Talk:Red hair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red hair article.

Contents

[edit] Cindy Sousa?

Why is this in the article? "The most beautiful of all red head's is by far, Cindy Sousa." 149.167.210.127 05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How about because it was vandalism? I see this quite a bit on other articles.

http://www.ncdes.ca/index.php/Profiles/CindySousa

That's all I could find and she doesn't even have red hair.

Faris b 16:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


July 2003-December 2005
February 2006-October 2006

[edit] RV of edit by 63.65.68.246 on 19/10/06

Whilst the comments made by 63.65.68.246 were valid I believe the talk page is a better place to express them than within the body of the article. See below

The results of a 2001 study, by University of Edinburgh and University of Oxford teams of geneticists led by Harding and Rees caused some to speculate that the gene responsible for red hair may have originated among the Neanderthals some 100,000 years ago.[2] THE REFERENCE GIVEN MAKES NO MENTION OF NEANDERTHALS OR EDINBURGH OR OXFORD UNIVERSITY - THIS SECTION IS A JOKE Red-haired people would then be descendents of Neanderthal admixtures to Cro-Magnon, and would have spread from the area of Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon contact. But interbreeding of Neanderthals with Homo sapiens is still a matter of debate (NO IT ISN'T, IT HAS BEEN RULED OUT), and in 2003, Edinburgh geneticist J. Rees suggested that the gene originated as recently as 40,000 to 20,000 years ago in Europe, well after the human migration from Africa, so that the geographical distribution of red hair would be due to post-glacial expansions from Europe.

References for any of the above statements would also be helpful .Agnellous 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't immediately recall references on the origin of the red-hair gene, but I do recall an issue of Science a few months ago discussing the ancestry of the human species, and concluding that there was liking interbreeding between the various sub-species of humanoid present in the past. I remember this because it is the only time I've ever heard the phrase "inter-species carnality". Michaelbusch 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How do hypocortisolism and obesity go hand in hand? hypo (meaning lack of) cortisol, typically results in minimal to extreme *weightloss* (vs. obesity, which would indicate potential "hyper"cortisolism. Off my high-horse...please continue with discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.251.127.57 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Any reason for the tag? The article seems fine and there's no discussion here about it. -Pnkrockr 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look over the edit history, you'll see that the tag was added by an IP which was also used to repeatedly remove parts of the discussion of the origin of the red-haired gene. My guess is that someone feels they were being insulted, although I can't figure out why. Michaelbusch 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's clear to me. Woudln't you be insulted if someone said your hair color gene came from cavemen?

Personally, I don't believe that at all, if that were true, wouldn't they be dumber than everyone else of other hair colors and this isn't true of them so I don't believe it either.

Faris b 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a redhead and don't find it insulting. -Pnkrockr 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Since we are all descended from cavemen, all of my genes came from them. Tracing back the particular subspecies of human that the red-hair gene came from isn't insulting, it is merely an interesting display of genetic analysis. Given that all this happened tens of thousands of years back, there should be no correlation between red hair and intelligence. A similar analysis could be applied to the blue-eye gene, which I carry. It has been suggested that that one evolved as a way to attract potential mates, by being unusual in appearance. This has lost any utility over time, but has been preserved in the population. Michaelbusch 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In any event, there doesn't seem to be anything that could be considered insulting on the page right now, and there's no explanation for the POV tag here, so I'll remove it. If anyone wants to put it back, they should explain why here. Eron 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the way I understood it is that modern day humans and Neanderthals interbred and produced redheaded Homo Sapiens as is stated in the article as a possibility. Personally, I would find that offensive because it would imply that redheads are a devolved form of Homo Sapiens, if I read it wrong, please let me know.

Faris b 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It would absolutely not imply that redheads were a devolved form of Homo Sapiens, only that the particular gene may come from Neanderthals (and the article is clear to point out that this is disputed). Given that we share genes with animals much lower on the evolutionary chart than Neanderthals, I think you are reading that bit incorrectly. Given that a great many other people also share this gene without having red hair, I don't think you have anything to worry about even if this hypothesis is true. --Yamla 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The logic of the cited study is as follows: between a few hundred thousand and about forty thousand years ago, there were many different subspecies of humanity, including the Neanderthals. These subspecies interbred to a considerable extent. We (homo sapiens sapiens) carry genes from many of the subspecies. Sequencing of Neanderthal DNA shows that some of them had red hair, which hasn't been seen the other subspecies for which there are good sequences. The inference is that the red-haired gene entered the human population from a mutation in a Neanderthal. Red-heads aren't 'devolved', they simply express a gene from one of our ancestors. And, as noted above, many people who do not have red hair themselves carry that gene. Michaelbusch 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, make of this what you want but this pretty much disproves the whole red hair came from cave men theory to me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20061115/hl_hsn/neanderthaldnashowsnointerbreedingwithhumans

Faris b 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Science and Nature papers do give the main time of divergence as ~500000 years ago. However, that doesn't rule out interbreeding. It merely means that the populations became genetically distinct. Michaelbusch 20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


It seems to me there are two discussions here. (1) Did modern humans interbreed with Neanderthals. Interesting but only indirectly relevant to an article about red hair. (2) Is red hair a genetic legacy of Neanderthals? Even if it’s unlikely, it’s certainly worthy of discussion in an article about red hair.

I cut out this bit:

However, in November 2006, a paper was published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which a team a European researchers report that Neanderthals and humans interbred. Co-author Erik Trinkaus from Washington University explains, "Closely related species of mammals freely interbreed, produce fertile viable offspring, and blend populations." The study claims to settle the extinction controversy that according to researchers, the human and neanderthal populations blended together through sexual reproduction. Erick Trinkaus states, "Extinction through absorption is a common phenomenon."[1]

Not because it was wrong (I'm not really qualified to judge) but because it belongs more properly in a general discussion of Neandertal interaction with Cro-Magnons (and I see that this article too has been updated - nice work). In the Red hair article, I replaced this section with a more general sentence about (disputed) Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon interbreeding and a link to the Neanderthal interaction article. Can we keep the Red hair article focused on red hair? Fionah 09:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Neanderthal stuff is also starting to distort the organization of the article. The first section under the TOC is titled "Historical distribution". After its first paragraph, this section discusses the areas where red-haired people were found historically, and are found today. That is what I would expect in a historical distribution sections. But the first paragraph now discusses theories of the appearance of the genes for red hair, for red hair among Neanderthals, etc. I think this information would be better placed in the section on "Biochemistry and genetics of red hair". I also agree that, cited or not, content about interbreeding and extinction through absorption isn't really on-topic for an article on red hair. I'll try to move the Neanderthal stuff to a more appropriate place in the article. Eron 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the Neanderthal speculation belongs in the Evolution section. I'm still not convinced that the sentence "However, in November 2006, a paper was published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which a team a European researchers report that Neanderthals and humans interbred"is relevant to this particular article. Even if Neanderthals and modern humans did interbreed (something which is apparantly disputed), this implies no link to red hair more than any other trait. Fionah 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

www.ox.ac.uk/blueprint/2000-01/3105/11.shtml Suggesting humans interbred with Neanderthals and so produced a hybrid red-haired human belongs in a yet to be established Sci Fi section. The reference given in the main text is not, as is implied, to PNAS, but is to the speculative magazine COSMOS. The current state of play is I believe as set out below.

Dr Harding, a population geneticist at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, said: 'This research is part of other work we are currently doing in genetics. We wanted to put the red hair gene into an evolutionary context, and the model used for examining this gene is a good basis for further research on other genes. We are doing more sequencing which will hopefully give us more data that are sensitive for revealing natural selection and therefore better results and clearer answers.'

It has been widely reported that the gene originated in Neanderthal man. Dr Harding says this just isn't true: 'We have never stated in our research that this gene is Neanderthal, but at the moment I cannot statistically prove that it isn't which is why others have drawn these conclusions.' It is thought that now people are moving around the world and meeting people from other cultures, the red hair gene is being spread into areas where it would not naturally occur, such as Jamaica. Red hair is also found in Papua New Guinea although it's not known why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.65.68.246 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between suggesting that the gene coding for red hair may have originated in Neanderthals and been transmitted into modern humans by interbreeding, and stating that "humans interbred with Neanderthals and so produced a hybrid red-haired human." I don't think there's any suggestion that red-haired humans are somehow hybrid Neanderthals; I would think that if interbreeding did occur, every h.sapiens alive today would carry some genetic legacy of the Neanderthals.
That aside, I think a lot of the issues with this content in this article is that it relies on second-hand sources. We have several references that talk about the Oxford study, but we don't have a reference to the study itself. We have a reference that talks about the Proceedings paper, but none to the paper itself. We don't really know what those sources say; we only know what people say they say. This reduces their value somewhat.
What can we say for certain based on the sources? We can say that "estimates on the original occurrence of the gene for red hair vary from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago." We can also reference statements that there is speculation that this gene may have originated in Neanderthals. After that, we risk getting side-tracked into a swamp of off-topic "Some say... others believe..." on the subject of prehistoric interbreeding. Perhaps a simple "Some have speculated that this gene originated in Neanderthals and entered the human genetic code through interbreeding, but this theory remains controversial." Throw in a link to Neandertal interaction with Cro-Magnons and leave it at that. Eron 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this would be a tolerable approach. I just feel that this Neanderthal / Red Hair link is *someones* fantasy. Rufosity is not rare in the animal kingdom. For example, Orangutan's have reddish hair, many breeds of dog (e.g. King Charles Spaniels) have what can only be described as ginger hair. This would appear to be a common mutation that does not require a fanciful explanation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.65.68.246 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Eron's approach. I think the redhead/Neanderthal hypothesis needs to be mentioned, because some readers will be looking for info about it, but it should be clear that this is in the realm of speculation at this stage. Also, the debate about whether or not Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbred should be kept to the appropriate page and not clog up the Red Hair article. Fionah 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like scientific racism to me. The authors of the original study already indicated that the information was being taken out of context - in other words this debate doesn't even exist among the scientific community. I'm going to remove this BS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.165.32.189 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Scientific racism"? That seems a bit strong. In any case, all the text you removed was referenced and some of it was useful to the article:
Estimates on the original occurrence of the gene for red hair vary from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago. Referenced, and a useful, factual addition to the article.
Based on a 2001 Oxford University study, some commentators speculated that Neanderthals had red hair, and that some red-headed and freckled humans today share some genetic heritage with Neanderthals. Referenced. Note that the article is not saying "people with red hair have Neanderthal heritage" - it is simply saying that someone has made that claim.
Other researchers disagree, and some of the scientists who conducted the study claim this is a misinterpretation of their findings. Referenced rebuttal of the claims that concern you.
However, in November 2006, a paper was published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which a team of European researchers report that Neanderthals and humans may have interbred, although no reference was made to red hair. Referenced, although as the reference doesn't talk about red hair, it should probably go.
I've restored all the deleted content; I'll take that last sentence out now. - Eron Talk 13:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Rufosity"

I removed the redirect (didn't realize I wasn't logged in) since it redirects right to this article, but at the cost of clarity. Could somebody fix this? Alternator 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rufosity" is just another way of saying "having red hair", right? Fionah 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is, but many readers aren't going to know that, so I'm thinking that it might be best to reword the phrase. I didn't have any good ideas, though, so I just made the note here in the talk page. Alternator 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the fact that having red hair is sometimes called rufosity to the intro. Given that this page is a redirect from rufosity, it is probably a good idea to explain that early. Eron 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what is the etymology of that word and such? Where does it come from? Personally, when I hear it, I think of dogs not Red hair. Faris b 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that it came from "rufous", an adjective meaning reddish-brown. But I'm not an etymologist; I added the line about rufosity in an attempt to explain why that term redirected here. From its use in the article, ("based on a 2001 Oxford University study, some commentators speculated that Neanderthals exhibited rufosity,") I assumed that it was an anthropological term and didn't go any further than that.
I have now, as best I can. My Concise Oxford doesn't list the word. Neither do any of the open-source dictionaries I have been able to find. I googled "rufosity" both alone and with keywords like "red hair" and "anthropology" and the results were interesting. Many links are to this page or to mirrors of it. Others are to sites that posit... let's call them fringe racial theories. None are what I would consider reputable sources. One or two include forums that make me want to take a shower after reading them.
From what I can tell, the word "rufosity" occurs seven times on Wikipedia, in four articles. Most of those occurences are variants of the phrase I quoted above. Given that this does not appear to be a "real" word, or at least a word commonly used by reputable persons studying human pigmentation, I would suggest replacing all its occurences with "red hair" or something along those lines, and then putting the redirect up for deletion. Anyone think that's a bad idea? Eron 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds bad. I agree, remove the phrase as well as it's redirects.

Faris b 02:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that we should leave the redirect from the Rufosity article intact, because some people might actually check that, and it does appear to be a valid (if rare) English word. I've seen it in a few dictionaries after checking, but none of the big ones; my best guess is that it is archaic. However, I support removing all occurances in other articles. Alternator 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When I looked into policy on deleting redirects I came to the same conclusion, so I left the redirect intact and didn't bother posting it for deletion. The other edits are all done. - Eron 20:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contrary to Popular Belief

Contrary to popular belief, Scotland is the nation with the most redheads. Most redheads, in the British Isles, USA, Canada, Australia and so on are of Scottish descent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.52.99 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/d/Talk%7ERed_hair_2532.html"