Talk:Blond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blond article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
  1. January 2004 – May 2006
  2. May – September 2006

Contents

[edit] Only hair?

Does "blond" only apply to hair? I've heard people use "blond" to refer to other things such as wood and some anthopologists use it for skin (eg, 'blond skin'). ?


[edit] Syrians and Lebanese should be included

as having a high percentage of blondes in the middle east. I think it occurs there more so than in iran.

some images of syrians.

http://www.babelmed.net/immagini/lib_syria.jpg

http://www.christianpost.com/upload_static/intl/intl_185_0.jpg

It looks dyed in the first of those. The second looks more plausible, but a single picture alone isn't enough information. Angr 10:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since that wasn't enough here are some more images for you :

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1191/syrianscryingoverasadec6.jpg

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8049/syriansingolanrk9.jpg

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7512/syrianschoolkidsib7.jpg

(the boy in the back and the one at the front are blonde)

http://wedadf.jeeran.com/files/Picture%20035.jpg

Some from lebanon

http://images.google.com.au/images?q=tbn:g9uHAhNb4TD1sM:http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/lebanon-pro-02.jpg


Is that enough pictures for you?

Besides half my famliy are blondes and we are syrians.

It isn't a matter of enough pictures. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If you can find published statistics on the numbers of natural blonds in Syria and Lebanon, feel free to add the information. But just providing links to various photos isn't enough to build a contribution to the article on. Angr 08:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are blond people in every culture in the world, I thought the article makes that clear. -- Stbalbach 15:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Where was the research and sources when it came to pakistan and iran? There wasn't any, and yet they where mentioned on wikipedia. Where can one find statistics on the percentage of blondes, please show me YOUR statistics. What i tell you is what i can see from my day to day life, you haven't offered anything different to that in any of your assertions.

If there are no sources for the information about Pakistan and Iran, then that should be removed too. Angr 09:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the evidence when, the tribes mentioned in pakistan and the areas of iran do indeed have a high percentage of blondes, look up the origins of the word aryan, if you would just do a little more research perhaps you would know.

some more evidence for you : search blonde/blond in these websites. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=23836 http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009306.php

and if you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you should go to these places and vindicate your ideas.

All I feel strongly about is the Wikipedia policy of verifiability. The pages you have given so far are not reliable sources regarding the prevalence of blond hair in Syria and Lebanon. The word Aryan has nothing to do with anything, except that the Nazis commandeered it and pretended it referred to people who look Nordic--and the Nazis certainly wouldn't have considered Syrian and Lebanese Arabs to be Aryan, no matter how blond and blue-eyed they might be. The etymology of "Aryan" is unclear but almost certainly doesn't have anything to do with hair color. Angr 10:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

actually aryan was a tribe in india. the nazi's took it and did what they would with it, but that wasn't my point.

anyhow. More website for you from people who have actually been to syria.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/miscalculating_syria/

http://weecheng.com/mideast/syria/syria3.htm

http://www.bigrob66.info/blog/archives/2005_05.html

http://almashriq.hiof.no/lebanon/300/370/371/acs/web-gar-damascus.html

"For instance a Syrian from Aleppo is mainly blonde with blue eyes " http://www.waleg.com/archives/000860.html


Here's a good one for you from a travel guid called pilot guides, talking about the middle east.

"The colouring of the people ranges from extremely light, even blond haired/blue eyed in Lebanon and Syria, to very dark skinned with black hair"

http://www.pilotguides.com/destination_guide/middle_east_and_north_africa/syria_jordan_and_lebanon/background.php


Heres an anthropology website that talks about it http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII18.htm

Please sign your posts. Instructions are at the top of this page. It's very difficult to read who is talking when you don't sign. Thank you. -- Stbalbach 15:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In Israel there seem to be quite a few blondes. They went there, because they have a small percentage of Jewish blood, or even not that. Could it be, that some of these (mainly) Northern-Europides went from there to neighbour-countries?

Could it perhaps also be, that they relatibely recently got there flying directly from N-Europe, as evolution has made man able to by now? VKing 03:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Whahahah! Evolution made man able to fly!? You may be a dumbass nazi but god damn it you how to crack me up ^^. --DerMeister 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As a History major who specialized in the migration of peoples during the Roman Empire until after the Viking Age, I would be more than happy to assist in adding to the atricle to explain why blonde genes are found outside Scandinavia in such high concentrations. Maybe this would help to settle some users down on why the Syrians and Lebanese with blonde and fair features are in fact descendants of Germanic tribes and the Vikings and that these features are not predominantly 'natural' to those areas. Rapunzel In Van 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, as the article states, blonde mutations occur in every society. 212.10.217.122 21:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are the levels of pheomelanin really higher?

Is it certain that all blonds have higher levels of phoemelanin than eumelanin? on this site[1] they say "Plain blonde hair is predominantly eumelanin while richer honey blonde hair has relatively more of the yellow red pheomelanin present" 218.166.74.1 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

According to that site in principle all kinds of blond have more pheomelanin, but only in case of colourfull blond (goldblond and orangeblond) this kind oif pigment is not coverted into eumelanin by the gene MC1R. VKing 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add references in popular media section?

I think such a section should be added.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.81.84.207 (talk • contribs) .

I hope your joking. -- Stbalbach 13:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

Funny theory there, the one of Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost, but it doesn't say how it comes, that there are also lightblond men?! (Influence of temperate climate, perhaps?)VKing 01:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mothers pass blond genes to male children. If society suddenly started sexually selecting for women with big noses, we would eventually see more male and female children with big noses. -- Stbalbach 15:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Mothers pass blond genes to male children.
But when all men are darkhaired, the lighter blond women become, the more men's dark is dominating as usual, so that new men will keep being born darkhaired, no? VKing 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Who said all men are dark haired? It's not like blondness is a female trait, or that blond men don't procreate with other blond women. -- Stbalbach 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Who said? Well the theory, this is all about, tries to declare, how blond hair could have been developed genetically some tenthousand years ago. This includes the preposition, that before, all people were not blond and so darkhaired. (This theory in it's turn is trying to support a Japanese research, that resulted in the rather unlikely conclusion, that blond hair probably didn't occur more than some tenthousand years ago). VKing 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like confusion over how evolution works, it doesn't happen in just one generation. -- Stbalbach 05:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides it would be no use, as probably all women wanted to become blond. It's not very likely, that nature would cooperate in such a nonsensical operation. VKing 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
So we plan to remove this text and replace it by in principle this one:

Like is the case with the human skin, that generally spoken varies from very dark, near the Equator, to very light in the high North, the colour of human hair in principle varies from deep black in the tropical climatezone, to very light (as good as white) in the most Northern subzone of the temperate climatezone (where a.o. Iceland, and Skandinavia are situated). There's little or no doubt about the fact, that the reason of this varying from black to white is in the fact, that the closer humans are living to the sun, the more intensly it's light is, the more pigment skin and hair need, to avoid a damaging effect of certain elements in the sunlight, while in those degrees of latitude, where sunshine is relatively scarce and faint, skin and hair have to content as little pigment as possible, so that they can get the optimum of needed elements, out of the sunlight. From here it is quite likely, that if it is true, that humans have come to developement in all climatezones, like for instance plants as well must have, those who developed in the temperate climatezone have allways been provided with lightcoloured skin, hair (and blue eyes). The fact, that by now as good as only in Northern-Europe a notable percentage of light-haired people occurs any more and even there, according to scientist, is decreasing strongly, must be seen as a result of:

  • repeatedly military agression by subtropical (dark-haired) races like Romans, Spanish and French in North-Western-Europe, and Asians (like Kozaks in Russia and Siberia) *massacres, like the one committed by Stalinism and
  • mass-immigration by initially subtropical races like Jews (starting in the 17th century) and later mainly labor-immigration (f.i. Southern-European miners), followed by immigration of Tropicals from former colonies and nowadays of asylants from all over the planet.

As these not 'temperarate' invaders and other immigrants were and are darkhaired, as far as they mixed up with blond autochtones, this mostly resulted in darkening of the general haircolour, because dark hair genetically mostly is dominating.

All this lead to a situation, of which the London University Genetics-scientist Jones in a 1996 (?) Vogue-interview declared, that the blond-haired variety of mankind is becoming extinct.

Uncertain, because not yet researched, is the answer on the question, in how far this extinction would be fatal for the rest of humanity as well, because then blondes then will not be able any more to practice their special (a.o. rational, 'cool') function in the human order.VKing 05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Some really strange and far-out ideas, VKing. The Disappearing blonde gene even has its own article. It is a hoax. My comment above about "confusion" was related to your confusion. -- Stbalbach 13:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case the confusion evidently is on your side, Mr. or Mrs. (Exactly because the haircolor of a people doesn't change in one generation, this whole theory is nonsensical. Those women would have known, that they couldn't become blond within less than thirty years, so they wouldn't have had the wish to. Nor is it likely, that they wanted their granddoughter to be blond, so that she wouldn't have the same problem).

As for the "strange and far out ideas" must be said, that it are mostly undeniable facts, so that this only comment doesn't have to be regarded as a motivated objection against the proposed textchange.VKing 03:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think blonds are becoming extinct or disappearing. Immigration and interracial mixing will increase the range of phenotypes in a given area, but do not eliminate blond phenotypes - for example, have you seen the recent story of the London couple who are both mixed race (Black Caribbean/White British) and had female twins, one of which was very dark, the other fair-skinned and blond? Moreover, a post over at GNXP suggested that even in an scenario of random mating, there's a lower limit to how infrequent blonds will be as long as being blond is NOT a disadvantageous trait (and it tends to be quite the opposite, the most desired hair colour in Western society). Anyway, humans mate assortively not randomly - like tends to marry like, and this boosts the frequency of the blond phenotype. Pondle 21:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There's something about changelings in the article. Very well possible, that the blond child of the Londen couple is not really their child. (They're that easy to steal somewhere else, aren't they?). Why would the second darkskinned and darkhaired child, if there was a second child at all, be replaced then? Well, it seems, that the reaction from the blond side on the news, that their race is becoming extinct, has led to several kinds of attempts, to give the impression, that it is all not that serious. For instance a former worldwide newsitem about this matter by now is simply called a hoax. It must be the first and only time in history, that the BBC has been joking. VKing 08:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Youre nuts Vking... You really are. I have light blonde hair and blue eyes, and I've never gived a shit about preserving blonde hair or blue eyes. My girl friend has black hair altough she has blue eyes.--DerMeister 13:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

VKing, your ideas are crazy. Point one - blond hair and blue eyes are NOT becoming extinct. As I said, as long as a trait is not disadvantageous, it will NOT disappear from the population. Blond hair and blue eyes are NOT disadvantageous, therefore they will NOT disappear from the population.

What is happening is that some regions of Europe where white, predominantly blond people are the indigenous majority are becoming more DIVERSE. The reasons for this are economic - one word for you, globalisation.

Sure some immigrant groups experience rapid growth after first settlement, partly because: (a) immigrants are usually young, so an immigrant group has a younger age structure than the indigenous community and initially has a 'deficit of deaths'; and (b) some immigrant groups come from developing countries with high birth rates. However, immigrant communities tend to adjust to prevailing norms of fertility and age structure in their host societies within a few decades. For example, Indians, Chinese and Black Caribbeans in the UK now have lower birth rates than White Britons.

What's more, migration streams CHANGE over time. For example, until the 90s Ireland was a net exporter of people. This has now reversed. The same thing is now happening to Turkey.Pondle 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The word "blond" also might be derived from the French "blanc", which means "white" and sounds about the same.VKing 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

According to OED the origin is "uncertain". Used in English in the 15th C as "blounde". Goes on to say:
reintroduced from mod.Fr. in 17th c., and still sometimes treated as French, as to be written without final e when applied to a man, esp. substantively, a blonde; in N. Amer. commonly written blond like the Fr. masculine, but in Britain the form blonde is now preferred in all senses.
--Stbalbach 05:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry but the swedish guy is not blonde

He is not blonde. He has fair brown hair. I don't know in other countries but in Spain where I am from, people is:

- Moreno: black hair.

- Castaño oscuro: dark brown.

- Castaño claro: light brown (like the swedish guy)

- Rubio: blond

- Pelirrojo: red-haired

Then inside "rubio" or "blond" you have different tonalities. It's not the same a blond from Spain than a blond from Sweden, that's obviously. But I think this article should do this differentiation.

Anyway the article itself is not very accurated. It doesn't have any scientist base. Hair color is more complicated than just the typical stereotypes of "black brown blond red-haired". Someone who understands about this stuff should upgrade the article giving genetical proofs and so. But anyway, as we don't have anything better for now, I purpose to differentiate between light / fair brown and dark brown. I don't think that guy is not blond...

Onofre Bouvila 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Even the top pic might be pushing it. 212.10.217.122 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd call this mousy brown. Not blond. I've had colour blindness tests and a recent eye test (I don't need glasses and am not colour blind). I live in the UK. My wife and son are blond. I'm brown haired (people say it's black, it isn't!). One of my best friends at secondary school (11-18) had a slightly darker shade of this colour of brown hair. Pbhj 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the colors on your screen need to be adjusted. The top pic is absolutely, quintessentially blond. The Swedish guy's hair is a darker blond, but still blond by most English speakers' definition, I think. (Maybe the boundary between "light brown" and "blond" is different in Spanish.) The two of them are the only blond adults on this page whose hair hasn't been dyed. —Angr 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's say that the Swedish guy is darkhaired and so not lighthaired. Indeed that haircolour is called darkblond, but that is a word, that needs to be replaced by a better one, because it is contradictionary. Something like "dark-white". Blond sec in fact is synonym to lighthaired. So in this article a picture like this is not in it's right place. Propose to remove it. VKing 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy looks blond to me. In no way is his hair "dark". And considering that his hair IS light, I consider him very much blond.
Agreed, it also looks more light brown to me than dark blond. Doesn't mean he has dark hair, just doesn't look blond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.254.172.168 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The Swedish guy is certainly fair-haired. Not ash blond, but not light brown either... just look at the yellowish pigmentation of his beard!Pondle 21:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a W-article about color-blindness already? Wonder how big the percentage of mankind, suffering of this inconvenience may be by now. If that guy is not darkhaired, than there is no difference between night and day. And what's more, he's browneyed; there are as good as no blond browneyed. There's too much controversion about this picture. It should be removed from this article. VKing 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My mother has golden blonde hair, and she has hazel eyes; I had ash blond hair with hazel eyes as a young child. The combination is not very common but neither is it unheard of, at least here in Britain. As for the Swedish guy: ok, he isn't a pure example of 'blond' but no way is he "dark" haired! My hair is light brown and way darker than than his. You can see yellowish strands in his hair that don't appear to be chemically treated. The beard is definitely fair. Lighting is a factor when you take a photo; the light doesn't seem to be very good in that shot. Under low light my hair appears quite dark, but in better illumination it's much, much lighter.Pondle 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at the beard, there is indeed some so called 'reddish' in it. Which on this side leads to the conclusion, that the guy must be brownhaired, although the picture is not very clear about that. For brown hair, like so called red hair, (which in fact is orangeblond) in principle is a mixture of black and lightblond. The difference is, that in case of orange the blond part dominates, while in case of brown the black part. In a way they're very close to each other, but both on an other side of the 'frontier', or the line, between North and South, blond and otherwise, light and dark.
(As for the beard, it occurs relatively often, that he's in a somewhat different colour, than the headhair. It often is more orange). But brown hair as good as always can be called dark, like in this case. And because it 's not predominantly blond, it's not blond. VKing 10:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see you are a blond "purist". Of course there isn't one "blond" colour, it is a range, and similarly with "dark" hair colour. Blondness is of course a relative concept; I guess in parts of the world (i.e. most outside Europe) where near-black hair is overwhelmingly predominant the Swedish guy would seem like a prime example of blond; however, to you - and I'm guessing you come from Scandinavia or the Baltic, where ash blonds are commonplace - he seems relatively dark. All a matter of perception. I would call the guy's hair "dirty blond" myself. I would call all non-dark brown shades of hair "light". Peter Frost seemed to adopt the same approach in his article, as he included maps with a liberal definition of "light" (see http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/03/blonde-hair-blue-eyes.php) As for the Swede's head hair, it matches his beard hair to my eye, but you call it as you see it.Pondle 18:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He is definitely blonde. I would say dark strawberry blonde if I had to describe him. Where I'm from in Canada we have many ethnicities present and the ways we use to describe hair colour are blonde, brunette and red-headed and all of their variations. There's no way he'd be brunette. Even someone with ash-coloured hair is still blonde. It's all of the brunettes running around with bleached hair that ruin other people's idea of what blonde is. If I tell someone who has never met me that I am blonde, they always expect me to have bleached hair instead of my medium blonde, honey coloured hair. Rapunzel In Van 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blonds in Finland

I believe the biggest percentage of population with blonde hair is in Finland. There is an error in this article. Maybe someone can verify me and fix it. Im too lazy to do it myself.

I'm pretty sure about this too but I can't be arsed with finding that source again so I won't edit it :P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DerMeister (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC).


Actually the country with the highest percentage of blonds is Lithuania I believe or at least one of the Baltic states. but Finland does have a lot of blondes.

platinum blonde 21:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this child blond?

http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=explorar0013hx4.jpg

That´s me when I was 1 year old, but my hair turned dark very quickly know is dark brown almost black. Why it happens?189.170.4.21 04:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert and certainly no biologist but I have read about this in the past. I believe when you were born, the cells in your body which produce pigmentation were either not fully mature, or not yet "active" and as you matured they gradually started to work better. I think it has something to do with them being inhibited before you were born, possibly related to a deficiency or over abundance of something-or-other when you were developing in the womb. Your eyes might have got darker for the same reason. I think I was born with blue eyes and lighter hair and I know my mother was blonde until the age of 16 when she gradually got darker. Now the only remaining evidence of my Viking heritage is the occasional berserker rage. --JamesTheNumberless 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsk tsk thats such bullshit, REAL vikings had red hair :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.45.247 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
Meh, most of them probably had brown or blonde hair, it's debatable whether even Eirik Raude had red hair. The blonde side of my family are descended from Lincolnshire Vikings, only the line has become distorted somewhat to the point where we now slaughter women and rape livestock. --JamesTheNumberless 11:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural reactions

Planning to ad to this section:

"But still, not denied can be, that these women, by playing these roles, while wearing another, then their own more dark haircolour, cause an, often far from favourable, imagebuilding towards others people, who's natural haircolour is copied. This is no different, as far as concerns more or less scandalous escapades of nowadays bleached celebrities, like Britney Spears, Madonna and Paris Hilton". VKing 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is un-sourced and appears to be original research based on your personal observation and conclusion. I'm not saying it it right or wrong, just appears to be original research. -- Stbalbach 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention a little difficult to understand. Where did it come from? Who said it? When? Tinkstar1985 07:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is still a demand for sourcing aside this part of the text. (Strange thing, an encyclopedia, that asks for prooves of it's own text. This is an internal matter. The text should be removed, when and as long as the demanded sources are not (immediatly) provided).
In the mean time the proposed text to be added, hereabove, has been adapted to objections and provided of some explanation:
"But still, it's very well possible, that these women, by playing these roles, while wearing another, then their own more dark haircolour, have caused a, far from favourable, imagebuilding towards the other people, who's natural haircolour they artificcially wore. This for instance might be the reason of real blondes being perceived as "dumb". The masses saw persons, who were looking like that, acting dumb and as a result started thinking or unconsiously having the impression, that all or most persons looking like that, are dumb (or exhibitionistic, or servile, or prostitutional). This, whereas natural lighthaired persons never of their life would, or even could, have played such roles. This is no different, as far as concerns more or less scandalous escapades of nowadays bleached celebrities, like Palmela Anderson, Britney Spears, Madonna and Paris Hilton ".VKing 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh dude the thing about blondes being stupid is just a joke and everyone knows it. Im blonde and I've never even thought about it as you say. You just sound like a nazi jerk to me. Youre trying to justify your bullshit by hiding it in between the lines instead of saying it out loud.

"whereas natural lighthaired persons never of their life would, or even could, have played such roles"

Such BS... Are you trying to say that we blondes can't be stupid because we have light hair color? Keep your nazi shit to your self thanks. Haha, after looking at your website (http://groups.msn.com/Norteurom) It has become quite clear to me that you are indeed a nazi pice of shit.--DerMeister 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all said by a "101% German", but at the mean time "German American", who's living in Germany and therefor in fact is an American German, who says he's blond and blueeyed. Suppose it must be so called darkblond, which is not the kind of blond, that is misused by bleached celebrities. This discussion is about LIGHTblond. (The haircolours of the Northern-Europide race, that was becoming eliminated more and more in it's own natural territory by darkhaired immigrants, before the Nazi's tried, or pretended to try (many of them, including their leader, were darkhaired) to put an end to this developement).

VKing 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

VKing this thing about blondes being eliminated is ridiculous. You clearly don't know much about population genetics. Blonds could only disappear if the trait was physically disadvantageous - it is not, in fact it may even be a reproductive advantage (rarity increases desirability). Even if there was random mating, there's a statistical lower limit to how infrequent blonds will be as long as being blond is a neutral or positive trait in terms of reproductive fitness. And we don't even have random mating - we have assortive mating, i.e. in diverse societies people of similar/same ethnic group tend to marry each other.

"Blond" ethnic groups are not being eliminated by "dark" immigrants. Many countries where blonds are a high proportion of the (white) indigenous population are becoming more diverse through migration. But so are numerous other countries throughout the world (read this - http://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/posters/worldmapper_map15_ver5.pdf). Migration is caused by labour demand, higher wages in the destination countries and lower transport costs. Migration patterns change over time. There is no "plot" to eliminate blonds or white people :-)Pondle 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[2].VKing 07:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As they say in the House of Commons, "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago". Uncharacteristic intellectual laziness from Steve Jones! I have to say most of the rest of your site contains some very odd stuff. You can't seriously believe that the British Empire was a Jewish plot. Shape up.Pondle 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actual science (with references) - do with it what you will

Wow, I've noticed a lot of people screaming out for some actual research based, cited, science. When I say screaming out for, I mean, either actually asking for it to be included, or requesting that their own, none science based theories be included in the article (okay, maybe its me doing the screaming).

Any how, I hunted through some peer reviewed journals to see what I could find. Not sure how to include the research, so if your good at that sort of thing, feel free to run with it, or check further into it, whatever you want.

I found a good paper called Relationship of Melanin Degradation Products to Actual Melanin Content: Application to Human Hair (Chad R. Borges, Jeanette C. Roberts, Diana G. Wilkins and Douglas E. Rollins, in Analytical Biochemistry March 2001, Vol. 290(1):pp 116-125). Its mostly about developing ways to test for drugs among different hair types. However, Borges et al (2001) state "that black human hair contains approximately 99% eumelanin and 1% pheomelanin, brown and blond hair contain 95% eumelanin and 5% pheomelanin; and red hair contains 67% eumelanin and 33% pheomelanin", giving us a reference for the make-up of hair pigmentation, using the subgroups listed: black, brown and blond, and finally red hair.

Not to be cheeky, but for those in these discussions who want to know if they are or aren't blond(e), you can always get your hair analysed. That said, I'm sure that they're are other scientific distinctions between the colourings. In research many scientists first lay down their own distinctioning thresholds for these sorts of things (eg: cosmetic vs reconstructive surgery, it could be argued that when aged woman has a breast lift she is really 'reconstructing' the breasts of her youth; laser eye surgery is sometimes deemed cosmetic despite it repairing damaged sight). That said, there may be some widely agreed on pigment composition for these main hair colour groupings, so if you find one somewhere, and it differs to the one used in the research paper I referred to, feel free to include that instead. Tinkstar1985 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine there is a scientific way to objectively determine blondness. Just as there no scientific way to determine if someone is objectively black, or white, etc.. of course you can, if you have a pre-conception of what blond means, but that is a value judgment, open for opinion. It would very dangerous and wrong to say that science can objectively determine if someone is blond or not, based only on science. -- Stbalbach 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Very true, any definition of hair colour is always going to be socially constructed. Perhaps this is a point that can be made in the article. However, with that said, it can't do any harm to also point out any definition of 'blondness' that hold wide consensus amongst the concerned scientific community (should such a definition exist). Perhaps this could even be broadened to a range of different pigment levels that are sometimes used in hair analysis. It is quite possible that these differ depending on the purpose of the hair analysis. The article I listed in my previous post is one example of this, where the defining of hair colour was found to be important in the analysis of hair for drugs.
Moreover, after reading the numerous postings on this talk page it is also apparent that there may not only be a difference in the definition of 'blondness' between science and culture, but also between cultures/societies. This is something that perhaps should be expanded on, as so far the main definitions of 'blondness' and shades has been a very western/American outlook. What are the Nordic, and Spanish definitions of the tones? I know they have been mentioned in previous posts, but perhaps they should receive their own sections in the main article.
Who would have thought hair colour could be such a contentious issue - I can only imagine what its like on the grey hair page! Tinkstar1985 07:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair hair is a stereotypical characteristic of the people of Northern Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, the Nordic countries and Russia I deleted Poland because brown haircolour is the most common while blonde occurs, but in a much lesser degree and not like those countries above.

[edit] Aboriginal Australian pictures

I've noticed too many Aboriginal Australian pictures on this article, mainly uploaded by Sassy555. In matter of fact all of them have no copyright tag or source info and appear to be copyright violations Jfreyre

[edit] Picture of a brunette in blonde article

Blond hair is common among Nordic people, such as this Swedish man.
Blond hair is common among Nordic people, such as this Swedish man.

Man in this picture found in the article is not a blonde, but a brunette, light brown haired is still brown haired. At least most finns would say he is brunette. Text is incorrect when it says he is blonde. His beard is blonde but not hair. 193.167.45.242 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Could it be, that this has been an item on this page before?James Blond 05:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fetish

Is there a fetish to people who have blond hair? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.4.22 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Don't know the exact meaning of the saying "there is a fetish to.....", but suppose it's something like being more or less adored. If that's so, the posed question would be synonym to: "How comes, that there's so much ado about this haircolour"? And the answer would be:"Well, according to scientists, from the sustainability-point of view there should be no more than 2,5 billion people on Earth. This includes, that the number of subtropicals and tropicals should be no more, than about 2 billion. In reality however there are more than 6 billion. So in a way they have to share a natural place for one person with three of them. This must be rather frustrating for the developement of their personality. (Light-)blonds don't have that problem. Maybe that's one of the reasons, why darkhaired are so obsessed by blondies. And what's more, the cool and most rational Nordics have an elementary function in the human whole. Things would be proportional in this aspect, if there would be 1 Nordic on every 4 or 5 (sub-)tropicals. Right now there is less than 1 on 50!!!!!! and their percentage keeps decreasing (not by their fault). James Blond 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pubic Hair

Shouldn't there be some discussion of pubic hair and other body hair in terms of natural blondes? 68.103.207.65 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean, about the question, in how far bleached celebrities also use to bleach their eyebrows?James Blond 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery images

appears to show 2 of the 4 people having dyed hair - on the left, peroxide-blond; on the right ginger dye.

No way to know. Eyebrows can be different from hair naturally. Some very light blond can naturally bleach blonder with sun and shampoo. Also the light in the picture might make it appear whiter than it is. -- Stbalbach 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Eyebrows can be different from hair naturally. Some very light blond can naturally bleach blonder with sun and shampoo.

Eyebrows yes; but in armpits shampoo will have to do it alone. James Blond 06:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Frudakis

Regarding this text added to the 'Origins' section:

Tony Frudakis et al. note that, "genetic determinants for pigmentation in the various tissues are distinct and that these determinants have been subject to a common set of systematic and evolutionary forces that have shaped their distribution in world populations."[1]

I read the PDF and it discusses iris pigmentation, not blond hair. I searched on "blond" and could find no mention. It is not a study about the origins of blond hair. It is also original research to counter or debate other theories - at Wikipedia we just report on what people say - and this report says nothing about blond hair or the study done by Peter Frost (eg. "by contrast"). -- Stbalbach 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you search, you'll find that Frost doesn't discuss the origin of blond hair either (though he does discuss a Thelen study using pictures of blonde and brunette women, and discusses whether blond hair might be sex-linked. Rather, he discusses the emergence of hair and eye color polymorphism (read, diversity) under a hypothetical diversifying sexual selection (based in part on the Thelen study). Frudakis, while mainly discussing eye color, is referring to skin, hair and eyes when he says "tissues" in this quote, which is on the first page. He also is describing the selection pressures, but describes them differently (and on the basis of the allele frequency rather than a hypothetical OSR imbalance among Europeans). While it's not Wikipedia's place to decide which is right, it is our job to report both, and in the light of other citations decide which is a minority or extreme minority opinion in the literature. This quote just does the first task.--Carwil 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright I guess these things need to be put into a language most people can understand. What exactly is Frudakis saying about the origins of blond, in common every day language? I can't parse the above quote it makes no sense to me and I imagine most people. Frost does discuss blond[3] as does the linked paper in the article. -- Stbalbach 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the earlier bit of Frudakis added to the quote:
[M]inimal correlation exists among skin, hair, and iris color within or between individuals of a given population. In contrast, between-population comparisons show good concordance; populations with darker average iris color also tend to exhibit darker average skin tones and hair colors. These observations suggest that the genetic determinants for pigmentation in the various tissues are distinct and that these determinants have been subject to a common set of systematic and evolutionary forces that have shaped their distribution in world populations."[1]
The point in English, is that (and here's proposed text) "While Frost suggests a unique form of selection for variety of hair and eye color diversity in Europe, Frudakis et al. argue that "a common set of systematic and evolutionary forces" has shaped hair, skin and eye color worldwide."
--Carwil 16:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Rather than contrasting with Frost, can we say what the theory is, in a separate paragraph, and not mention Frost? As for the proposed text, Frost is saying sexual selection, is Frudakis et al saying it was natural selection, or, what exactly are the "common set of systematic and evolutionary forces", since that is the heart of the matter re: origins. -- Stbalbach 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Frost is arguing it was sexual selection ("The alternative, sexual selection, has already been advanced to explain Europe’s hair- and eye-color diversity (Cavalli-Sforzaet et al., 1994, p. 266). This kind of selection is known to favor colorful traits"); his article proposes that it operated only in Eurasia. Frudakis is arguing that it was natural selection for lighter or darker features, with no color-diversifying component.
A third source, which Frost cites to get the 1 million year figure, evaluated MC1R, which Frost calls the "hair color gene." They found, to quote their abstract:
We conclude that MC1R is under strong functional constraint in Africa, where any diversion from eumelanin production (black pigmentation) appears to be evolutionarily deleterious. Although many of the MC1R amino acid variants observed in non-African populations do affect MC1R function [i.e., capacity to shield from damage due to the sun -Carwil] and contribute to high levels of MC1R diversity in Europeans, we found no evidence, in either the magnitude or the patterns of diversity, for its enhancement by selection; rather, our analyses show that levels of MC1R polymorphism simply reflect neutral expectations under relaxation of strong functional constraint outside Africa.
And more extensively,
The possibility that both the relatively high evolutionary rate and the high European diversity are consequences of adaptation, has been discussed by Rana et al. (1999) and Owens and King (1999). However, selection on the evolutionary-divergence rate is usually inferred when the rate of nonsynonymous substitution is greater than the silent rate (Goldman and Yang 1994; Nielsen and Yang 1998). In fact, although the nonsynonymous rate in MC1R is higher than the average found over many genes, it is still lower than the silent evolutionary rate. We have also investigated the level of European polymorphism. ... However, we found no statistical evidence that MC1R diversity has been enhanced by selection, either in its apparently high levels or in its haplotype frequency–distribution patterns.
--Carwil 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I please date the guy in the first picture?

Look me up, baby.
by Wild Mountain Thyme 06:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of living anonymous people

I've removed pictures of living anonymous people as it is problematic. 1) without explicit permission from the person in the picture it can run afoul of Personality rights ([4]) 2) Even if someone were to give explicit permission, there is a problem with vanity. We have lots of excellent examples of blonde on Wikicommons that are uncontroversial, do not promote anyone, are not vanity shots. -- Stbalbach 16:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But you've brought us back to the same non-NPOV position we were in on this page a year ago: except for the toddler, all the images are of women. I have no objection to using historical images, but we have to maintain a balance between pictures of males and females for the sake of NPOV. —Angr 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What about using this picture - 1. male, 2. not dyed, 3. dead (apropos vanity). Politically incorrect? 217.236.230.168 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

thumb|right|Felix Steiner as an SS-Gruppenführer, Spring 1943.

Not freely licensed. We could never make a fair-use claim for that image in this page. —Angr 19:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a large gallery on Wikicommons, liked at the end of the article, which has many images. I like the two images of Natalie Clifford Barney because of the inference of blond being common in children but also carrying over into adult-hood. I'd like try not to clutter the article up with too many images since we have the gallery in place. -- Stbalbach 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

these new pictures aren't as good as the old ones

Thanks for your opinion. Please see discussion above about Vanity pictures and pictures of living people. -- Stbalbach 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for what is meant by "vanity". In particular:

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates.

There is no way to know if you have any connection with the people in the photos. It seems unusual that you would be so determined to add these pictures, that you have a single-purpose account with no prior history, yet seem to have some knowledge about these pictures prior history being in the article and how to add them back etc.. plus there is the problem of Personality rights (see Personality rights template of Wikicommons) - given all these issues, and since this article is just supposed to be examples, there is no reason to keep pushing for these particular photos when we have dozens to choose from that are free and clear of all problems. -- Stbalbach 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


I have no connections with the people in the photographs I did not post them to support comercial perposes that would be described as vanity, I just think that they were very good depictions of blond people. maybe we could find pictures of blond people that don't violate these regulations but that are better than the images you posted. and if the images that i posted were on Wikkicommons I dont see why they cant be on Wikipedia, I think that at least the image of the young blond man who's in profile could at least be used because he has naturaly blonde hair and the picture had been on the page for a very long time and the page is lacking pictures of males, this link proves that the image is public http://www.flickr.com/photos/extranoise/200545533/ , and I think that the picture of the two blonde males was taken because they were exchange students (judging by the new student orientation tag on the left male) not a vanity shot. But I do see your point about personality rights. thank you for making more things clear to me. If you would be interested finding a solution to our problem then please leave another post.

Thank you.


platinum blonde 05:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blonde

see http://www.flickr.com/photos/extranoise/200545533/ . to see that this photo is allowed


platinum blonde 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image MoS

See the MoS on how to place images. They should be staggered left-right and not have text in the middle of two images. -- Stbalbach 00:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non-humans

re: this sentence (and the dog picture someone removed):

Blond hair can be found in humans and certain breeds of dogs and cats, among other mammalian species.

I tend to agree this is somewhat of a problem. Do we call dogs "brunette"? It is potentially a slight. If we are going to discuss blond in terms of non-human hair we need some sources - for example, from national/international dog breeding and show organizations. Obviously some people may do so informally but it's not clearly mainstream and accepted. -- Stbalbach 18:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Frost

there's a link to here about Peter Frost theory on the origin of blond hair yet i can see no mention? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.107.111 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Footnote #4. -- Stbalbach 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Crossbreeding with other Hominids

Recent finds of bones in China show a possible crossbreeding between early Homo sapiens and Homo Erectus

Could the high incidence of blondes in Europe point to an adaptation that Neanderthals might have had for artic conditions (i.e. white body colour as camouflage) ?

This would also explain why there is a lower incidence of blondes among the North American aborigines who live in the artic.

80.7.195.184 09:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent genetic tests have shown blond became widespread about 12-10k years ago, long after Neanderthals were extinct. -- Stbalbach 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/o/Talk%7EBlond_bd58.html"