Talk:Red hair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Red hair article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Archive
Archives
July 2003-December 2005
February-October 2006
Oct 2006-September 2007

Contents

[edit] Hebrew

The article states that the words for Adam and red in Hebrew are pronounced identically, but in fact the first is pronounced "adam" and the second "adom". 76.220.200.130 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, wovels aren't as important in semitic languages as in indo-european languages. Originally, the Hebrew alphabeth didn't even contain letters for most wovel sounds. So the difference between "adam" and "adom" would be minimal in Hebrew. There's also the word "Edom", which in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) is (1)another name for Esau, Jacob's brother, and most importantly (2)the name of Esau's descendants and their country. The name "Edom" is supposed to mean "red" too, and Esau got the name either because he had red hair or because the soup that he sold his birth right to Jacob for was red, maybe both. It's of course possible that the country of Edom got their name from something totally different, and that the story about Esau being their ancestor developed later. In fact, that's very much likely. But this shows how little importance wovels have in Hebrew and other semitic languages, and that the consonants are what's important. Two words containing the same consonants are often considered related, even if they're not, no matter what the wovels in the words are.

A large percentage of modern Jews have ginger hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.12.120 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Negro Also?

My parents use to tell me that in Brazil, especially in their region, there would be many African descendants with light skin and red hair. I just came back a few weeks ago after spending only a month in Espirito Santo with my parents again, and as it turns out, my cousin is marrying a redhead! He has Native, Italian and African ancestry. I found this interesting, but this article doesn't seem to discuss this phenomena. Here's a Brazilian redhead and there's also this, and this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.193.225 (talk) 05:10-05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC) and 05:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Groups With Red Hair

Ashkenazi Jews have a high degree of red-heads and especially men with red-beards. Last time I wrote this it was deleted I wonder why?

The ethnic groups with high percentages of red hair are Scots, Irish, Udmurts (Finnic People from the Ural Mountains) and Chechens. Anyone have statistics? Numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.57.90 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It only mentions Caucasian nationalities (because 'Irish' is not an ethnicity) with red hair... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.116.192 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm... Irish is an ethnicity, Ireland NOT being part of Britain.... 80.5.155.167 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subject of Juan de Flandes painting is not certain

It appears the painting's webpage at Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza indicates that the identification of the subject of this painting is not certain. Specifically note the use of "Retrato de una Infanta (¿Catalina de Aragón?)" as the title and the comment within the text "De todos modos la identificación no es segura." --Dfred (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable redheads (real and fictional)

This section is totally out of control and is basically useless as a source of information. Can we try to cut it down to a few, at least? About 90% of them are not exactly notable for having red hair (they're notable and have red hair. Big difference!). It's also a magnet for people adding their family and friends, etc. - Alison ❤ 04:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose a more comprehensive list: I agree that most of the names were not terribly known. However, I also argue that it should be of all famous or notable redheads, not people notable for their red hair. For example, George Washington was not on it. 198.140.202.1 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the list be independent of the article (such as List of notable redheads) with only those notable for their red hair listed in this main article, then a link provided to the whole list as a 'see also'. I agree its totally out of control here - seeing that section added was like watching an impending train wreck. ZueJay (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been done. (see page history) And it was deleted because Wikipedia "is not a laundry list." I liked it so I copied it to my user page [1]. You can update it there if you like. If someone tries to get a new one started on the main site I don't think it will last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDA (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi everybody. My name is Ryan and I am the individual responsible for first creating the "notable redheaded men" list. Somebody else did the women. I created the list for many reasons. First, a tiny fraction of the redhead page actually mentions men. You'd think we didn't exist. A majority of the picture are women, the topics discuss women more often, and almost all the quotes are concerning redheaded females. I have found this bias on basically every "redhead website" I've encountered, the only difference is that here, I can actually change it.

Second, frankly I'm getting sick of the perception that redheads, especially men (we have more negative connotations ladies) haven't done anything important. I felt the most straightforward way of combating this stereotype is to post the names of "notable" redheads.

I didn't actually believe many people visited the redheaded webpage, so frankly I thought I could tinker with it and maybe some kid would stumble upon it and start taking pride in their appearance. It's awesome that others have taken notice and someone actually copied it to their user page. I have come back now and then to post names of other men I forgot or just didn't realize WERE redheads (another reason for the list. Who knew Vivaldi was a redhead, really). Lo and Behold the list is gone. My blood starts to boil, then I find this discussion.

I'd like to address some of the criticism.

First, it's true some of the names weren't notable. I went from memory and from the "Redhead Encyclopedia." Unfortunately, the Encyclopedia thinks just about everyone was redheaded. Also, turns out "Jeremiah Johnson" wasn'real. My bad. But Robert Redford played him, and he is. I've taken down names when I found out they weren't redheads. Or didn't exist...

Second, I'm American. Non-Americans probably won't know who Bill Walton is. Bill Walton is a hall-of-fame pro basketball player. That's a big deal here. Is it really a problem if Bill Walton isn't world famous? I wish I knew more non-American redheads. I don't. Please post names of redheads famous in your country, then people could find out who they were and it would be interesting for everyone.

Lastly, one has remarked "they're not notable redheads, they're redheaded and notable." I don't understand this. That's like saying "Martin Luther King Jr. is not a famous African-American. He just happens to be famous AND African-American." Putting people on the list who are famous BECAUSE of their red hair would be the useless decision. Who wants to be famous for only that anyway. How shallow.

We're the smallest minority in the world (unless you'd like to get into "People named Adolf" and "minorities" like that.) If we do anything on a national scale, isn't that notable in itself? I did it to instill pride more than anything, something we need more of. I almost put myself on there to, for laughs. This is a select club. Anyways, it's not like the individuals on there aren't famous for something. Carrot Top is the King of prop comedy in the United States. No, he didn't win any World Cups. But we'll take what we can get.

Obviously I'd like to see the list remain. We need to monitor it to ensure Allison doesn't return and we need to expand it to include more non-Americans. I want people to realize redheads have done great things and will do great things in the future, despite all the prejudice and unwanted attention we receive sometimes. I mean, Hell, the article details the mutation of chromosome so-and-so and the theories of red hair migration. I don't think a few lists of famous redheads will make the article any more ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.5.59 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that, as CDA noted, wikipedia aims to be 'encyclopedic', and there has been a lot of thought given to what this means. Here's the style guideline on lists of people: WP:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people. Your MLK example is not really fair, since I think most people would associate his work in civil rights with his experience as an African-American, and would be happy to put him on a list of notable African Americans. Actually, MLK is an instructive example of how lists can work well: he is listed on the List of civil rights leaders, which itself is listed on the 'list of lists' page List of African Americans . For an example of how lists can get out of hand see List of Canadians, especially the acrimonious talk page discussion about who should be on the list and what it should represent. In any case, if you decide to try to maintain the list, I'm pretty certain it should go on its own page. Good luck! (Oh, also, if you are going to be doing much editing, you will probably find it really helpful to create an account, so that you can keep track of your edit history, get feedback from others, etc.) Cheakamus (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's how all interesting articles and lists get deleted from Wikipedia. The Battle For Wikipedia's Soul. I just watched the South Park episode "Ginger Kids", in which the only 'ginger' Cartman can come up with is Ron Howard. I was wondering if Wikipedia had a list with more people and... YES, you did it again, the list has been deleted. Someone put a lot of effort into creating one and you deleted it. Way to go. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Red Heads

Physical anthropologists distinguish "clear" red hair from red-brown hair, although the casual observer may not. In "The Physical Anthropology of Ireland" by Earnest A. Hooton (1955) which involved about 10,000 subjects he found the following:

Clear red.....4.2% (true red)
Red-brown.....5.3% (reddish)

(I have always wondered why the Irish are stereotypically regarded as largely red haired or light-haired when the actual percentages are 9.5% for red and reddish and 10.4% for the combined lights.) 156.63.68.221 13:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)iwerdhon

[edit] Johann Nestroy

Johann Nestroy's play Der Talisman is all about prejudice against red-heads.. Churchh 12:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this notable?

I've removed the following section from the article for the moment, as I have concerns about its notability. Any comments? In the event of there being consensus for restoring it, some re-writing is also indicated. Michaelbusch 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redhead gatherings

-

About 1000 red-haired people, mainly women, pose for a group photo at the 2007 redheads gathering in Breda, the Netherlands.
About 1000 red-haired people, mainly women, pose for a group photo at the 2007 redheads gathering in Breda, the Netherlands.

- In the last few years, some massive gatherings of red-haired people have taken place. Possibly motivated by news articles on the extinction of red-haired people, and enabled by the availability of social networking websites where red-haired people gather virtually, two large scale redhead gatherings have been organised in the Netherlands in 2005 and 2007. The gathering in 2007 was attended by about 1000 red-haired people. On September 7, 2008, a large scale Global Gathering is planned (website), and thousands of red haired people are expected from different countries, including the US and Canada. The gatherings are organised by Dutch artpainter Bart Rouwenhorst, who mainly paints red-haired women.

[edit] concerning the topic redheads gatherings

Michael has been repeatingly deleting the part on redheads gatherings in order to force a discussion on the relevancy of this topic. I wonder if this is the correct way of doing things. Discussing first, taking actions based on the outcome of the discussion next, would be a more appropriate way in my opinion.

motivation for inclusion in the wikipedia page on red hair. 1. wikipedia should only contain facts, not opinions. i think this is true, the text contains some bare fact, which can be checked. Further, there are two explanations offered, which are founded, but may be improved. Finally, actual developments are described. there are no opinions, or advertisements, or any commercial interests involved. 2. wikipedia facts should be relevant to the subject. i think this applies. in this wiki, it is for example mentioned that redheads bruise more easily. this is a popular believe, and that why it is mentioned, and explained. Gatherings of people that have red hair is also a topic that is often in the news (in Europe more than in the US I think). In the future, it may be more in the news than it is today. I think it is appropriate if Wiki treats this subject, just like bruising. Also, these red heads gatherings are unique and typical for this hair colour. I do not know of any gathering of blondes, or brunettes, or black hair. I think the social bond that redhaired people have is unique, causing redheads gatherings, and this should be mentioned in the redhead wiki.

Finally, Michael deleted this part mentioned the Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy. There, it can be read: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies."

I think this applies to my contribution to the red hair wiki. I made the concerned photo myself, and do know a lot about redheads and redhead gatherings as an organiser. To prevent possible discussion on conflict of interests, I made the text on redheads gatherings as neutral and informative as possible. However, improvements are welcome.

Deleting te entire text without prior discussion on the red hair discussion page, is not.

kind regards,

Bartart 08:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove that material to 'force a discussion on the relevancy of this topic'. I removed it because it does not, in my opinion, satisfy Wikipedia:Notability and then opened the thread here after deciding that there might be objection. I realize that this is not quite in accordance with the strict letter of policy. I mentioned WP:COI in my notice to you so that you would be aware of it. Your conflict-of-interest with regards to this section makes your assertion of its notability insufficient grounds for inclusion. Please do not restore the material yourself - there must be consensus for putting it back. Michaelbusch 08:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please, please, use the policy that Wikipedia prescribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies states "Editing policy Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid making large deletions without discussing on the talk page first."

If you want to break the wikipedia policy, please explain why you think you should break it.

if your state that the relevancy of the specific topic is questionable, please explain why. Coverage in secondary sources is widerange ans sustaining. Search for "roodharigendag" on google, for example.

you repeatingly remove a large part of an article, contrary to wikipedia policy, and the only way to stop you is by discussing on this page. That is why I stated that you 'force a discussion on the relevancy of this topic'.
concluding: Please refrain from breaking wikipedia policy, this policy was not invented for everyone-but-you. If you want a discussion about relevancy of the redheads gathering
1. restore the text on the red hair page
2. open a discussion on the discussion page
3. argue why you think that the topic is not notable
Bartart 11:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bartart, don't try to wikilawyer. I've been here long enough to know policy, and I know full well that I skirted rather close to the edge with removing the content - but that was before I recognized your conflict-of-interest. In the case of blatant COI, large blocks of text may be removed (see also WP:ADVERT). You have added material to the article which I deem un-notable. Therefore, I removed it. You contest this, fair enough. But given you conflict of interest on this matter - which is, I believe, being the organizer of these gatherings? - your assertion of notability is not sufficient. Let someone else add it back in. I operate under that same restriction. Michaelbusch 17:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Can some-one please tell Micheal that it it not nessesary to do things that are "not quite in accordance with the strict letter of policy", or to "skirt rather close to the edge [of the wikipedia editing policy]" (quotes of Micheal)
In the mean time, Micheal, could you be so polite to explain why you think that the topic of the acticle is not notable? Or is it your personal right to delete texts without explanation? So far, your explanation of a possible low relevancy is "it is not notable", which is rather short. Do you think that the number of references is too little, that the topic should be elsewhere, do you think the secondary resourses are low quality, or is there another explanation? I agree with you that my personal opinion is not important, therefore i gave you evidence of relevancy of the topic: number of references, and a way to find these resources.

And please tell me and all other users why you think it is wrong to keep the text on the page, while discussing the relevancy, like wikipedia policy suggests.

Bartart 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

I've looked at the material, and at Michaelbusch's editing, and I find that Michaelbusch has acted appropriately. It is appropriate to question a sudden input of unsourced material, especially when that material appears to be Spam. And a good method of doing that is to cut and paste the material onto the talk page and ask for comments. It is not advised to put back the questionable material without some discussion and a consensus being reached. This is the procedure that has been developed on Wikipedia; this is the procedure that has been found to work best; and this is the procedure that Michaelbusch has followed. Added to which, the material does appear to be a conflict of interest in that Bartart appears to be the person organising the gathering. And finally, the material could be considered to be trivial. I'm not convinced that the material adds anything significant to the topic of Red hair, and could be seen to detract from an article that is developing quite soundly. There are one or two other sections of the article that are verging on trivial and the article could benefit from a close examination and a possible clean up. I would not advise replacing the material that Michaelbusch has removed. Any question, please ask. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction

SilkTork, thank you for your third opinion. I do not share your opinion on triviallity or classification as spam, but I understand that my background strongly suggests COI, and I respect the opinion of the majority.

Bartart 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Red Hair and Islam

Is the first paragraph in the Religious and Mythological traditions true? If someone with some more knowledge than me in this subject could check this over it would be much appreciated. --Bremerenator (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the men?

I'd like to spark discussion over the fact redheaded men are discussed, well, almost never in the article. Practically all we have on the page is the pic of that guy with a goofy grin.

In the positive attitudes, there is not a single word about men. We do have one sentence I spotted in the prejudice/discrimination portion about Prince Harry.

This is the double standard I routinely see. Despite our extremely low numbers, there have been a number of redheaded political and military figures who have shaped our world. Eisenhower and Churchill, to name two.

Prince Harry is third in line to the British crown, a military officer, world famous, young, attractive. But what do we know about him? "He was bullied at school."

This is why I created the notable redheaded men list--to show that we do, in fact, exist among various colors and amongst redheaded women and shockingly, we can do great things despite being called "Carrot Top" when we were five.


Also, the modern fiction section is weak. Writers use redheaded characters all the time, albeit usually for weirdos and promiscuous characters. If I hadn't already written an entirely too long post about the "notables" list, I'd be willing to do more work on improving it right now.

There's "The Da Vinci Code," where red hair is a sign of the royal bloodline.

Lord of the Flies and Nausea are two other books the spring to mind with redheaded characters.

Does anyone have any comments about my statements or ideas on how to incorporate the male sex into our "red hair" page or on improving the modern fiction list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.5.59 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"We need to monitor it to ensure Allison doesn't return" - lol :) Let me assure you that Alison hasn't gone anywhere. Indeed, she spends her time reverting vandalism here. In seriousness, the problem with your recent edits is that you're adding meaningless lists of names to articles; that's just listcruft (see WP:LISTCRUFT for more info). If there's isn't enough "maleness" in the article, or if you think it's biased, it's better to address that directly by providing cited sources, etc to make your point. Adding lists of red-headed guys just turns into bloat as ever red-haired guy on the planet ends up there - Alison ❤ 02:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This article as been through this before. Lists of people (of whatever gender) who just happen to have red hair is list cruft. They all have red hair... and... so what? In the vast majority of cases their hair colour is completely irrelevant to who they are and why they are notable. And the problem with allowing these lists to exist is they invariably continue to grow, gathering name after totally pointless name, until you have paragraphs of names that absolutely no-one is going to plough through, and that mean absolutely nothing. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


"Early artistic representations of Mary Magdalene usually depict her as having long flowing red hair, although a description of her hair color was never mentioned in the Bible, and it is possible the color is an effect caused by pigment degradation in the ancient paint. This tradition is used as a plot device in the book and movie The Da Vinci Code."

-This is what I'm talking about. Judging by this statement, The Da Vinci Code believes the redheaded line comes thru Mary. The Da Vinci Code did not say that. There are just as many representations of Christ with red hair. But, along with the rest of the page, females dominate. Is no one else seeing this? If we're to have a page about redheads, give the guys some love.

As for the list, again the belief the list is somehow going to "invariably continue to grow" and that "every red-haired guy on the planet ends up there" is silly, but I understand the perspective.

Would it be all right to insert names of notable men within the other sections of the article, much like what occured with the women? That would correct every drawback associated with just listing names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.5.59 (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have relevant and cited examples of the cultural representation of red-headed males, then by all means please add them in the appropriate places. And when I say relevant, I mean that there's a point to mentioning them, other than "some famous people have red hair". Was their notability reliant on their hair colour? Is their portrayal a particular example of attitudes to red-heads? A random list of men who just happen to have red hair adds nothing to the value of the article, or indeed Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redheads in the US

That figure from that article seems suspect- was this just reffering to the white population of the US, or the entire country? The idea of 6-18 million redheads in the entire US seems vastly too high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.130.174 (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, where is this figure for so many jews being redheaded? I've never seen a single redhaired ashkenazi in my life. The european genetic contribution to the Ashkenazi came entirely from areas where red hair is very uncommon, so where does this come in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.130.174 (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know two ashkenazi jews with red hair. A more important question to ask is whether or not the prevalence of red hair among ashkenzai jews is statistically significantly higher than the prevalence of red hair in the general population. This would obviously apply to any ethnic group, not just ashkenzai jews. Additionally, the prevalence of red heads among orthodox jews is probably lower than among jews (and gen. pop.) because they are less likely to marry and have kids with people from another ethnic group, thus reducing likelihood of introducing recessive genes. Dachande (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there also an entry from before on this page about MCR1 have a pleitropic effect on personality traits, supposedly going in line with the idea of redheads being fiery? I don't know. From personal experience, I've never met a single redhead who fit in with this, and just one or two who came off as ditzy or goofy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.130.174 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture section tidy-up

I did a bit of tidying in the Culture section. We can't just list people (real or fictional) just because they have red hair! I've listed these deleted sections below in case anyone wants to discuss them.

[edit] From:Beliefs about temperament

The writer of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson, famous American patriot and orator Patrick Henry, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill were all red-headed.

[edit] From:Positive attitudes toward redheads

In comics, cartoons and science fiction, female characters with red hair (and often green eyes) are frequently portrayed as strong and "fiery" personalities. Examples are: Asuka Langley Sohryu (from Neon Genesis Evangelion), Mara Jade (from the Star Wars Expanded Universe), Lady Jessica (of Frank Herbert's Dune universe), Barbara Gordon (the DC Comics Universe heroine), Mary-Jane Watson (wife of Spider-Man), Jean Grey (founding X-Man), Poison Ivy (Batman villain), Shayera Hol (Justice League animated series), Red Sonja (of Marvel Comics' Conan and Kull canons), Lois Griffin (Family Guy), Ariel (The Little Mermaid), and Kimberly Ann Possible (Kim Possible).
Many Goths with bright hair color to red and there are some notable Gothic metal singers with red hair, such as Simone Simons, Floor Jansen and Anneke van Giersbergen.
American writer Mark Twain, a redhead himself wrote: "While the rest of the species is descended from apes, redheads are descended from cats".[1] Bruce Springsteen praised his wife, Patti Scialfa, in the bawdy song "Red-Headed Woman", The Zutons missed the "ginger hair" of an ex-girlfriend in their song "Valerie", while Jack White of the White Stripes has mentioned red hair in such songs as "Fell in Love with a Girl", "Icky Thump (song)", "300 MPH Torrential Outpour Blues" and "Take, Take, Take".

[edit] From: Prejudice/Discrimination towards redheads

Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, mentions many redheads, including twin-witch/vampires Maharet and Mekare in Queen of the Damned, Maharet's fledgling Thorne in Blood and Gold, her other fledgling and once-mortal blood descendant, Jesse Reeves (also introduced in Queen of the Damned), Mona Mayfair in Blackwood Farm and Armand, described as an auburn red in Interview with the Vampire. In Dracula, the vampire-hunter Abraham Van Helsing is ironically depicted as having red hair and blue eyes.
Prince Harry was bullied at school because of his red hair.[2]

[edit] From:Modern fiction

Several children's book characters are depicted with red hair, including Pippi Longstocking, Anne of Green Gables, and Little Orphan Annie.
Many of Robert A. Heinlein's characters were redheads, inspired by his red-headed wife Virginia.[3]
In Doctor Who (2005), David Tennant's Tenth Doctor is disappointed not to be ginger. As he says, he's rude and not ginger and he wanted to be ginger because he's never been in his past regenerations.
Another powerful red hair-related fiction novel is the international bestseller Perfume (originally published in German as Das Parfum) by Patrick Süskind. The main character, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, a man with an incredible sense of scent, is engaged in creating the most powerful perfume of them all. The heart of it, the fragrance of Laura Richis, a beautiful red hair young virgin.
In the film The Last King of Scotland, Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin maintains that while attractive to their own kind (Northern Europeans), Africans find red hair revolting.[citation needed]


I wonder if it is worth adding to this article that the recessive nature of the red-head gene was one of the jokes in a series of sketches on the tv show, Laugh-In. These sketchwere about Fred and Fanny Farkle, & their best friend Ferd, who had red hair...as did all of the Farkle children. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Extinction of Red Hair

On a number of occasions I've been told that red hair is becoming extinct. Is this true? Is it a commonly held belief? Most importantly, is it worthy of mentioning in the article. 86.40.210.191 (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I thought I was signed in. Blaise Joshua (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The clue is in the introductory paragraph; Red hair appears in people with two copies of a recessive gene on chromosome 16 which causes a change in the MC1R protein. This means that for someone to pass on their red hair to their children they first need a partner who carries the same gene (even if they're not a redhead themselves), and then there is only a 33% chance of a child inheriting red hair (if I understand it correctly). So in the long run the odds are stacked against red hair, particularly as populations increasingly mingle. Eventually it's doomed to disappear, but that's not going to happen any time soon. It may be worth mentioning in the Evolution section, but I couldn't find a decent cite. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. That's a rather vague clue for persons like me who only have a basic education : o ) Blaise Joshua (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've heard the same said about blonde hair (search on bbc website if u want) .. but is probably just sensationalism since everyone has the gene anyway and also if it were true red hair could reappear in future (if we don't destroy humanity first). --maxrspct ping me 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a hoax. Just like the "Disappearing blonde" hoax in 2002. And I'm sure many more people than is presently known have copies of the red hair gene even if it isn't expressed. I also read a while back that the only reason a trait would disappear is it it held an evolutionary disadvantage which red hair does not have.

Vala M (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a hoax and here is the proof:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/redhead-extinction.htm

Apparently, it started circulating about 6 months ago.

Vala M (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article. Certainly the idea that red-heads would disappear by 2060 was always going to be bunk. I was thinking more in the range of thousands of years. But then in that time scale, redheads aren't the only things that could change. Perhaps it would be worth adding this in the "Evolution" section, as it is a popular myth that could do with being cleared up. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think it should be mentioned for good measure.

Vala M (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, having red hair *is* an evolutionary disadvantage, but having a single recessive gene is not.
This site was recently set up on the extinction basis: http://redhedd.com/Salopian (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's only an evolutionary disadvantage if it inhibits your opportunities to reproduce. Red heads are not at a disadvantage, it's a trait that a great number of people find attractive.--RLent (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

~ Hi, im mallorie i just wanted to tell you that, ive looked on the internet and and ive been to websites, where they've shown me that Redheads Will be extinct in the year 2100, Here is a website i found ~ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2002266852_redhair09.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.0.134 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just a version of white people in general becoming extinct. First you'll have blondes, then redheads, then people with blue eyes, and in the end humanity shall all look Central Asian. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sociological analysis of "Gingerphobia"?

Has anyone ever seen any analysis of why "Gingerphobia" is such a phenomenon in the UK? I suspect it has to do with political strife between the English and the Irish and Scots, but I don't have any source to back that up. Does anyone know? Steve CarlsonTalk 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll find any cites on this. I doubt it has anything to do with what you suggest. More likely the it's just a fashionable target for those who feel the need to denigrate others. Previously they would have targeted blacks, or Irish, but that's no longer PC. So some other minority has to fill in. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Gingerophobia is present in many other countries as well, like Germany or Russia. Red hair is traditionally associated with various otherworldly things. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for both of your comments, I appreciate the dialog. Interesting association between red hair and otherworldly things. Would love to see a reference for that one. I agree that it's probably not on the scale of the historical oppression of blacks and the Irish, but the fact that it has widespread traction in English society suggests that it has some meaning besides just redheads being an easy target. Why redheads? Why not tall people, or people with bushy eyebrows, or something else? Steve CarlsonTalk 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's an odd one and you won't find any good sources for it. Purley speculating I would disregard the England/Scotland/Ireland conflicts as the 'phobia' is possibly from pre-English times.
We know for sure that redheads were in abudence in the north of Britain from Roman accounts, we also know from Roman accounts that the people of West Britain (wales, cornwall?) were dark haired (once again roman accounts) so maybe there was a conflict between those people, and maybe thats why most of the land between those borders have brown hair?
We know for sure that the Picts (scottish) were fighters and often headed south to attack settlements, maybe this is why there is a 'phobia' of gingers? None the less there is a large population of redheads in England anyhow. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In Poland there was some resentment against redheads which had been ascribed to antisemitism (Slawic people never have red hair and among jewish people red hair is not uncommon.) However the reference for this would be a german book, and I guess that is not allowed here, right? (It is a very well written book with good references, though. Written by a former TV-news anchorwomen with red hair (Irmela Hanover [[2]])) Gerriet42 (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Gingers

There ought to be a list of famous people with red hair Brett (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about having red hair and being famous, unless you are famous because you have red hair. Very few people match this criteria. This article used to have a list of "famous redheads", but it just got out of hand and a random mess, as these kind of lists usually do. So we don't need it back. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
How about individuals like Carrottop? Without red hair, he would not be famous, ergo he is famous because of his read hair. Brett (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sunscreen and melanoma use

someone keeps saying that sunscreen use increases risk of melanoma and this is NOT TRUE!!!!! Someone edit to remove this dangerous inaccuracy - their reference for this statement is an article that is not even remotely linked to the statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.13.116 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My Comment: The reference ([3]) is perfectly clear about the negative effects of sunscreen use. It critizises the use of benzophenone-derivatives because it is a free radical generator. The reference is a copy of a scientific article that has been peer-reviewed. So are the citations in this reference. There are many articles which proof epidemiologically that sunscreen use is linked to a higher risk for melanoma development, and there are laboratory experiments which explain the mechanism of this effect: sunscreen does surpass the epidermal barrier, and it does get into contact with living tissue. Than it generates free radicals which do increase the damage to DNA.! Regions in which the sunscreen use had been promoted are the ones, where the melanoma rate has increased most steeply. Sunscreen is photocarcinogenic. Epidemiology: [4] [5] [6] Very good Lab experiments: [7] other lab experiments: [8] [9] Gerriet42 (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to enter a debate about the facts or cites here. Since it is only tangentially relevant to red hair (hair doesn't get skin cancer) its addition here is placing undue weight on a contested research. WhatGerriet42 is contributing to this, and other pages on Wikipedia, is disputed and has not reached a consensus on the Sunscreen article itself, where it is most relevant. This article is not the place to outline all the pros and cons of this disputed subject, it belongs on the Sunscreen page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What annoys me so much is that most people are not aware of the dispute that is going on in the scientific world. The average user has an unlimited confidence into sunscreens - even so many are proven to be photocarcinogenic. Take the example of Queensland in Australia: How do you explain, that this region is getting a higher Melanoma rate after PABA containing sunscreens had been heavily promoted? Did all the people with fair skin move to Queensland? Unlikely. Was the Ozone- hole only over Queensland and not over the rest of Australia? Unlikely since Queensland is in the north. Redheaded people should at least know that there is a discussion about the subject. So the reference does belong in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerriet42 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agreee with Escape_Orbit... it just doesn't fit in this article, at least as you added it. If you can find something that says that redheads use more sunscreen, then it would make sense. That might be a reasonable assumption, but it is just an assumption unless you can find some evidence.
Your entries in the sunscreen article are the right place for the information. This isn't a place for you to spread the word about this topic. The debate is certainly very interesting regarding sunscreens, but it doesn't make sense here unless you can:
    • Reference some research that relates to sunscreen usage to red hair.
    • Make it a balanced, mentioning that most doctors recommend sunscreen (especially for fair-skinned people), but some recent research questions whether sunscreen actually increases the rate of skin cancer.
    • Make it brief, linking to the main suncreen article. Wshallwshall (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. Unless the cites specifically mention people with red hair, inclusion of this information on this article is original synthesis by Gerriet42 --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Gerriet42's recent (April 15th 2008) edits. We've been through this before. Unless your cites specifically mention people with red hair you are indulging in original synthesis. You are saying;

  • A - Suncream may cause skin cancer
  • plus B - Red haired people worry more about sunburn and may use a lot of suncream
  • therefore C - Red haired people in particular may get cancer through suncream use.

Unless you can cite a reputable source for this it is your own synthesis, and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Autier is talking about poor tanners and about skin type I individuals. I think redheads fall into these category. I want these edits back in there, because skin type I individuals are affected by the mistakes more severely than others. This is exactly what you where asking for. Do not use the argument that skin type I individuals are not necessarily redheads, that would be to ridiculous. Gerriet42 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm going to use the argument that redheads (you know, what the article is about) are not necessarily skin type I individuals. And you "think" redheads fall into this category? Wikipedia isn't interested in what you "think", it's interested in what you can cite. You cannot cite that Philip Autier is talking about redheads, so you have decided for yourself. Please stop adding this material to this article. You have been asked before and it has been explained before. This article is not about suncream and the connection between it and redheads is only as established by you. This is blatant original synthesis. Please read what this policy has to say and explain why what you are doing is not original synthesis. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've continued this discussion on Gerriet42's talk page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical implications of the red hair gene

In the first line, there's a quote "There is little or no evidence to support the belief that redheads are more likely than non-redheads to hemorrhage or suffer other bleeding complications" then in the same paragraph, an explanation for that hypothesis is presented without linking the two: "One study found that redheads are more sensitive to thermal pain (a natural vitamin K deficiency is to blame for this)".

If natural red heads have a natural vitamin K deficiency[10], then hemorrhaging and/or other bleeding complications would be a valid concern since vitamin K is necessary for proper blood coagulation [11].

As for the higher rates of bruising, could it be due to the fact that red heads have paler skin and any aberration would be more visible? Tamar 16:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hormones

I removed the following paragraph:

There is some indication that the uncommon pheomelanin/eumelanin ratios found in redheads may be correlated with some corresponding variations in the abundance of other hormones and neuropeptides, including epinephrine (adrenaline), dopamine, and oxytocin [citation needed]. Wolves which are bred to be tame have been found to acquire a progressively paler coat of fur as they become tamer and tamer through successive generations. The speculation is that the cell biology which produces epinephrine (adrenaline) and estrogens needed for the high-energy fight-or-flight response is linked to the cell biology that governs the relative production of pheomelanin and eumelanin.[citation needed]

Googling "red hair epinephrine dopamine" and other combinations didn't bring up anything relevant other than a speculative blog.Fionah (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] picture of the redheaded male

There is some jackass, who is constantly trying to bring his propaganda against redheaded people into this article. His edit (inserting a picture): [[4]] The picture has obviously been chosen in order to ridicule redheads. The picture: [[5]]
And the user who is doing this has an account only for this purpose. His edits: [[6]] Can we block the user Ridley276 somehow? I don't know how to do it, so somebody else please do so. And tell me how to demand such a block of one user for one specific wiki-page.Gerriet42 (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Settlement of British Isles

I've reverted recent addition by Trigaranus. The issue raised (dispute over population movement and settlement of British Isles) appear to be very much a contested matter within the relevant WP article. (Settlement of Great Britain and Ireland). The cited book appears to be a minority view and introducing the issue here is not helpful and probably constitutes undue weight within an article that really has little to do with it. If and when it is resolved elsewhere we can consider the matter here. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Villains in fiction often have Red Hair.

This is just personal research, but it's just crazy to think about. OK, here are all the villains from books, movies, videogames, whatever, that have red hair... Ganondorf (Zelda), Doctor Ivo Robotnik (Sonic), Bowser (Mario), Uriah Heep (David Copperfield), Dr. Octopus (Spiderman), that's just to name a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.198 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] origins

In reference to the origins section in the post on red hair, Rees (2004) says nothing about sexual attraction what-so-ever. The study does talk about African populations having low genetic diversity at MC1R and suggest that it is under functional constraint in that population whereas there is increased diversity in European populations and two possible reasons are given. One is that there is selection for functionally significant variants in non-African populations and the other is merely due to what might be expected under neutral theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskm (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)