your mother, or desperate housewives? given the character of Scully on the X-files drove a massive boost in red hair dye sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Scully is THE redhead, I know loads of women who went red back in the 90s, because of Scully, definitely the most notable redhead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Saul "Canelo" Alvarez

I thought it'd be worth adding a pic of Canelo, a Mexican boxer who is pretty literally becoming world famous for being a white Mexican with ginger hair. His nickname "Canelo" is Mexican for "Cinnamon" in reference to his ginger hair. I mean the first pic of the ginger pretty much looks like him anyway so why not add something about him?

There were Irish immigrations into Mexico. That could be the source. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Orange hair

This currently redirects here. While I am not sure of orange hair is encyclopedic - see Template:Hair colors - I've created a commons:Category:Orange hair for hair that is clearly orange, not red (dyed, or in art). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Orange hair" is defined as red hair. Carrot Top, for example, has often appeared to have orange hair and that hair is classified as red. His stage name, "Carrot Top," is obviously in reference to the color of carrots, which are orange, and his hair. Also, as you may know, the Orange hair commons page you created no longer exists. Flyer22 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I linked the wrong page; fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Genetic Cause of Red Hair

I find this sentence quite doubtful --> "In 2000, Harding et al. concluded that red hair was not the result of positive selection and instead proposed that it occurs because of a lack of negative selection. In Africa, for example, red hair is selected against because high levels of sun would be harmful to untanned skin. However, in Northern Europe this does not happen, so redheads come about through genetic drift.[28]"

I think it's highly unlikely that a genetic trait so macroscopically visible could not be brought about by sheer genetic drift. There is some cause here. I have a few guesses, such as color-contrast to increase visibility or indirect result of other genetic advantages, but there is a lot more research that needs to be done there. I'd appreciate it if anyone was interested in reading a bit more on the literature already out there. I find it incredibly doubtful the common consensus is there is no genetic underpinnings. No All Who Wander Are Lost (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Brown eyes?

Is it popular for red hair people to have brown eyes?

Why it is missing "brown eyes" for the "Red hair" article?

It's less common but it does happen,2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have red hair and brown eyes, but I think that it's much less common because blue eyes are more common in northern climates. No All Who Wander Are Lost (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ginger

Is "Ginger" derogatory? I read in a few places that it was. It's really a British term, I know that. I'm American and we say "red-hair" which is not derogatory. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a derogatory term. No All Who Wander Are Lost (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Neanderthal genes.

It now seems to be a fact that Europeans have about 3-5 per cent Neanderthal genes. What is most interesting is that it has been found out that Neanderthals had the gene for red hair. In fact European red hair and blond hair may be a Neanderthal trait. Look at this clip. The red hair gene comes in about minute 40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uRCVyJ7-0c Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.132.74 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup of Pain Tolerance Section

Refer to "Jeffrey Mogil and colleagues at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, recently discovered that some variants of the MC1R gene make people and mice more sensitive to pain and to pain relief mediated through the kappa-opioid receptor in the brain. Clinically, though, pain relief mediated through the mu-opioid receptor is more important. Now, the McGill team has found that mice lacking a functional MC1R gene, as well as human redheads, are also less sensitive to painful stimuli and more responsive to a morphine-like compound that acts through the mu-opioid receptor."

http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX031151.html

Current section is contradictory and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No All Who Wander Are Lost (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And too close to the source. See [12] about pain and dental care. I'm one of those red heads (well, at my age more blonde as the red has faded) who has found that it takes a lot of anaesthesia to numb me (as a nurse who thought she could do a biopsy in 5 minutes discovered). I think we should find better sources and rewrite. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
And [13] and [14]. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Weird enough, the MythBusters seem to have busted this (at least with thermal pain). Pain tolerances are more of an individualistic trait (it even can be trained) that a hair color-associated trait.--83.40.73.52 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be trained, that doesn't make it not gene or hair-color related. The nurse who was going to give me a local biopsy in 5 minutes was not happy when it took over twice then just to get me anesthetised. Sure, that's a personal anecdote, but the reasearch explains it. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge from Auburn hair and Titian hair

On another related topic (see my comment on orange hair above), I do wonder about the stand-alone notability of separate articles on Auburn hair and Titian hair, neither of which seems to even have a Commons category... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually created the Titian hair page. Not because I felt it necessary to keep it separate from this page, but because auburn was already it's own page. I feel like if both kept all their info and such intact, they would be perfectly fine to be merged on this page. Merged separately, of course. TomboyGuy (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead (pun intended) and merge. It seems that these articles are discussing (forgive me, but here's another pun) shades of grey. Speaking as somebody with ginger hair and an interest in colour vision I am not even sure myself if the distinction between these hair colours is warrented and might be a case of (enough! enough!) splitting hairs. I would, however, be very interested to read about whether 'auburn' or 'titian' hair have a different genetic basis. If they result from the same mutation, then essentially they are the same thing and the minor colour difference is less relevant. Colour only exists in the brain and when you get into non-spectral colours of the sort we are discussing, the distinctions become very flakey. Famousdog (c) 10:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. It is an artistic term, Titian hair or Titian red. It should be expanded also as a specific colour in painting. And it is reddish-gold, like the hair colour used in many of the works of Titian. Hafspajen (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoaxes

I've added the Mirror article; as with the previous round of hoax articles there's no science behind this. I can't think of any "leading scientists" who wouldn't want to give their names to experimental work. On further investigation, it would seem the person quoted in the article a) doesn't seem to have a doctorate, and b) has been criticised before for using the media to push commercial interests. So I add that not to denigrate Mr Moffat, but to highlight the hoaxy nature of the Mirror article.

I should declare that I work for the same institution as some of the scientists that have criticised ScotlandsDNA and Mr Moffat. However, I work in a completely different subject and department and had not been aware of this before researching for this post. Am actually quite proud that they stand up against pseudoscience and commercial peddling masquerading as journalism, but in the interests of neutrality, I thought I'd mention it. --Davoloid (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's nonsense (and I would tend to agree) why mention this stuff at all? HiLo48 (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I figured it added to the hoaxes or myths, but as another editor has pointed out, there would need to be separate sources so as it stood was original research. If that doea arise, possibly worth adding back but makes sense now it's been pointed out to me. --Davoloid (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And lo: there are a couple of articles in the last few days: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/10/redheads-die-out-extinction-ginger-gene-bad-science-red-hair

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100279151/no-climate-change-isnt-going-to-make-gingers-extinct/

--Davoloid (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Pippi Longstocking

What about Pippi Longstocking,why she is not mentioned in culture fashion and art subtitle?Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to add it MicroMacroMania (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Consistent spelling of "red-haired"

Someone with edit rights should fix all occurrences of "red haired" (without hyphen) to match "red-haired" in the rest of the article. Massias (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference 1

References like this makes Wikipedia laughable. I mean really, a newspaper article as proof of a statistic? I'm taking it out.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This article really needs to be better

I am curating this article because it is overwhelmingly unreferenced. Using newspaper articles about red heads is also amateurish. I believe all writing and editing has been done in good faith, but...WOW, this is bad.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Major factual error by direct quotation

Redheads constitute 1-2% of the USA population prior to the 1960's immigration reform. As people of European descent officially constitute no more then 13% of the world population such a high number would have resulted in every 7th European descended person being a redhead, something that we do not observe. -Dany

March 10:55 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.192.141 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

B-Class criteria checklist

The following checklist is posted with the intent of determining whether this article meets the six B-Class criteria:

References

Is the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations? Does it have has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged?

Scope

Does the article reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Does it contain a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing?

Yes, as a matter of fact, the article misses one very important fact: the origin of the use of the term "redhead" for people with orange hair. On a website/podcast called "Grammar Girl", the suggestion is made that, because the term "orange", used to describe the fruit of the same name, didn't come into use until the 15th century, that orange-haired people were simply referred to as "redheads". And, by the time "orange" came into popularity, using the term "redhead" was too ingrained. 184.100.214.145 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Layout and organization

Does the article has a defined structure? Is the content organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind?

Well written

Is the article reasonably well-written? Does the prose contain no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly?

Supporting materials

Does the article contain supporting materials where appropriate? Illustrations? Diagrams? Infobox?

Understandable

Does the article present its content in an appropriately understandable way? Is it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible? Does the article incorrectly assume unnecessary technical background OR are technical terms explained or avoided where possible.

Input anyone?

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

The reference for the claim that the Scottish population has 13% red hair and 40% carrying the gene, points to an article that says Scots have 10% red hair and 35% carrying the gene. This statement is therefore wrong and should be changed to reflect it's source. 109.232.83.50 (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC) STEPH 109.232.83.50 (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - well spotted - Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Arjayay, I'm not quite sure if you get this as a response because I'm unsure of how it works. But Further to that request, surely now it cannot be claimed that Scotland has the most people with red hair? That false figure of 13% that was on here for so long has now made its way around the internet as gospel. Surely if the % is the same but far more Irish people carry the gene, the article should be changed to reflect this. Also a reference for this is the Oxford University study "People of the British Isles": http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/press/nl1.pdf 109.232.83.50 (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC) STEPH 2A00:1DD0:5B1:4100:5CEB:DD1C:A7C5:2112 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the relevant paragraph to remove the apparent inconsistency. Although now it doesn't read quite as well. Thank you for your diligence in following up this issue! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reversion Request

There were two edits by a new user in April that:

  1. Replaced the red headed man photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_hair&type=revision&diff=659292061&oldid=656590259
  2. Placed the new photo above the red headed woman photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_hair&type=revision&diff=660118731&oldid=659545198

Since the article already had a serviceable picture, I request these two changes be reverted.

Kydo986 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the old version is better than the current? (FYI: If you make 5 more edits anywhere on Wikipedia you will be able to edit semi-protected articles). Stickee (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the point was that new version was no better than the old, and this page has a tendency to attract vanity edits. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical

Homer, in The Odyssey, describes Menelaus as a "red-haired king" and "king with flaming hair". Menelaus was king of Sparta, husband of the famous "Helen of Troy", brother of Agamemnon. Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.51.16 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Find some citations and that could be added to the article. Jcmcc (Talk) 21:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

South park introducing the term "ginger" to the US

I reverted your edit @SStephens13: because of multiple reasons. @Liz: had some good points, but I also would say that the uncited claim that South Park was what introduced the term "Ginger" is an outrageous claim at best. It *might* have increased awareness of the term, or increased its usage, but that will still require sourcing. Jcmcc (Talk) 14:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Image

File:Red-haired man.jpg

Take a close look to the left picture. How is this considered red hair? This is obviously dark blonde hair. And for the most part the same is the beard of the man, only the sideburns could be hardly considered red, but they do not look convincingly red to say so, the sideburns rather look darker brown, while the rest of the hair and beard lighter brown/golden brown. The sideburns of Caucasoids are usually darker than the rest of the hair and beard, so even the sideburns of the man are just a darker shade of brown.

  golden brown

This is the color that mostly resembles the left man, that his hair appears red from distance is an optical illusion but if you look close there are only traces to blondism to be found. Compare the left and the right pictureEvropariver (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Obviously" blond? Says who? It looks obviously red to me. (I have red-haired people in my immediate family, and have grown up in a place with many varieties of red, blond, brown, and black hair, not all of the same shade.) That you refer to "Caucasoids" in this context suggests you need to review some current reliable sources on human genetics. The photograph is fine for this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion of semantics and colour tones are not relevant. The man on the right is a redhead, in a good photograph and representation of red hair. The man on the left is also a redhead, of a different shade, but in an inferior quality photograph . It is therefore not an improvement to the article, and your interest in featuring it might be considered to be a conflict of interest, on account of it being you. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Escape_Orbit, I think you got "right" and "left" mixed up in your "14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)" post, but it's easy to see what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
So I did. Sorry if I confused anyone. I must have been looking through a mirror, or something. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The left doesn't look like red hair to me,(probably beard partially) what I see is blond/brown hair, That's why I changed it, otherwise I would not use an image of myself, to use my hair to correct the inappropriate image was the first thought that came to my mind. The image of the man should be replaced by any suitable image because the shade is at least controversial, preferably with more intense shade if it will be in the lead. Maybe the man on the left is red-haired but the camera did not capture his shade red, this often happens to my photos.Evropariver (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, the one on the right seems wrong somehow, is that definitely genuine? The one on the left looks reddish to me. An interesting question - I'm a red-head, of that there is no doubt, but with age my hair color is now very blonde. Should we have a photo showing how the color changes with age? Doug Weller (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I actually think the image on the right is of inferior quality. Out of focus and poorly lit. --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's compare with celebrities, for example the Irish wrestling superstar Sheamus.

His hair is

  Mahogany

. I notice a contrast between him and the man in the article with the

  golden brown

color.Evropariver (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There may be better photos out there. The photo of you isn't one of them. And I think it's unseemly on your part to continue this effort to push it into the article. --NeilN talk to me 19:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There are better images of course, the more important thing is that the current image may be not a redhead and actually out of place in this article. Find a better image than mine, it is with what I show the contrast between golden brown and red hair color, I don't insist that it should necessarily be pushed in the article. The hair of the man on left still looks like golden brown to me. That's a basic assumption of mine, I am not an expert on colors. I had expected that everybody was going to agree that the hair of this man is obviously blonde/brown, but it did not happen actually. I hope more people will take part in the discussion, especially experts on colors should take part. Somebody who understands well the colors should better define these hair colors. --Evropariver (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "someone who understands well the colors". Do you mean "someone who agrees with you"? I would say that most humans are very apt at identifying colors unless they are colorblind. I am certainly not colorblind, and to me, that is definitely red hair. Also realize that replacing stock photos that are of professional quality with blurry webcam pictures of yourself is edging on COI. I know lots of people that would like to be the cover boy for redheads. You do have a lovely shade of hair though. Very, very red. If you had a professional picture of high resolution and high quality and it was clearly a superior picture, I doubt there would be nearly the amount of objections. But as it stands, that picture of you is of low quality and it seems the general consensus is that the man on the left has red hair. Jcmcc (Talk) 23:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I'd object. Wikipedia is not the place for vanity publishing and the current photo is perfectly good. We don't want the article turned into "redhead of the month". Interestingly, if you do a google search on the current photo for similar images, what do you think you get? A large selection of red-headed actors. So google's image algorithms certainly have no difficulty seeing it as a red hair. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it's an illusion, but to me the pic on the right looks like it's illuminated with yellowish light, obfuscating the true hair colour. The lighting on the left pic looks far more natural. Also, I think the inclusion of beard and sideburn hair in the left pic makes it more informative.
File:Free Main Header photo of Saul Canelo Alvarez.jpg
I think what Evropariver's comments do indicate is that there's a range of hair colours that can be called considered "red". The boxer at the right is at one extreme. The article would benefit from a pic of a male with red at hair the brighter, redder extreme. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how Evropariver is defining red hair, unless he is stating that the man he considers to have "obviously dark blonde hair" is a strawberry blond (see the Varieties section of the Blond article). But even then, it is still clear to me that the man on the left is a redhead. Furthermore, strawberry blond people are more often than not considered to be redheads. Other times, they are considered to have blond hair if the hair is more blond than red. Like Gabrielle from Xena: Warrior Princess used to say, "I'm more of a redhead, really." All of the images currently in the article are of redheads. And, Evropariver, I ask that you do not head to the Blond article and start editing disruptively there. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
And, yes, that fictional character stated that line about her hair often enough that my siblings and I have never been able to forget it. (I'm the eldest; I mean my older siblings, rather than my youngest ones.) Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Granted, her hair color did get lighter as the series progressed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
One more thing: Evropariver, you stated (your "08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)" post at the Physical attractiveness talk page) that you have green eyes. Your eyes do not look green in the image above. If you want to attribute that to lighting or whatever else, they don't look green. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

In this text, Israel is written, and considered as a country. However, it's called Palestine. I hope you would change Israel to Palestine Thank you 78.40.176.181 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The only sentence where "Israel" occurs also mentions "Palestine", so there is no need for any changes. Israel is a country recognized by the United Nations, and is geographically part of the Levant, just as the sentence says. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Redheadday"

Since there's no Edit function in the main article (why not?) I'm making this comment here in the hope someone with better access can fix it. "Redheadday" (one word) is a typical Dutch spelling mistake when writing English (words are often combined in Dutch, and Dutch-speakers mistakenly carry the same habit over into English, writing things like "hotelreservation" and "salesmanager"). The title of the English article on the Dutch festival appears correctly as "Redhead Day".213.127.210.95 (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the links. This article is protected from editing by anonymous and newly registered users because it is the frequent target of unconstructive edits (see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi). William Avery (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2016

File:Ginger kid boy red hair .jpg
Ginger child

K9oggy (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No such image to add. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red hair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for //www.ox.ac.uk/blueprint/2000-01/3105/11.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_hair/Archive_5&oldid=1137118489"