This is an archive of past discussions about Blond. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, Im a Norwegian boy who's studying. I think the % map is correctly for the scandinavian country, but i think it's lower
for the other ones. I live in the west of norway, and 50-55% in my class got blonde hair. So, yes this maps i correctly for my class atleast. The numbers for my old class were something like 55-60%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.163.14 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it known what population of the Earth is blond?
The section "Distribution" includes the preceding passage and then proceeds to list a number of countries where, presumably, blond hair is in the majority. Okay, first of all, as far as I know blonde hair isn't in the majority anywhere, not even in Finland, the country which is supposed to have the highest proportion of blonds. What I've heard about the UK indicates that natural blonds are less than 5% of the population, which is even more egregious. Secondly, and more importantly in my mind, there's no citation, which is the least you'd expect from such claims. I'll be adding a citation needed tag, and somebody needs to either rewrite that section or justify its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.25.242 (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I would second this view, fast-blonds (blondism retained from childhood into maturity) are not in a majority in any ethnic or national group. The term "majority" should be changed to "the highest frequency" or "highest incidence." Urselius09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, according to this paper [1] the percentage of depigmented hair in Finland, Sweden and Norway ranges from 50% to more than 80% thus giving an average of more than 50% making depigmented hair the majority there. This can be easily verified by looking at the second form (high school) school pictures from the area. Of course this depends on the definition of fair hair (the amount of pigment). Clarifer09:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I had actually noticed this problem when I edited it from Scandinavia to Nordic countries for the inclusion of Finland due to its high frequency there. Conducting some searches in that document yielded no references to the percentage of blondes in any of those countries listed, so I've neutralized the passage some. It's also 2:55 AM and I'm about to go to bed, which could partly explain my inability to find it. Sicilianmandolin09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that 50% of Germans or Austrians are blonde? The vast majority of both countries have brown hair. The majority of the population of the Netherlands is also brown-haired. I believe there is more blonde hair in Britain than in Austria. In fact, the link in the citation suggests that parts of Britain have similar rates of fair hair and eyes to Scandinavia, and higher than in Nothern Germany. What is the point of using sources if you don't quote them accurately? I have a feeling the definition of 'fair' in that map is very different from what most europeans would recognise. NOWHERE IN THE WORLD is 50% of the population blond - or anywhere near that. A third, in parts of Finland and Sweden, is as high as it gets, I'm afraid.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.28.204 (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not true, in my opinion: Most Germans and Austrians do have fair hair, if you look at younger people. And I guess there are more blonde people than in Britain, where you will also find lots of very dark people and quite a few reddish folks. By the way, red hair colour is an independent characteristic and has nothing to do with "blonde" - the genetic feature of "red hair" can be found among all populations in the world (including for instance Chinese, in fact I recently met a Chinese girl in a bus with a very light skin full of freckles, so even freckles can be found among people with really dark (de facto black) hair). It is only among lighter hair colour that the "red feature" can be more easily *seen*, with darker hair colour the "red feature" is often just a shimmer, but it definitely also exists among Black Africans, for instance.
Back to fair hair: There are countries where the majority is blonde, Finland being the most excellent example! And this is not even a "Nordic" country in the sense of "nordic race" because Finnish people share lots of more "Western" characteristics. Do you think Mika Häkkinen is an example of nordic race? Not at all, there are many better examples in Germany, for instance. - Again back to blonde hair: Ever noticed how the young people are blonde, but the parents have dark hair? Do you ever notice the opposite (both parents blonde, but children dark-haired)? While the former is frequent and even to be expected, the latter does not happen! Most people's hair gets darker when they get older (only to be disturbed by hair turning grey, but this is a different phenomenon). And a 20 year old or even 30 year old person is not "finished" when it comes to hair and hair colour: The blonde hair of a 30year old man can get brown by the age of 50 (if it hasn't turned "grey" yet!). Likewise, body hair increases and increases even long after 30 or 40!! A 25 year old man can have a chest without any hair, but be full of hair at age 50! On the other hand a blonde at 25 that is brunette at 50 (and since about age 45) has had a life as a blonde for 45 years, so who would argue that he is not a "real" blonde!? The often heard statement that a blonde young man (or woman) at age 20 with dark eye-brows is not a "real" blonde, because this marker (esp. the colour of the eye-lashes) reveals his real hair colour is dark, is nonsense - such a dark browed person can be a blonde till age 40 or more before getting darker hair - so are all those decades of being blonde irrelevant? Idiotic. And those who were blonde till 20 have been blonde till 20, so what? - Just my 2, uh, 20 cents here. 91.50.2.158 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of Germany and Austria don't have brown hair but blonde and light-mixed hair. The Netherlands, too. You can still believe there is more blonde hair in Britain than Austria but that doesn't change the fact.
--Zylan (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This is BS. For instance, in Spain and Portugal golden hair is considered blonde. In northern Europe it is considered brown. If those lighter shades of blonde are to be considered, then in Portugal and Spain the average percentages of blondes would be 10 to 15% and in Northern Germany, Scandinavia, etc, would surpass the 50%. If only yellow yellow hair is to be considered blonde then Portugal and Spain would have 1-2% blondes and Northern Europe 30-35%. Of course golden hair is blonde. Of course there are places in the world where the majority of the people are blondes: Northern Europe, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.47.20 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Anon, anything can be proclaimed "BS" when one makes unsourced statements. Would you care to contribute something valuable to this conversation?--65.249.48.127 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Neoteny
No mention is made of fast-blondism being a neotenous trait (a characteristic carried forward into maturity from an earlier developmental stage). The vast majority of blond-haired children do not become blond-haired adults, blondism is therefore, in the first instance, an infantile characteristic. I was platinum blond as a two year old but as an adult am dark-brown of hair.
This also accounts for two phenomena - the sexual appeal of the blonde female is hightened by subconscious signals of infantility - children are blond - therefore blondness can be seen as a "protect-me signal" eliciting protectiveness in the male.
The infantile characteristic of blondism also accounts for the "dumb-blond" stereotype. Children are not as capable and mentally able as adults, therefore people showing infantile characteristics will be viewed in the same light. Urselius09:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there some citation for Marilyn Monroe and Jean Harlow "causing an unrealistic, more or less scandalous and otherwise negative image of real blond hair"? This seems to be someone's undocumented opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breendix (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It would also seem to get causation backward; there were "dumb blondes" before Monroe. I'll try to cleanup the section a little. rewinn (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Genetics of blond hair??
If both parents are raven haired, will the child still be raven haired or not?? My uncle and aunt both are raven haired, but my cousin (eldest child) is a blond (she was born with raven hair though).
59.184.138.11 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)div12359.184.138.11 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Blond and pale skin?
Blond probably isn't that causal for pale skin.
According to PETER FROST, Why Do Europeans Have So Many Hair and Eye Colors?:
"Yet skin color is weakly influenced by the different alleles for hair color or eye color, apart from the ones for red hair or blue eyes. Some have no effect at all on skin pigmentation."
And, you have also to know Duffy et al. 2004, Interactive effects of MC1R and OCA2 on melanoma risk phenotypes: "All blue-eyed R/R individuals (means both copies are "strong-effect" (thus R and not r) recessive redhair-genes) were in the fair/pale skin category (of three) but this decreased to 85.4% with fair/pale skin for brown/green-eyed R/R individuals, the remainder having medium skin color. This proportionate lightening in all genotypic groups when carrying both recessive blue-eyed b and red-hair R alleles indicates additive action of MC1R and BEY2/OCA2 loci on constitutive skin color."
The first statement would say that blondness has only a minor influence on skin by itself, and the reason for a higher incidence for pale skin at blondes must be, that blond hair are more often accomplished by light eyes (because, I guess, they have a common origin in Europe).
Hair color is, as far as I know, mainly independent in inheritage from eye color, but by blondness, I don't know the genetics.
If we consider that, we must have doubt about the correctness of the following quotations from the article:
1. "Those who turn brunette as teens usually have more pigment to begin with; a slightly golden skin tone that tans a little more easily than the paler skin of true blonds, often (but not always) a richer, more golden-blond hair color..."
Here, the "paler skin of true blonds" is probably false, regardless that it is about children and not adults. Moreover the "more golden-blond hair" can be a sign for ginger-genes, which will doubtless stand for lighter skin (yes, i also think it is not easy to distinguish red, if it is not bright, from light brown, because in my homecountry are very few redhaired people).
2. "Generally, blond hair in Europeans is associated.....with pale (and sometimes freckled) skin tone."
Ok, not false, it may be associated, but not mainly by causality but by the concurrent of light eyes. Since I read about the topic, I have paid attention about it, and, here in Europe, it is quite common to see blonds with non light eyes whose skin isn't that paler than these of a brunette with non light eyes. I wonder that this hasn't stick out to me before I read this things. And yes, the hair are truly real blond and not bleached.
3. "True blonds often have platinum blond hair as children; pale skin with little pigment...."
Again probably right, but it is again like the above-mentioned. On TV it isn't uncommon to see real blondes (look at the hair near the skin or know it) who are not pale skinned.
In conclusion, I think that by a person, who is light eyed and blond haired, the major effect for light skin comes from the light eyes and the light hairs mainly a concurrent thing. We have also to remember that (according to Duffy et al.) in both, browns and blonds, can be a recessive ginger-gene, that can lighten the skin.
If I am right, we shoud probably mention that blond - light skinned thing in the article.
Let me know your knowdlege and experience in that affair.
213.202.38.169 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)fapa
I think that most of those statements are incorrect (blondes have light skin, grey eyes, light body hair, etc). Have you been to Britain? Most of the blondes there have blue or green eyes, from what I saw. My family and also my boyfriend's family are both almost exclusively blond, yet everyone's eyes in both families are blue or green, and also in mine at least, body hair tends to be dark blonde or light brown, particularly in the males. The blonde people with very blonde eyebrows, arm hair, leg hair, etc seem much rarer, at least from what I've seen of people in Canada (where I live) and the UK (which I go to often for work). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.217.93 (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Blonde and radioactive?
I have some conclusive evidence which has led me to believe all blond people are radioactive and should be avoided (the evidence was a french person told me so) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.148.149 (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be the rescue of the blond race; just imagine, all darkhaired men would stay away from blond women! --VKing (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Italy Blondism Map
I have a map of hair blondism in italy by R.Biasutti , the map of Peter Frost is wrong and little detailed ,i have not a wikipedia account and i can't post image , if someone is interested this is the link :
(percentage of pure blond hair, not dark blond or light brown )
Frost Maps are completely wrong , Greeks are darker like Turks but in the frost map Greece have light eyes more than Italy (wrong) the same thing for the Spain , Spaniards are more darker than Northern and Central italians but in his map they are more fair than Italians (wrong) . Whorever lives in Europe or visit Europe know this and whorever know a little geography know this , Italy borders Austria,Switzerland,France and Croatia ....Spain borders South France....Greece borders Turkey,Albania,Bulgaria and Macedonia.
Stop posting Coon's or map. It was a piece of shit as you mentioned above. How the fuck is Scotland light-haired? What on earth did Poland and Switzerland blonder than Germany??!?! And who is light-haired in East Turkey? Kurds, Armenians??!?!? No lingustic or ethnic group accords with it.
Now the facts:
Spaniards are not darker or lighter than Italians (they are appr. equal pigmented). Remember Celtic and Germanic settlements in Spain.
Greeks look like Turks (especially in the West Turkey).
Please use different resources before posting.
BTW, just from my personal experiences, Poland has more fair-hair than Germany :) Fair hair meaning from light to dark blond. As for true blondes (ie. yellow very light color) the rates are quite similar in both countries. Again, these are my impressions Szopen (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Dumb asses... No, Greeks are not like Turks. Look at the football team!
No, Spaniards are not like Italians. Spaniards are like Portuguese.
Italians are a bit lighter than Hispanics (Portuguese&Spaniards) but not much.
Hispanics blondes range from less than 5% in the Murcia region and reach some 20% in Galiza; Italians range from some 5% in Sicilia to some 20% in Milan. Hispanics are some 10% blonde in average, Italians 15%.
In what light eyes concerns, Italians have about 60% brown eyes, Hispanics 70 to 75%.
By the way I read somewhere (the same guy) that Hispanics and Irish were very close: both share the same Celtic core roots: Hispanics are 10% blonde, Irish 15%. But the Irish have more 10% of redheads while Hispanics are less than 1% Red Heads (it was claimed that red heads were more than 1% only in Galiza, Asturias and North-West Portugal (Entre Douro e Minho). His problem is that while Hispanics had some 10-15% blue eyes, the Irish have 40-50%... Wales almost like Ireland...
The bigger difference is that while the Irish and Welsh have Germanic admixture, Hispanics have North African admixture from the Iberian peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.96.206 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The section "Culturally-related ideas" refers to blondness as an icon of godliness. An early example of this is in Milton's "Paradise Lost" where it is clearly stated Adam and Eve are both blond (Adam, apparently, has naturally shorter hair than Eve...). Might this be a good inclusion in "Culturally-related ideas" ? rewinn (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't anyone feel weird about those theories? (blond women are more attractive, due to harsh environments, there were few men and many women back in Ice Age, so blonde were sexually selected and became predominant in Europe.)
I have a question - why male choice, not female choice? I took some biology classes in college, I know that most of animals in the animal kingdom are female choice, only a handful of them are male choice, and I don't think human will be that few exceptions.
since women become unavailable for 9-10 months once they get pregnant, and men can copulate multiple times as much as they want, even ancient male European put blond women on their priority "copulative list", I personally don't think this would dramatically increase blonde population in Europe. O.K., let's say there were few man and many women in Europe 10 thousand B.C. and men knocked up all blondie (now all blondies are pregnant and stay in house and become housewives now, or cavewives), would men just stop hanging around with other women? this theory has to assume that 1. men always chose blonde over non-blonde, if there were no blonde they rather commit suicide (or cut off their testicles at lowest measure), so they were always sexually unavailable for non-blond women; 2. men were strictly copulate with one women, or at least copulate only with blond women, so men were always sexually unavailable for non-blond women; 3. to back up assumption #2. blond women were never "run out of supply", so men won't copulate with non-blond women by any chance.
I think the opposite scenario makes more sense to me. Let's say women choose the men's trait they want for their children's appearance (i.e. blondness) or whatever reasons, so Ice Age European women chose to copulate with blond men, (remember that once women get pregnant, they are unavailable for 9-10 months, and they have to rear the children until they become independent, which could be 10+ years. and I don't think prehistoric human can live over 40 years. Female are always the limited resource in nature, isn't it?) non-blond men were select against, because they can't find their mates and pass their genes to the next generations, soon they were out of sight, therefore non-blond traits were efficiently reduced. I think this could explain why blonde can take a large portion of European population in relatively short time (this is a more reasonable theory than the previous theory, isn't it?).
Just personal thoughts. I just feel "cavemen sexually select blond women theory" violate a lot of biological rules I understand, and I guess the authors of the theory are side with men too, so their theory let men chose women. Why don't we think in another way? --Kerry7374 (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your classes left you with something of a narrow view of sexual selection; if females are always the limiting factor and always choose, then it's difficult to explain the human propensity for cuckolding or the female body, period.
Have you considered that if you propose blondeness to be an example of the Handicap principle with being blonde, before recorded history and chemicals, an unfakeable indicator of youth - there is an asymmetry between men and women that would favor the latter being selected for blondeness? (Men obviously want young productive females, but females don't have that particular bias, since they seek successful wealthy mates and not necessarily the most young and virile.) --Gwern (contribs) 05:41 30 March2008 (GMT)
Blonds have more and thinner hairs in their heads. This would retain heat in the head better in a cold climate. African hairs are thicker and fewer and release heat more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.159.217 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Frost
I think this theory is half-way and lacks a reflection on the spread of blond hair in countries like Britain. This according to a recent study, which is refered to in the w-article "english people". [[2]][[3]]
This theory could possibly fill the gap that the still relevant Frost theory leaves. After the end of the roman occupation of Britain the invading anglo-saxons, that where in minority, used an apartheid like system toward the celts. The result was that they, a few hundred years later was quite a large part of the islands inhabitants. The prescence of blond hair is also correlating to the Danelaw established by danish vikings. Is it reasonable to think that this was a result of a sexual spread and selection of the blond? I found it questionable. Rather, it was because of the establishment of male political and economical structures in the society. Then, obviously is there a possibility that powerful and influential men in the society, with favorable genes married blond women to a greater extent than brunettes and thereby giving the blond hair a favourable position. Do you consider this a relevant aspect or not?
The reason I point at this is that I find the Frost theory a bit silly and it seem to fascinate those who think on it in a way that is not scientifical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkjrl (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Black Pacific Islander kid with blonde hair
Despite one person up in Toronto, Canada, continually removing the photo of the black kid with blonde hair, coming up with various reasons from various IP addresses, at least three registered editors have preferred the photo stay in. I tried to move the photo up--it internationalizes the article and shows that blonde hair is not solely found in people of European heritage--but this IP editor felt that was no good. In the end, their lone demand doesn't trump clear consensus. --DavidShankbone06:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The map already "internationalizes" blonde hair as it shows the feature outside of Europe. A picture for which there is no space for in that section and which pushes down the pictures in the following section is not necessary - especially a picture showing an extremely rare occurrence of the feature. The occur once of blond hair (or yellow hair) in sub-Saharan Africa is so rare that its occurrence is negligible.
I second that. It is a very useful photo, presenting the relevant information in a way that no map can. rewinn (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The map shows much more information than that picture. Also, the map is realistic while the picture says "Africoid peoples have blond hair" which is absurd as it is an extremely rare mutation among them.
You accused this map of being Euro-centric, but the map also shows North Africa, Middle East, and Central Asia so it is it cannot be Euro-centric.
Don't play silly word games. The map is Eurocentric because it excludes several of the populations mentioned in the text; that at its edges it includes the Mediterranean & the Caucuses doesn't save it from Eurocentricism. If you want to call it Mediterraneo-Eurocentric I won't argue. The main problem with the map is that when you add it, you not only by implication ignore the SE Asians blond populations but also delete the important picture of a dark-skinned person with blond hair - which conveys information surely of greater interest to the reader than a map of ancestral populations. What with migrations and all, the map is not relevant to modern populations. If you want to fit both in, fine with me although the map should be more accurately labelled. BTW I've also deleted the catelogue of European countries since nearly all of the nations have been subject to massive migrations since the time that isolated populations of blonds developed.rewinn (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please be civil and do not accuse others of things. The map is simple not Euro-centric, which you accused it to be. It also includes Central Asia by the way. Outside of this region in the map, blondism is extremely rare, especially among Africoids. If you want to show it outside Europe, North Africa, and Middle East, Central Asia... let's say South Asia... then show some South Asian as it is more common among them than an isolated population such as this boy. You can even put a picture of a Native American with blondism, though it is extremely rare among them. A more sensible picture would be to show some South Asians then. It is most rare among Africoids so putting a picture of them with that mutation (it is a mutation among them) is not sensible.
Your comments are very strange, especially since the article does not mention Africa or Africoid people in the slightest. You seem to be confusing Africa with the Pacific, and I am not sure how you could've come to the conclusion that the photo was of someone from Africa with a mutation. Solinkov (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
According to this map, the peopleof these islands are Africoid. Even if they were Australoid, among Australoid populations these feature is extremely rare, and that is what it is: a mutation that spread in this isolated population on these islands.
Though the map must stay. The fact that you claim it to be Eurocentric is your POV (which it obviously isn't) and that term "Mediterraneo-Eurocentric" that you just made up is also POV (since the map also includes Central Asia). Now are you going to say that the map is "Central Asio-Mediteranneo-Eurocentric"?
The fact is, there is only one person who continually removes the photo of the black kid with blond hair, and with a flimsy argument. We are an encyclopedia that shows the full spectrum of reality, from predominance to mutation. Regardless of whether the photograph of the black child is a mutation or not, it's real and it happens. I don't see why we are entertaining the argument of an IP edit warrior who goes against consensus on this page? --DavidShankbone03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've now made an account since you somehow have the idea that IP editors shouldn't be respect, along with other POVs and accusations (eg. accusing the map of being Euro-centric while it shows Central Asia, North Africa, Southern Asia, and Middle East). The image by the way is still not in an appropriate section. There is no room for this image in this article. It is like if there is no space for an Albino African on the White people article but a user insists that it be there and accuses the article of being Euro-centric if it is not. That is the same as what you're doing here. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, looking over your contributions you seem to be a Black nationalist and you said yourself that we need this picture to "internationalize" blonde hair. Please keep ethno/racial nationalism and politically motivated edits out of Wikipedia and be neutral. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The map does appear to be an anthropologist's view from the 1930's. So we should be cautious with this, as one persons view shouldn't carry the weight of an entire section, especially an anthropologist (Peter Frost) not listed in Wikipedia and at such precise measurements that it's unlikely be accurate. It could always be added back if there's consensus here to include it though. Perebynis (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Only one image will fit in the Distribution section
Please stop adding a second picture there as it is pushing down the pics in the Culturally-related ideas section. There is only enough space for the map.
The picture of the dark-skinned kid with blond hair is more important than several of the other pictures. If you want to get rid of Sif or Marilyn Monroe, go ahead. rewinn (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Pictures say a thousand word, and a picture of a boy from a small and extremely isolated population where this mutation has occurred says "Africoid peoples have blond hair"... which is absurd. With all due respect, your major isn't really biology so maybe that's you aren't aware how rare this is? Sif and Marilon Monroe's picture are in that section because they are relevant to cultural ideas about blondes.
The photo illustrates a pheonomen described in the article. Sif is culturally irrelevant in the modern era; she in fact never existed. Your ad hominem attack on another editor is improper. The editwar about a photo illustrating the phenomenon of a blond non-European must stop. There is an orderly dispute resolution process. Let us achieve concensus via poll: shall the article keep the photo illustrating blond non-European, or delete?Until this poll is complete, any deletion of the photo should be considered vandalismrewinn (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
proper contents
There seems to be a long running dispute over the contents of the article. Please discuss and agree here. —EncMstr (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Pérez-Guisado study
A reference to a recent study by Pérez-Guisado, a researcher in the Department of Medicine and Animal Surgery at the University of Cordoba, Spain might belong in this article: [4]:
"golden/red English cocker spaniels exhibit the most dominant and aggressive behavior. Black dogs in this breed were found to be the second most aggressive, while particolor (white with patches of color) were discovered to be more mild-mannered.
In labrador retrievers, the color rank from most to least aggressive was determined to be yellow, black and chocolate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erkjrl (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing the light hair color map
Peter Frost is a respected anthropologist and anthropologists are the most reliable source when it comes to things like this. It really doesn't matter if people without any credentials think the map is innacruate, on Wikipedia scholarly sources have more weight than POVs of editors. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
My issue with the map had been that it was used as an excuse to dump the interesting picture of the black blond boy. Since that's been resolved, I have no opinion on the map and I do wish people would stop vandalizing the page. A faint hope, I know. As a blond, I consider it ironic that the historical Vandals tended blond, and probably did their part to mess up the map of blondness. rewinn (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That map was not made by Peter Frost..actually the map came from an obscure book of anthropology dated 1965 , and to be honest i think that this map is the most inaccurate map that i ever seen..there isn't one single source or study..none serious anthropologist use that map as reference , only wikipedia. Who said that in Galicia there are more blond than Navarra ? who said that in Apulia there are more blondes than Piedmont ? Who said that in Scotland there are more blondes than Northern Germany ? no one here is saying that Peter Frost is an incompetent since he's not the creator of the map , but seriously that map is quite laughable , I think it would be better to remove it --
just an few example.. Coon said that in Scotland the percentages of Blond hair was 11% , we can probably add no more than 20% of light brown hair
"In Scotland, the systematic study of 7000 adult males and of half a million schoolchildren makes our knowledge of the regional distribution of hair color relatively complete. Black hair ranges among adults from 0 to 8 per cent by counties, but nowhere attains the figures observed in Cornwall, Devonshire, and Wales. Dark brown hair accounts for 38 per cent of the population; the medium to light brown shade, with 42 per cent, is the most numerous; fair hair runs to 11 per cent, and red to 5 per cent."
"The hair is brown as a rule among adults; 54 per cent could be classed as dark brown (Fischer #27, 4-7); the rest are divided between golden and ashen shades of light brown and blond. The hair as a rule darkens steadily throughout life; at the onset of senility, 80 per cent of all non-white hair observed was dark brown, as against 7 per cent at the age of 6 years"
i had realized this map according with the Races of Europe , you might think that this book is too old (1939) but actually it's use by the most important sites about anthropology as principal source : Racial Reality , Spna Nordish etc..also the study of Lundam from 1965 (the same year of that adopted by Frost ) confirm the datas of Coon..and don't forget that the most important studies about races had been made before the WWII very few had been made after the war..for obvious reasons
One of the major problems with that map in particular, and any map in general, is that it must be DATED to have any utility. Humanity in general, and Europe in particular, is subject to migration affecting things such as hair color. There is also reason to suspect scholarship from the Nazi period. rewinn (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but Coon wrote it in 1939, his book should be politically inclined. (blondism in England exaggerated and in Germany underestimated (of course for political reasons, to invalidate Hitler's race theory). I live in Germany and I've been to many countries in Europe (primarily Germanic countries). Just have a look at football teams for a good comparison.
I think light and light-mixed hair color make up in:
Sweden - Finland: 60-70%
Baltic Countries: 50-60%
Norway, Holland, Denmark and Germany: 45-55%
England (not Great Britain) and Austria: 30-40%
France: 20-25%
Italy and Spain (especially in the North and North-West): 15%
Turkey: around 5%
of the population.
Btw, Scotland and Wales are primarily dark-haired.
I think this map is totally wrong about France, except if Peter Frost counts the descendant of immigrants and the immigrants themselves (but did he make the same in England too and in Germany ?), it can be true. About 50% of the population in Paris for example have their roots around the Mediterranean Sea and in Africa. Peter Frost estimates that the clearest population of France is the one from Brittany and it is true if we consider that Britanny is the only place in France where there was no massive immigration from Italy, Spain, Portugal and North Africa. On the contrary, the Bretons were inside immigrants. But if we consider, the stock population, for us northern French people, Breton people are small and quite dark, not all of them, but there are dark types that could be confused with Languedoc, Provençal or Corsican people. Such traditionnal dark types don't exist in the north of France, where there are the more blond people and the more red-haired people in France. The studies made before the first world war confirm our traditionnal experience and somebody from France today with a sort of observation spirit can recognize the place where somebody comes from (with the surname and the physical type). Most people with blond hair in France are from Normandy, Picardy, Flanders, Champagne, Alsace, not from Britanny. We know that, and it's still obvious for us in our everyday life. I think the map made by Madison Grant is more relevant if we consider the past population of France. He reached the same conclusions than other scientists about the physical type, for sure the ideological background is stupid.
The editwar about a photo illustrating the phenomenon of a blond non-European must stop. There is an orderly dispute resolution process. Let us achieve concensus via poll: shall the article keep the photo illustrating blond non-European, or delete?Until this poll is complete, any deletion of the photo should be considered vandalismrewinn (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep- the photo demonstrates something noteworthy that is described in the article. It is far more relevant than some of the other illustrations, but I'm not complaining about them. There is no good reason to remove the photo, since the page is not too large with it. rewinn (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Rremove- There is simply not enough space for this image. If someone wants to see a picture of a blonde haired Aboriginal Australian they can see it on its own article. That is a good enough reason, while your reason is POV pushing and is politically motivated . When the article becomes longer, then there would be space for this photo and you can add it back. For now, the article is short and there is not enough space for it. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's difficult to understand your argument as there is more than enough room. Even if it extends partially into the next section (Relation to age and distribution on body), it is relevant to that section as well, as the article states that blondness in the Pacific is more common among children. This is with a font two sizes smaller than the standard, at the standard size it would be even less of a problem fitting in. Kesälauantait (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
While this poll is in progress, you must stop changing this page to eliminate the photo. Please follow the wikipedia procedure. It's good manners, to say the least.
Please stop with the ad hominem attacks (your phrase: "politically motivated"). This is at least the third time on this Talk Page that you have directed a personal attack against an editor. That behavior must cease; wikipedia is not a blog. rewinn (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Why shouldn't have the image removed, since there is no space for it, while polling? Ofcoarse Wikipedia is not a blog, that is why politically motivated edits should be kept out. I'm not alleging you of anything, you yourself have said that we need this image to "globalize" blondism. If that is not a politically motivated edit then I don't know what is. I know that throwing around allegations and personal attacks are not appropriate on Wikipedia and I have not done either one, I have just stated what you already said yourself. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You have, in fact, launched multiple ad hominem attacks and once again they must cease.
Your attack on me as editting for political reasons is an ad hominem. Globalizing content is not a matter of politics; it is wikipedia policy.
There is plenty of space on the page for the image; if anything, the old and inaccurate map should be deleted, as well as the crude drawing of the mythological creature "Sif". If you ask a random sample of living people today, nearly all will not have heard of Sif, and most of those who have will think it is the Marvel Comics character - who is most definitely not blonde.
If you continue to refuse to follow the polling procedure, it will come to the same end as Human skin color. Why waste time? If your views are supported by the facts, surely it will prevail by consensus. rewinn (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not the best depiction of Sif, that's for sure, but go to Northern Europe and you will not only find quite a lot of people aware of Sif, the goddess, but also people named after her. Wikipedia is global. Anyway, keep as I don't think there's any harm in placing whatever quality images of naturally blond people and blondness we have on this article - we can put them in a gallery at the end if nothing else. While we should straight forwardly state where it's most common and where it's a rarity, the article is about blond hair, after all. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep: This photograph is interesting by the fact that it captures a rather unusual phenomenon that people may not be aware of. It is thus educational on top of being encyclopaedic. The argument for its removal (space) is moot, as per the fact that Wikipedia is not paper. There are other pictures I would remove from this page before removing that one.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep: I've been watching this discussion for some time now, and I fail to see how including something that extends to photographic evidence of an occurrence of blondism outside of Europe should in some way be construed as a politically motivated move. It would seem to me that not including this should be more suspect at this point, if anything. Furthermore, I second Ramdrake's reasoning. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, shrinking the important map to fit in a picture of a rare mutation in an isolated population, is a politically motivated move. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
How rare do you mean? Light hair seems to occur at non-trivial levels in some Pacific populations. Surely this is notable and fits with the rest of the article.[5][6][7]Pondle (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Besides, even if it's very rare it's still notable and still relevant to the article. This article is not called "Europeans with blond hair". Alun (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime that this poll is being held, I want to remind everyone that polls do not establish consensus according to the rules of Wikipedia. See WP:Consensus.
“
New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll (if one is even held) is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one.
You're right that it's the discussion surrounding the poll which usually establishes consensus. In this case, the discussion demonstrates a strong consensus to keep the picture.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
However, when the results of a poll are as clear-cut as they are (you being the only editor not agreeing), you are merely forcing your POV on others by repeatedly removing the image in question. Also, you have no sustainable rationale for not accepting the space compromise solution that was implemented a day or two ago (switching sides of one picture doesn't break anything, and isn't against the Wikipedia manual of style). Please cease and desist your disruptive behaviour.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It seems reasonable, in an article about blond hair, to try to show the range of occurance, which this image does well. I don't understand the argument that 'there is no room on the page'- it seems to fit very well. I also don't understand how the image is 'politically motivated'; if blond hair is usually, but not exclusively, found on fair-skinned people, and if many of our readers don't know that blond hair also sometimes occurs on dark-skinned people, then the article should show both a majority of fair-skinned people and an image of a blond dark-skinned person, in order to better inform the reader about that, shouldn't it? I'm not sure how that would be a political act, though it's easy to see how trying to remove the information that a minority of blond people have dark skin might be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
About the distribution in North America
Does anyone know (or know a source) to what's the percentage of blondes in North America? I don't think it's too high, around 10-15 % I think, just thought if anyone knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.22.174 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're bringing to light a basic problem with population maps: populations change, especially due to migration. Europe in particular has had a lot of migrations. Any distribution figures have to be dated to be meaningful. rewinn (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
A mother holding her blonde haired baby in Guatemala.
That map is recent. Europe's population hasn't changed significantly to make that map outdated. You're talking as if that map is from thousands of years ago. By the way, I have added this image (to the right) of a South American blonde girl however the this user:Rewinn is removing it (vandalizing). CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
If you refer to the Coon's map, it's more than outdated, it's not accurate! Remember the date, 1939 shortly before the World War 2. Have you ever been to Europe? Anyone who lives in Europe knows that Poland and England are not lighter than Germany, Scotland is not light but dark-haired, East Turkey is not lighter than the West but swarthy (Kurds and Armenians), and many more.
--Zylan (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Have YOU ever been to Europe? Southern Germans are quite dark, much like the Alpine Swiss and Austrians. And Scotland is not 'darkhaired' at all... the stereotype of the Scot is red haired and Viking settlement has left a relatively high proportion of blonds. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
And have YOU ever been to the Oktoberfest? (Munich, Bavaria, Southern Germany)
While there are certainly many Germans from other parts of Germany and many foreigners, it is, however, clear that a large group comes from Bavaria, have you ever seen the masses of blond-haired Bavarians there? (judging by the Bavarian dialect spoken by them). It is true that you will find many darker haired people in Bavaria, for instance (though they look nothing like an Italian, on the other hand), but never underestimate the number of real blondes there, the same is true for Austria. - Scotland and Wales (judging by people I met and even by some movies) are way more often dark haired than Southern Germans are. 91.50.18.52 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
IIRC the correct procedure is to put a fact tag on the map, which I have (...it seriously needs a supporting citation and a year...) as well as on some of the other rather questionable claims, e.g. Spain a blond country? Not in Roman times anyway. The reference to race-mixing in the text must go, since there is not and never has been a Spanish "race". The reference to "very recessive gene" is amusing. rewinn (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Spain is NOT a blond country. According to my estimations (I travel every year to Spain, different cities and regions) the blondes make up max. 15-20% of the population (recent immigrants excluded). And you're right twice. There has been no "Spanish" race. Primarily Latins and to a letter extent Celts and Germans have been present in Spain.
--Zylan (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You idiot!
The blood lines of Spain and Portugal do not differ according to the Iberian Peninsula Genetic Project. There is however a continuum from South-East to the North-West, being the South-East the region with more non European genes. The North-West, Galiza, is like Ireland. The blood lines of the Peninsula:
65% CELTIC
20% Germanic
10% "Mediterranean" (North African; mainly Iberian but also Moorish)
5% "Mediterranean" (Southern Italy, Greece, Phoenicians, Jews and also Arabs)
The Southern Eastern region is 50% CELTIC, 40% "Mediterranean", 10% Germanic;
The North-West: ~75% Celtic, ~25% Germanic, <2% "Mediterranean".
Some areas in the Northern half of Portugal and North-Western part of Spain are 90% Celtic.
The Celts were dark haired. Dark brown hair. Curiously, Coon stated that black hair was 15% in Italy, 30% in Portugal and Spain and 40% in Ireland... I dont think so, but it is interesting nonetheless... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.96.206 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Rfc CanuckAnthropologist
I am requesting and rfc in re CanuckAnthropologist who, most regrettably, has responded to the above poll in an unfortunate way. I urge CanuckAnthropologist to consider the outcome of his or her previous edit wars on other pages, so we can all save a lot of time better devoted to more productive matters. rewinn (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was a sarcastic comment that I made on the result of that poll because that is what I feel are going through the minds of the editors who voted to keep it. After all, several users admitted that was the reason hey wanted that image to stay. However, that has nothing to do with the addition of this new image. I found this nice picture of a native South American girl and thought of it as a nice addition to the article because it shows that blondism is also found among the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. If you do not stop removing it you will be reported for senseless vandalism to administrators. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. When I looked at this article this morning, User:CanuckAnthropologist didn't want an image of a brown-skinned blond person on this page. This afternoon, he wants two images of brown-skinned blond people. I don't understand why one image is not acceptable, but either zero or two is acceptable. I hope you aren't just edit-warring to make a point, because that just makes me confused and unhappy. Can you explain why you've gone from wanting no pictures to wanting two pictures today? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There are three example pictures on this page, two of which are clearly dyed and one is the rare case of a black child with light hair.
Why is there not one of how blonde hair appears naturally in light skinned people? Should really be moved to an article about hair dye IMO. Halesoda (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
1) If you can find good, free pictures of people with natural blond hair, these should probably be included.
I actually agree with your Halesoda. But a few users think for some reason it's important to show that Africoid peoples can also have blond hair, even though it's extremely rare and only among some Pacific Islanders and Australian Aborigines. Basically when the user reads this article they will get the impression that this is actually common. I've been trying to stress that we should not mislead the reader and also that we barely have space for it, but a few really insist on it. It's clearly for politically motivated reasons, but so far I've been accused of being "Euro-centric" for objecting to that picture, even though the map there clearly shows blondism outside of Europe. For an article that only has a few pictures it is ridiculous to have this picture, I agree with you. If we had a longer article then it would be ok though.
Hmmm thats actually quite interesting, and I think its completely valid to have that picture on this page however the first picture is clearly unnatural which isn't really the focus of this article. I think this one is much more appropriate.
The person just gave you the link about dark skinned Australians have blond hair and you just ignored it. You also think that white Europeans can only have blond hair and that everyone else is 'half blond' which sounds so narrow-minded and bigot. You should realize that hair color and skin color are two different things.209.247.21.117 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
To the person above me: you, sir, are an idiot. Of course skin colour and hair colour are related - that's basic genetics. We are not saying "only white people have blonde hair", we are saying "the majority of people with blonde hair are white". This is a certifiable fact. Statistically, a blonde person is far more likely to have White skin than Black skin. While it is accepted that there are Blacks with blonde hair, I will stress, as others have already, that this is a rarity. If you, in your "politically correct" intolerance, cannot realise that this is the case, your presence is not required on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.84.194 (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no causative relation. It's a correlation. It's important to point out that it's a correlation, so people don't get the idea that hair color and skin color are inextricably linked or that one is the basis of the other (as you seem to believe). Wikipedia frowns on ad homs, by the way. Oh, and Austronesian people are not "Blacks;" you need to update your terminology, Anon. This is the 21st century. I do like your little jab at the end. Yes, people who are for the inclusion of images depicting human diversity are the real intolerant ones, while you are so open-minded and non-racist because you want that image removed! The contradiction is delicious.--65.249.48.127 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
To the person two comments above. I am not a sir or a guy I am a girl. I find you post and name calling. Also Native Austrlian are Cacuasian just like people of European descent. Race does not have anything to do with skin color but a person's skull either. Black and White are colors and are misconceptions of the definitions of races. Caucasnoid, Mongoloid and Negroid are actual races. Skin color is determine by melanin the people who are Native to the hot climate have dark skin to protect them from the sun just like people in the cold climate have light skin withstand the cold whether. So skin color really does not have any affected on a person's hair color to say the least if they are of the same race meaning actual. Also the Native Australian might not even consider themselves black. The person who posted the picture said people was explaining that blond hair is also common Native Australian people and did not even mention the people who are Native to African South of the Sahara .65.4.83.173 (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
What is the year for which this map is accurate? What does it mean by "indigenous population", e.g. are the Anglo-Saxons considered indigenous to the United Kingdom? What was the indigenous population of Iceland in Roman times? rewinn (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I went to the source cited for the map and noted that it says nothing about "indigenous population" and it implies that it uses contemporary data (which would explain the data for Iceland and UK). So the map label should reflect that; however I'll hold off for a few days in case anyone has comments. There's no real rush, as I see it. rewinn (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
More maps should be used in order to get more reliable or comparable info. This map shows NW Spain as the part with the lightest hair in Spain, perhaps influenced by the common belief that it was the most Celtic area, but inland Galicia and Asturias have fewer blondes than other areas. In fact, while there is certainly some peaks of light hair in coastal Galicia, blondism in Spain is much more common over a northern inland area that covers northern Castile, the Basque Country, Navarre and half Aragon (an area wich also had Celtic population and where the Goth invasion was more important), with some other peaks in the Mediterranean shore too. In some of these parts, blondism can even be higher than 30% of the population. --Purplefire (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
What should first picture be?
There are likely tens of millions of candidate pictures with which to start this article. What should be the criteria for selecting one? Should it be a person famous for being blond? A famous person who happens to be blond? A completely unknown person? Frankly, I haven't the foggiest notion as to the best answer but it seems a little silly to delete a rather homely blond politician simply because he's little known, when IIRC the prior picture was of a completely unknown blond. I have no ax to grind here; and if the concensus is to put up a new picture every day, so long as it illustrates the concept, why not? rewinn (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a picture of London Mayor Boris Johnson a while ago (perhaps the blond politician you were referring too?), who has naturally platinum blond hair. London mayor is probably second to New York mayor in world significance in terms of mayoralty, and I thought it would be an improvement over this rock star with ostensibly bleached hair. However, it was removed first without explanation, and then readded by someone else, then removed by an unregistered user complaining that it wasn't a good example due to Johnson being too "controversial". I don't think that personality should come into it, I just added him because he is a rare example of an adult with platinum blond hair. Here is the image which I think should replace the Danish rock star:
(it's on my uploadit account, so feel free to use it; though it should still be available from when I uploaded it to wikimedia)
The picture of Johnson was mainly to replace the Danish rock star with the bleached hair. I thought the original picture of the Northern European boy with blond hair seemed fine for top, introductory picture.Juggertrout (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
EgraS has put a picture of Akseli Kokkonen up a few times. He's blond, has some notability, but is not really famous, and is uncontroversial as far as I know. For some reason he keeps getting removed but I don't know why. Personally I am against any image of Johnson in the article. Alun (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've added both the original picture of the Finnish skier and Johnson. If someone finds them disagreeable, post here why. I realise that Johnson may be a 'controversial' figure to some, but it's silly to have a girl with bleached hair in the section. If anyone can find an anonymous or little known, uncontroversial figure, who is a verifiable adult platinum blond, then post them here so we can add them. Juggertrout (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The article should mention that blond hair is quite an important indicator to trace migrations after the last ice age (of course not as good as genetic comparisons, but it helps to ask a few questions). It should be clear that during the last ice age, Europe was populated only very scarcely, meaning that if the original mutation happened 11.000 years ago, it didn't happen in the Nordics (on a glacier), but somewhere further south or south-east (e.g. in the black sea basin or in central asia). It also should be noted that, at least in the asian steppes, people with blond hair are most centainly found to be speakers of indo-european languages. So the really interesting question is: was there a blond population to begin with that also spoke a proto-indo-european language, or did the blondes move into Northern Europe first and then mix up with the proto-indo-europeans at a later time (meaning that the mixed group then spread from the Baltic sea all the way to the chinese and indian borders)? In the Mediterranean, the first indo-europeans to arrive were often fair-haired, like the most ancient Romans (notably the family of Julius Caesar), as well as Mykeans and the so-called Sea-peoples in the Levante. On the other hand, Celtic populations in France and on the British Iles where notably dark-haired with blue eyes (true?). So there are quite a few questions open here. I would love to see a scientific discussion going into this direction. --87.180.196.10 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
One must query the notability of detailed distribution maps. That there are a lot of blonds in Europe is notable; that the frequency today is 10% in one place and 25% in another somewhat less notable. rewinn (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There have been a lot of population movements, especially in central and eastern Europe, since those very old anthropometric surveys. I'm also not completely satisfied that they were wholly robust: do we know anything about the methodology used to derive them?Pondle (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Due to questions such as you raise, I'd favor removing the population distribution map or, in the alternative, label the year to which it refers. It is entirely possible that anthropometric surveys from some eras were more political than scientific in nature. At any rate, without knowing the date of the map, it's no more useful than an undated map of European political boundaries. rewinn (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Need the "E"
Can we please put the proper 'e' ending onto the word Blonde titling this article? I mean, this isn't the German language entry; let's show some love for linguistic beauty, here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.19.168 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Which in fact is golden/orange blond hair, (although sometimes persons are predominantly darkhaired, with only a touch of colour (JFK, for instance)). But in itself it's one of the several varieties of blond, and as such combined with bleu eyedness. VKing (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course there are genetic differences between the several varieties of blond; otherwise they woud look the same. But they also have essential things in common: they're light coloured and all combined with bleu eyedness as well as a relatively thin, sensitive skinn, in which there's little pigment, which finds it's reason in the fact, that the posessors are naturally at home in the temperate climatezone, where sun shines not very intensely, so that no built in protection is necessary. VKing (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying to you is that the genetics of red hair are now understood and are distinctive - we cannot regard them as a 'variety' of blond, since we don't understand the genetics of blond hair at all (read the links above). I take your point that blonds and redheads have light skin, bur red-haired people are almost always phototype I, whereas blonds are often phototype II, along with some darker-haired Europeans (the so-called 'Celtic type').Pondle (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Without having had the opportunity to read the links, for now this: Indeed golden/orange blond hair is a more 'southern' variety of blond, than white- or beige-, or light-yellow blond hair. For golden/orange blond in itself is a result of mixture of subtropical black and temperate light. Here this mixture didn't, as it mostly does, result in domination of dark, but in predominantly light skin, eyes and hair. In this way nature takes care, that it's proportions don't change too much to one (the dark) side. The fact, that in this variety of light there's also an essential portion of 'dark' present, shows in the occurrance of freckling, (which in fact are pigmented spots in a for the rest unpigmented skin), and a sometimes very 'southern' temperament.
So the fact that it's a different prototype, than white blond, might be the result of its more than purely blond roots. VKing (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
There may be some own research in it, but that doesn't mean it's not strange, that it doesn't make any sence to somebody. Maybe he's colourblind, but even if black hair as good as always is called blue hair, it makes sence to mention in Wp as well, that this isn't correct. VKing (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources also sometimes make mistakes, or publish scientifical positions, that later on turn out to have been wrong. Wp-users in general can be concidered to be able to see the difference between colours. No sources are needed, to confirm their statement that a tomato is red and an orange is orange. I mean if it's that evident, that genetical science is using an incorrect term, then there can, or at least should, be no objections against mentioning this in the article concerning. VKing (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I simply objected to lumping red hair and blond hair together in one category. The two types are genetically distinct, WP:RS prove that. Re: your general point, yes "reliable sources" frequently conflict - many matters are the subject of dispute. That's where WP:NPOV comes in. But always remember, Wikipedia is never a place for user opinion or any kind of original thought. Pondle (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking for an article about the Europid race, and more in speccial the Northern-Europid sub-race, to which in principle all light haired/bleu eyed persons belong, the only conventional separate race, one can find in the catagory Race, seems to be "Africoid peoples". No articles about about the Mongoloid race and it's sub races, the Europid race and it's sub races, (nor eventually about the Arabic, and the Australoid), are mentioned there. Finding the title racial classification gave some hope, but that turned out to link to Scientific racism and reading this article, one gets the impression, that that is a rather dubious discipline. But in case there is another article anyway, in which a simple scientific classification of the different main races and their sub races is given, maybe somebody who knows it, would be so kind as to mention it here. Thanks in advance. VKing (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
But, returning to the genetical aspect of this discussion, somewhere in this ocean of items there's a link to a scientifical source, accordimg to wich both whiteblond and so called red hair have the same kind of x or y, or whatever a chromosome (sorry, but it's about two years ago) that causes the lightness of the colour. The difference between the two kinds of light hair is, that in the first mentioned this stuff changes with the years of age, as a result of which the haircolour darkens, whereas this is not the case with the other variant. Doesn't this mean, that apart from some differences, they have essential characteristics in common, that distinct them from dark haircolours, and that this is no original research? VKing (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Some scientists only find what they're looking for. And in this matter that's evidently not simply the conclusion, that it's all a matter of climate and a corresponding presence of pigment. Anyway, maybe the list is going to be devided in two or three, of which one with names of golden/orange blondes and one or two with names of other kinds of blondes. VKing (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ha, ha, peter-frost; thanks for making me laugh again. (All women in Northern area's originally were blackhaired. Some of them thought, that if they would become whitehaired, they would be more attracktive. And see, thousands of years later they were whitehaired ???!!!). I'm afraid I have to stop contributing to this discussion now. Greetings. VKing (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Er, no... Peter Frost is simply saying that environmental conditions increased sexual selection for a diverse range of hair colours. Some traits gradually become more common because they are advantageous for whatever reason. This is how evolution works! Pondle (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The editor often adds empty {{todo}} lists and usually {{talk header}}, even to empty talk pages, which also violates the instructions for their use.
While WikiProject Medicine is normally happy to have articles obviously within its scope tagged by any editor, I have removed the WPMED tag from this article because it doesn't fall within the core "diseases and their treatments" scope of the project. WikiProject Medicine does not support the inappropriate medicalization of everyday life. (I may or may not have removed other banners at the same time.)
If you believe that there is a significant medical connection to this subject that I've overlooked, please do not re-add the banner. Instead, take these steps:
Then leave a message at the doctors' mess to ask whether the article falls within the scope of the project.
I continue to attempt to communicate with this anon editor, but the IP address changes very frequently, and efforts so far appear to be unsuccessful. If the anon editor places the WPMED banner on this article again, I ask for your support in removing it again. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Archive
I moved some items to the archive. If someone knows how to set up automatic archiving of old talk page discussions (perhaps with a long delay, like 30-60 days), then that might be appropriate for this high-traffic page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought this article should have pictures of natural blonds, but in gallery about the varieties of blonds has fake blonds. You can obviously tell that Silvia Saint, Gianne Albertoni, and Chelsea Handler dye their hair. They should be pictured in the section with Madonna as "bleach blonds." Lehoiberri (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that Chelsea Handler is not a good example of a strawberry blonde. 1)The color is not strawberry blonde-she has no red in there. 2)She hates red hair-she states his several times on her show-why would she put red hightlights in her hair? 3)It's fake blonde. Marg Helgenberger would be a better example of a strawberry blonde!
There are major issues with the gallery:
The dirty blonde has obvious highlights - nothing natural about it at all;
Dolph Lundgren has really ratty highlights that haven't been left to develop properly (and been placed atrociously) - this doesn't make him a 'golden blond' - he's a bleach blond.
Madonna's hair colour in the current pic could be more accurately described as 'golden blonde' - see above - 'bleached blonde' is a ridiculous description for hair that is highlighted like this. Bleached blonde implies full coverage of bleach, not bleach and high-lift tint as seen here.
I agree, currently this article is horrible. Below I put links to two articles that we can reference for high quality information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.240.43 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
"You can obviously tell that Silvia Saint, Gianne Albertoni, and Chelsea Handler dye their hair."
Yeah, yeah, there's only one ore two of six with a natural haircolor. Like this a galery is misinformative and would better be removed. The article is about blond, not about dyed blond.
"I think that Chelsea Handler is not a good example of a strawberry blonde. 1)The color is not strawberry blonde-she has no red in there. 2)She hates red hair-she states his several times on her show-why would she put red hightlights in her hair? 3)It's fake blonde. Marg Helgenberger would be a better example of a strawberry blonde!"
This criticism is completely correct. The color looks more of brown, but it's very questionable whether it's natural brown. It looks as though the natural haircolor is darker (maybe black).
"The dirty blonde has obvious highlights".
Agree, but what's more: it's very unlikely that the term "dirty blond" is an official, also in biological science used one. As a matter of fact it's offending and not a little. Use of it in this encyclopedia seems seriously against it's rules. "Dark blond" seems a much better term.
"Dolph Lundgren has really ratty highlights that haven't been left to develop properly (and been placed atrociously) - this doesn't make him a 'golden blond' - he's a bleach blond."
Quite correct; this is hardly otherwise than rediculous. (Not the hair, or the person, but calling this "golden blond").
"Madonna's hair colour in the current pic could be more accurately described as 'golden blonde' - see above - 'bleached blonde' is a ridiculous description for hair that is highlighted like this."
Probably a wig of natural golden blond hair. (The blue lenses however supposingly are artificial and not coming from a natural person).--VKing (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The word touw is the Dutch word for rope. I can't find it in the German language; the Germans never use the ou anyway. --DrJos (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Dark hair amongst the Inuit.
I see someone has seen fit to remove my statement regarding the darkness of Inuit hair being a result of their relatively recent immigration into their area of habitation. Instead, a statement regarding their consumption of a seafood diet is given as evidence.
What utter nonsense. Since no citation is given for this claptrap and the Inuit tend to eat large quantities of seal meat which can not be classed as seafood, and as is well known Scandinavian eat plenty of sea food - and don't have dark hair, I am going to both remove that daft statement and re-instate something along the lines of my previous one. I.e.: 'The explanation for the dark hair of the Inuit is that in human evolutionary terms they are relatively recent arrivals in the polar regions, as the region was covered by ice sheets until around 10000 BCE, and no genetic mutation has yet occurred allowing for pigmentation reduction to facilitate vitamin D production. In addition to this, the abundance of ice and snow can cause a great increase in the intensity of ultra-violet radiation due to reflection, as evidenced by the wearing of light reducing eye protectors by the Inuit to counteract the effects of snow blindness.' I appreciate this may not initially be the best wording, but it is, at least reality, rather than the seafood myth. I'll amend with citations ASAP. Cheers 1812ahill (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC).
Amended with citations. Please do not remove without just cause. If anyone can find seafood citations for the cause of Inuit dark hair please add this as a possible cause, but unless you can prove otherwise do not remove my pet theory. ;) 1812ahill (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
1812ahill, I'm a bit worried that you use the phrase "my pet theory". Do the references you've added explicitly say that the darker pigmentation of the Inuit is due to their more recent migration to the area? If not, please remember WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Cheers. Pondle (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely with you, the 'my pet theory' statement was meant as a joke. And you are right, the WP:NOR could well be applicapple here, as the sources I quote do indeed not explicitly mention the origin of the dark hair of the Inuit, and as yet I can't find any sources that explicity discuss the topic, but I'll keep looking. WP:SYNTH I must obviously confess to aswell. I wouldn't have written anything, except for the presence of the 'seafood' statement I removed which was completely unreferenced. However, it cannot de denied as fact that the Inuit have been in the area for less than 10,000 years (in fact probably only the last 5000), and just as there is no research into why African-Americans and Canadians of African descent have dark hair - because it is obvious that they are the ancesters of the african slave trade, there is probably no research into why the Inuit have dark hair - because they are the obvious descendents of Mongoloid peoples - also, it is probably too sensative a research topic these days. If I were to find a link to DNA research showing that Inuit are genetically closely related to Mongolians, would that suffice? Question is where does one draw the line, as obviously there isn't going to be any research available into why the Inuit do NOT have blond hair, just as there is no research into why the moon is NOT made of cream cheese? What would you suggest? Should the whole lot be removed?
As a matter of interest, there are actualy accounts of a small group of blond haired, grey eyed Inuit[15]. DNA analysis has shown they are related to their fellow Inuit, and not Europeans, so, maybe the 'blondification' process is underway on the other hand maybe it is just a form of albinism, but either way, that is how evolution progresses, but the period of time is probably insufficient to tell whether this will become an evolutionary advantageous trait that will spread (globalisation will probably result in us never finding the answer to that). Cheers 1812ahill (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't find any explanations for Inuit hair pigmentation (physical anthropology is not really my specialist area), but as far as skin colour is concerned, Cavalli-Sforza et al in The History and Geography of Human Genes say that "the darker skin colour of the Lapps and other Artic peoples (compared to northern Europeans) is explained, in light of the vitamin D hypothesis, on the basis of their different nutritional customs... Artic inhabitants are herders, hunter-gatherers or fishermen and have a ready-made supply of vitamin D in their diet."--Pondle (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I too am not a physical anthropologist, but that quote from Cavelli-Sforza immediately raises my eyebrows by the statement that Lapps have darker skin colour than other northern Europeans (not least of which is that 'Lapps' is considered as derogatory a term as 'Eskimo' is by those peoples). First point: all one has to do is do a google images search for 'Lapps' to see that they are blond, blue eyed and fair skinned. This raises a number of questions regarding who exactly the 'Lapps' are genetically. One thing is certain, namely that they are ethnically identical to the Finns (both call themselves Sami). And it is a fact that the highest incidence of blond hair in the world occurs in Finland. Second point: According to this [16], despite Vit D being present in some foods (oily fish, eggs and liver products), the best source of D is still sunlight. (note on liver: it is a well know fact that the livers of arctic animals, in particular seals and polar bears contain lethal amounts of Vit. A - so I would assume Inuit would avoid eating them). The thing is though that as I pointed out before there are plenty of fair-skinned people who consume plenty of fish (Icelanders and Norwegians), eggs and liver.
So, IMHO Cavelli-Sforza have shot themselves in the foot by the very mentioning of the word 'Lapps' because it contradicts their case that Vit D. consumption from food provides all the Vit D. that arctic peoples need, and if they are apt to make that mistake then I can't take them seriously about anything else. Finally, it should also be pointed out that Scandinavia was under an ice sheet at exactly the same time that the Laurentide sheet covered the Inuit lands. You do see what I'm getting at with this last point;)? Last of all, I think the skin/hair colour issue is far more complex than simply latitude. I think sunlight exposure is the answer, but this is obviously affected by far more than latitude, e.g. cloud cover and altitude, and even how forested an environment is all contribute. Cheers 1812ahill (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: your first point, I have a copy of the 1939 book The Races of Europe by Carleton S. Coon. He quotes a few anthropometric studies of the Lapps(I guess this was before any sensitivity about the name, although you'd expect Cavalli-Sforza and co, writing in 1993, to know better) and he does indeed note the substantial number of blonds. Interestingly, however, he also says that "in the majority, with mixed or dark hair and eye pigmentation, the skin tends to a grayish yellow or yellowish brown, with some moderately dark individuals". So Cavalli-Sforza et al might find some justification for their comment that Lapps are darker that other northern Europeans, even if it's a marginal average difference. In fairness to Cavalli-Sforza and his co-authors, The History and Geography of Human Genes is, as its title suggests, about genetics rather than physical anthropology. When they do delve into the latter, it's usually a brief survey of other works (for example, two pages in a 55-page chapter on Europe).
On your second point, you prompted me to look at the human skin colour article, where a piece by Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin is referenced.[17] There's a tantalising line in there that supports your original theory (about the timing of migration) but also underscores the role of diet: "Recent migrants to high latitude regions, such as Greenlanders, appear to be only very slowly undergoing depigmentation because of their vitamin D3-rich diet." Now this may be open to criticism - I'm not expert enough in this area to comment - but I do think that we have to bear WP:V in mind here, and restrict the article to a summary of material published in reliable sources, rather than our own analyses - however interesting and insightful they might be!--Pondle (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I would readily concede that although strong, the correlation between skin colour and hair colour is not absolute. I agree with your source (from personal observation) that some of the palest (non-albino that is) people occur in the British Isles, but that various Swedes, and Finns I have met have darker skin but lighter hair, to the extent that their hair colour is lighter than their skin colour (again this is just from personal observation and I have no sources to fall back on). This does beg the interesting question as to why this is, again, I suspect a mixture of environmental effects (but obv. not Vit D. as that would be contradictory), and migrational. Re. my second point. I accept what you are saying, and the quote from the ref. makes sense, and it is also beyond my expertise too:) I also agree with your WP:V and NOR points. To that end I will delete my entry regarding this subject in the article on the provision that if a dietry cause is re-instated it is 1) reffed with the ref you cite, and 2) makes some kind of statement about (at least the possibility of) migrational trends playing a part on the basis of the points I have made(I still think I'm right, but, hey ho WP:V eh ;)). Can we settle on that? If not, lol, I don't feel that strongly about the issue anyway. Also, thanks for the debate. Always good to discuss issues with reasonable people. Btw. were you the original author of that 'diet causes dark hair among Inuit' line, if so I apologise for my initial 'how dare someone delete me' outburst. Cheers 1812ahill (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that what you suggest is the best solution (by the way, I didn't add the original line on the Inuit diet).--Pondle (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
While the use of blonde as an adjective referring specifically to females exists, there is also the school of thought that blonde should exclusively be used as a noun referring to blond females, like German Blondine, a noun. Personally, this makes more sense to me given that blond and brunet would be the only adjectives in the English language that inflect for gender (as the article points already out, as well), and that native English speakers find that terribly confusing. I would use brunette, like German Brünette, exclusively as a noun, as well. There is no reason to arbitrarily introduce grammatical categories such as gender from foreign languages which happen to express them. But since nouns which specifically refer to females derived from other nouns (such as princess from prince) and are lexicalised do exist, blonde and brunette do make sense as nouns in English. Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Institue of Psychology: Attractiveness of blonde women in evolutionary perspective
We should add information from the following scientific journal article.
Here's the abstract:
An experimental study was undertaken to assess the phenomenon of male preference for blondes. In the first study, 360 Polish men ages 18 to 46 years were asked to assess the attractiveness of the presented stimuli using a 9-point scale. Stimuli were 9 different pictures of the same women whose ages (about 20, 30, and 40 years old) and hair colors (blonde, brown, and brunette) were manipulated. Pictures of blonde-haired women were generally rated as younger than the others. The attractiveness ratings of female faces changed with age and hair color. Still, only the 30-yr.-old woman with blonde hair was rated as significantly more attractive than those with brown or brunette hair. In a second study (the analysis of 500 Internet advertisements) mature women dyed their hair blonde more frequently. These results are analyzed with regard to the evolutionarily formed male preference for younger females.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AnwarSadatFan (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Disagree With great respect to our Polish friends, a small study of what counts as beautiful in Warsaw is not necessarily reflective of the rest of the planet; the study as reported doesn't even try to control for cultural norms. This doesn't appear to be an especially noteworthy study. rewinn (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Map by Peter Frost
The study made by Peter Frost in France is probably superficial and does certainly not take care of all the studies about the subject that were made in France in the 19th century. It is known and still visible today in the villages (not in the big cities where everybody is mixed up).
The place where there are the more blond people in France is certainly not Brittany ! For sure, there are less immigrants from the Mediterranean Countries and Africa in Britanny than everywhere in France, but stock Breton people are not light haired people, especially where the Celtic language was still spoken until recently. Blond people in France are traditionnally more common in the north (that is logical, because there where Germanic settlements). Modern genetic studies among the stock north-western populations of France concluded about the similarities between them and the English people. According to me, the study made by Peter Frost tries to connect the Celtic background of the Western European population with the physical type, that 's a dangerous game and he should have been more careful. Madison Grant who is for sure a racist, made maps about the repartition of the « races » (in fact, just a physical appearence) that are quite true and reachs the same conclusion as the authorities who recorded that among the young soldiers in France before the first world war. The genetic maps about the populations of Europe by Cavalli-Sforza are also different.
Someone keeps removing Yolandi Blonde, an accepted and quite nice blonde hair color of some note. Please stop it, or at least explain your rational for considering our good faith edits to be "vandalism"? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.137.141 (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've searched several times on Google for "Yolandi Blonde" and nothing comes up. If this is real do you have any links for it? And what does "the color of happiness when blended with sunshine and rainbows" have to do with anything? SQGibbon (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"The color of happiness when blended with sunshine and rainbows" is a light color having the wave length of approximately .002^3 angstroms. I will find the suitable reference material here in my physics text, and cite accordingly on the morrow. Until then we will leave the citation needed tag, as to call factual info vandalism based on your own ignorance of this topic does not satisfy our need for factual accuracy. Not everything is on Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.137.141 (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Blond. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Done —EncMstr (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
