Talk:Blond

Europe

The Europe section is based almost entirely on 19th and early 20th century sources, including the controversial Carleton Coon. Another source is ladepeche.fr, a regional tabloid. I wanted to delete all of this, but figured I would be flagged for being too WP:BOLD in light of my recent edits. Also, it would leave us with virtually nothing for the Europe section. So I'm sitting this down here until I can find reliable sources for any info on this hair color in Europe. Which shouldn't be too difficult. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick, but La Dépêche du Midi is a quite respectable publication. I hope the 'tabloid'-bit refers to format only, because it does not at all qualify as tabloid journalism. No objections to deleting the bit based on Coon, but just deleting the whole section seems a bit drastic, especially considering the presence of more modern sources. Kleuske (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Besides, counting the percentage of blond people in a given population is not the sort of research that is easily made obsolete by more modern findings. Kleuske (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the point in completely destroying the section on Europe, removing a reference to an actual physical anthropologist, and keeping quotes from sociologists who tend not to study physical features and also to keep highly obscure historical references. I would like to complement it with a study carried out by researchers at the L'oreal institute, but the article is semi-protected and my account is new. Madalena NovaLima (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I can think of several reasons not to include the content:

First, there's accuracy. It's extremely improbable that these figures from the early 1900s are meaningful anymore when countries like France have received millions of immigrants from Southern Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia, etc, for decades, collectively outnumbering any immigration from blonder countries like Poland.

Second, none of these archaic reports can be verified and they probably all lacked peer review. No photos were taken, no objective instruments were used to measure hair color or lightness/darkness, etc. It was just one white supremacist, maybe with some kind of Von Luschen type of scale jotting down whatever he perceived.

Third, even the new studies that are not secondary in nature are likely not fully accounting for synthetic hair color alteration, other than self-reporting, which will probably compromise the integrity of the results. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, none of these justifications seem enough to me. If immigration has profoundly altered the demography of Western countries, then a brief mention of old studies is interesting because it highlights precisely these demographic changes. It is an exaggeration to call studies from the beginning of the 20th century "archaic", and in fact no study is "verified" but only compared with other studies. And that goes for both current and old studies. The idea of ​​using only peer-reviewed articles is perhaps even supported by Wikipedia's editing rules, and I should inform myself about that, but a priori it seems to me to be a stupid criterion as it would prevent me from referencing any old article, including articles written by Einstein or Newton or any other scientist whose competence is universally accepted. Also, to say that he is just a "white supremacist" is just your opinion, and an editor cannot allow his own opinion to infiltrate Wikipedia. Carleton Coon, for example, was president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists and a professor at Harvard, and despite the current controversy surrounding his work, it can never be said that he is just a "white supremacist". Madalena NovaLima (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Why there is no mention of blond people in other European Regions?

Only Italy,France,Portuagal are mentioned ,where the blond people popualtion is the lowest. Apspsuperman (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2022

Can somebody add a wikilink to pigmentation for the word pigmentation in Prevalence/Europe? 72.23.45.110 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Black and white photograph?

@TylerBurden: My edit was reverted, so I figured we should discuss this. [4] There are already 16 images in this article. There doesn't need to be that many per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. There is already a relevant linked wikimedia commons category linked at the end of the article if people really need to see endless pictures of people with blonde hair. [5] I figured that getting rid of a black and white photograph would be the least controversial to remove from the article. While you can see that his hair is light, you can't tell from the photograph itself if it was a light brown or some other lighter pigment. I don't really see the point.

In my opinion, the most relevant images (because of their variety and illustrative purpose to the article) are:

• File:Lars-Unnerstall2.jpg because it shows a man with blond hair and a blond beard
• File:Anonymous Ferdinand of Austria in Hungarian costume (detail).jpg because it shows baby blondness
• File:Blonde girl Vanuatu.jpg as it's relevant to the text about the genetic mutation that causes blondness in Oceania
• File:Hitler-Jugend Deutschlands Zukunft Ansichtskarte Postkarte Ludwig Hohlwein Aquarell NSDAP propaganda HJ Fahnen Postcard issued by Deutscher Jugendverlag Hitler Youth Germany's future No known copyright restrictions 3201200095.jpg because there's a whole section that's essentially devoted to Nazi propaganda.

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, there are not so many images that it bloats the article, and the image is relevant regardless of being black and white. The placement of it next to the image of Marilyn Monroe also sets good examples of both male and female blond "sex symbols", so overall I don't think there is a good reason to remove it. TylerBurden (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Africa

The section on Africa seems a bit out of place compared to the others. The other regional sections discuss the indigenous/autochthonous presence of blond(e) hair but the Africa section seems to be exclusively external in source.

The first paragraph mentions blonds, but only as they exist in the South African European descended immigrants. While demographic change can surely be used to justify inclusion, why not have a section on North America?

The primary issues is with the second paragraph. The second paragraph only makes mention of mummies, also existing at a time of increased outside influence and in one color segregated grave, more likely indicating familial connection than presence of the hair color in Africa. This isn't even to mention the troublesome issue with hair color and human remains, where it isn't uncommon for the hair to lighten over the millennia. Take for example red-haired mummies in the Americas where there exists no evidence of a mutated MC1R or other cause for the hair color. There has been some work done by Dr. Janet Davey with donated hair and wigs but such was limited and couldn't replicate thousands of years of aging. It's just overall a very limited and specious inclusion that sticks out.

Could the section be amended to include extant examples of blond(e) hair, particularly in immigrants outside South Africa? Or a section on the Americas for that matter. Additionally, there are certainly more examples of living blonde Africans (albeit from Albinism) than blonde mummies and there is no mention of them, either. The Egyptian example given is a singular outlier that ultimately might not have even been lighter in hair color and could very well represent foreign influence. It's a tenuous inclusion in absence of more relevant and representative information. Prime Paladin (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The South African material is unsourced and hardly notable for inclusion otherwise, so I think it should be removed.

However, there is a genetic basis for red (and blond) hair in Amerindians; there's plenty of studies published about their notable frequency of albinism, particularly OCA2 albinism which is associated with non-rufous red hair.[6] As for your comments about Jean Davey's work; it is unclear to me whether she refers to the mummies described in the article. Jean Davey has published forensic evidence suggesting that the mummies natural lifetime hair color has been preserved and was not altered exogenously.[7] If you have competing sources please share them; otherwise this seems to be original research. - Hunan201p (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Alexander the Great and the Ptolemies

User @Tylerburden keeps editing in completely bogus claims regarding the hair colour. He has cherry picked a couple of badly researched sources that are not related to the subject of this article. I suspect his motivations to be ideological. We have mosaics from both the era of Berenice II and Alexander the Great showing them with dark hair. NoMoreBu11 (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The quote "rugged, blond good looks" that is used by Joseph L. Coulombe comes from the book Alexander’s Bridge by Willa Cather, and is in fact fiction. NoMoreBu11 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, these comments are clearly a violation of WP:AGF, second, I didn't add these references, everything on the article is not written in WP:WIKIVOICE, but simply presenting established reliable scholars on the subject. If anything, it seems like @NoMoreBu11 is removing the content on basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TylerBurden (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, yes you did not write that section. The truth however is that the quote on Alexander was is in fact not written by scholar, it is from a Willa Cather novel.

Here, you may read it yourself.

https://imgur.com/a/OCRPxfS NoMoreBu11 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I see, then the last bit should be changed to reflect that it is from a novel. However, the Fletcher reference that you have also been removing clearly refers to Alexander as blond, and that is not a novel. TylerBurden (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The last bit should be removed in its entirety, the section is about historical perceptions in ancient Greece. NoMoreBu11 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we be using "blond" for women?

How come only the spelling "blond" is used? It's a gender-specific word. I know that "she was blond" is wrong (should be "blonde"); I would think that "she had blond hair" would also be wrong. Is there any good argument for not doing this? Herostratus (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus: My understanding is that it's mostly a tradition thing. [8] If you're interested in proposing any WP:MOS changes in regards to gender-neutral language... good luck. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I'm sure it is a tradition and a holdover, but it says here that its still ongoing, whether we like it or not. We don't have to follow our sources for othography and sometimes we don't (eg we don't write "December 8th" even if all our sources do), but what the outside world does is usually an important point.

As to to gender-neutral language, I get it, but in this particular case there's no favoritism. I think it may be the only English word where this is true. So, unlike say actor/actress there is 1) no real argument for combining them, and 2) if we do, there's no reason to prefer one spelling over the other.

That is, if we felt we must use only one spelling (in contravention to most of the rest of the world it seems), there's no reason not to favor "blonde". With "blond" for a man we are saying "A male with yellow hair", and by using "blond" for a woman we are saying "A ma... well, not actually a male, but we'll ignore that and promote them to male, as a favor". Not a good look IMO.

But since there's no favoritism here, I see no reason to not do as the world does, to avoid surprising and maybe annoying some percentage of readers, to no benefit. Herostratus (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus Oh, I think I get what the point of your comment here was. Maybe there should be further context about the distinction between blond/blonde. It's one of the few cases of actually gender-specific nouns in English. It's way more common than using she for ships and as you said the distinction between actor/actress. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus So my thoughts on your original question is that there isn't a good reason not to do what you were suggesting. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I also wanted to apologize for bringing up something that wasn't really relevant at all. I've been feeling more pessimistic about the world lately, but there's no need to push that on others. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No no it's fine, you weren't abrasive in the least. Herostratus (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No objections being raised yet, I'll make the change, with the Ngram as a support. Herostratus (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus I am not familiar with this gender issue, it does not exist in my native language. What is the problem exactly and why do we need to change every instance of "blond" to "blonde", do we not then assume everyone is female? I don't want to revert just yet in case there is simply something I am missing, but this looks unnecessary at glance to me, especially since the article name itself uses "blond". TylerBurden (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. English is not a gendered language. Except for animals, objects have no gender. We don't worry about whether to use "le" or "la" when referring to an object. Neutral "the" works for everything. There are a very very few exceptions, and "blonde / blond" is one of them. So, for good or ill, English has "blond man" and "blonde woman". OK so far.

But, what about referring to objects -- is it "blond-colored wood" or "blonde-colored wood? There's no answer, no rule in English, and no common practice. Same for people, when their sex is unknown -- is it "There were a number of blond people in the room", or "...blonde people"? Is it "Blonde elevator operator" or "Blond elevator operator"? I don't know, and neither do you. If there were many such words, we probably would have a rule, and the rule would likely be to use "blond", because -- well, who makes the rules? But there aren't and we don't. So, we're on our own.

So, what to do? Well, one solution would be to randomize, or to alternate "blonde" and "blond". I think that'd be sloppy. It's usual, in the case where there's two ways to write a word, to be consistent within an article. So, this is one solution, but a bad one in my opinion. Or, we could replace all instances of "blonde/blond" with "fair-haired" or something, but this also is no good. Using say "blonx" on the example of "Latinx" would be our coining, not allowed.

So, that would leave us with using either "blonde" or "blond" throughout, in indeterminate situations. Which one? Search me, but unless we want to roll a die, why not "blonde", in this one case where we can avoid using the masculine form? Give woman pride of place for once.

As to the article title, OK let's change that too. Why should we assume or imply that the article is only about men?

You are free to roll it back per WP:BRD of course, no problem. Maybe we should have an WP:RFC on the matter, I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well if neither is wrong and there unfortunately is no way for us to not exclude an entire sex, I think it would be logical to just go with whatever was first chosen similar to what is described in WP:ENGVAR, MOS:ERA MOS:VAR etc. In this case that is blond, which you can see if you go to the oldest portion of the history, and that seems to have been the case for virtually all of the article's existence. So to answer your question of why not, this is more of a sidegrade rather than upgrade, because it replaces one assumption with another equally bad one because of what I can only call a language flaw. I think from a reader standpoint it's weird to click on an article using "blond" only for the rest of the article to use "blonde". Though I suppose another viewpoint in that aspect would be some kind of flawed fairness with one sex represented through title and the other through use in the article itself. OR English adopts the approach of other languages and drops the gendering of this word eliminating this issue. ;)

But thank you for the response, maybe you're right and an RfC or the like could be held, or at least more input gathered. Perhaps someone has a magical solution, but I doubt it. So for now given Wikipedia's favouring of retaining existing variations unless there is very good reason to change (as said above, one assumption replacing another one isn't in my opinion) I will restore the consistent usage of the article title variation. TylerBurden (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus @TylerBurden: I have re-read the article. The article uses American spelling color. In American English this would be using blond as an adjective for both genders (but separate blond/blonde as a noun). For UK usage there is a distinct masculine and feminine usage for both noun and adjective. This specific grammatical gender issue is not well explained and needs to be expanded in the article.

The article itself uses blonde in some application referring to female persons and goddess. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

In your example sentence "she had blond hair", the word "blond" refers to the hair and not to the woman and thus isn't spelled "blonde". Blonde is only used when referring to a woman: "she is a blonde", "the blonde in the blue dress". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this true? I can see how it would be, but Websters says different, for people (not things). Herostratus (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Every style advice page I check seems to have different guidance. Columbia Journalism Review (quoting Garner's Modern American Usage) says "“blond” is preferred in all senses as an adjective in American English" and quoting the Associated Press Stylebook “Use blond as a noun for males and as an adjective for all applications: She has blond hair. Use blonde as a noun for females.” User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This doesn’t seem to be the case in the US, from what I’ve noticed. “Blonde” is the more common spelling for males as well. “Blond” seems to be used only by older people. 45.49.10.103 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

"Ice Blonde" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ice Blonde has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27 § Ice Blonde until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

“Blonde” is also used for both genders

Maybe it’s a regional or age thing, but I very, very rarely see the “blond” spelling (and even then usually from people much older than me). Maybe some places it has gendered spelling but it absolutely does not where I have lived my whole life (California). 45.49.10.103 (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In this article it said Rome had control over West Germany in the 1st century. That is totally incorrect. Rome never crossed the Rhine !! They were not able to !!

ROME NEVER CROSSED THE RHINE. THIS ARTILCLE IMPLIES THAT. THAT IS INCORRECT BY 100 % 2600:8800:8692:4200:C1A7:821C:7FF7:9DA2 (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The article says "parts of western Germany". Parts of western Germany are west of the Rhine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

W:NPOV issues with regard to the attractiveness of blonde women

@TylerBurden: you blanket reverted me on [20:21 15 February 2024], with the explanation that the article "is not a competition of attractiveness".

Well, in this article, there is a notion that blonde women have been considered especially attractive, particularly during the Middle Ages, but also in modern times.

However, reliable research has critically examined this notion, and found that heterosexual men generally rank blonde women as less attractive than women with darker hair colors, in spite of the purported hype.

V. Swami, et al. hypothesize (p. 430) that British participants would show a preference for blonde women based on research about their over-representation in popular media over the previous four decades. Yet contrary to their expectations, British subjects generally selected dark-haired women as ideal. They cite other research, namely Rich and Cash (1993), to suggest that blonde women might not have been as over-represented in the media as previously believed, and that their results may be explained by the popularity of brunette women in popular media.

A very similar conclusion is reached in Wortham, et al 2018. They note (p. 34) the same research dating back to the 1960s to suggest that blonde women are over-represented in fashion magazines. However they note (p.37) that research on preferences is inconclusive, citing studies to show that brunette women are actually considered more attractive, in general. This includes Swami's research. Wortham et al. found that blonde women were generally regarded as less attractive than brunette women.

On page 49 they discuss their findings. Similar to Swami, et al, they observed that brunette women are actually the majority of fashion models, contrary to research from decades prior that found that blonde women were the majority. They likewise cite Rich and Cash (1993), showing the decline of blonde women in the fashion industry. They suggest that this may explain why brunette women are generally preferred.

Jacobi et al. (1994) examined hair color preferences based around the findings of Rich and Cash (1993). Like the previous authors, they found that there was a general preference for brunettes, and in their conclusion they wrote: "Furthermore, most men do not personally prefer the very thin, blonde, blue-eyed, large-busted image of many female fashion models."

By introducing these sources to the article, I am not creating a 'competition between hair colors', as you suggest. I am creating a balanced representation of the research that has critically examined the topic of blonde women's attractiveness, which is a key focus point of this article. The article in its previous state had a non-neutral point of view, which only championed blonde women, in spite of research to the contrary.

And in Central Asia, which was colonized by Russians, blonde women are considered unattractive and cannot represent a beauty ideal (Fierman, 1991), to the extent that Russian educators struggled to convince local students otherwise (Kriendler, 1993). In East Asia, blonde hair is considered unattractive on women, and blonde immigrant women report that their hair color is denied in the Asian beauty ideal (Lundstrom, 2014).

Clearly, blonde women are considered downright unattractive in other parts of the world, despite the wholesale export of European culture to the rest of the world in the last century. Without these perspectives, the article pumps up blond hair in a way that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. We should deliver the whole body of research to the reader. Red Book Librarian (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty true. I just wanted to say that. Bye. J. G. is a blonde freak (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Blanket reverting of non-disruptive content

TylerBurden's blanket revision of my contributions undid improvements that weren't related to the topic of blonde women's attractiveness in contemporary society.

I removed a great deal of content from this article that does not verify. For example, I removed the claim that Mary Magdalene is portrayed as blonde in medieval Gothic paintings, which was cited to Schiller pp. 155-158.

Yet, as I explained in my edit summary with a URL link, Schiller pages 155-158, Schiller doesn't say anywhere that Mary was blonde.

Please respect the suggestion at WP:MASSR that editors generally should not blanket-revert content that is not disruptive. That in of itself is disruptive and causes the other editor inconvenience. Red Book Librarian (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You are certainly very policy savvy for such a new editor, have you been editing before? The issue we are facing overall is that the article is not called "blond attractiveness" yet large portions are devoted to it. I think this should be more briefly summed up, perhaps in its own section named such or using something similar. Of course a counterpoint of blondes being considered less attractive in other instances can also be added, as long as it is given the balance that it should have per WP:DUE, that seems only natural, but this topic in general shouldn't be this big of a portion on an article meant to be about blond hair color in general. TylerBurden (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: it seems like the issue here is mainly the length of the content. I agree: I have exhaustively described the findings of each study, when they could be merged in to one or two sentences. My proposal is to simply compress this content, which would read like:

"In the 1960s and 1970s, research showed that blonde women were over-represented in Western popular media.[1] However, research in Western countries has found that men in western countries generally find dark-haired women more attractive than those with blonde hair, and blonde women may not be over-represented in modern popular media[2][3][4]"

Let me know if you think this is a good compromise. The same thing would be done to the Asia content. Red Book Librarian (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that seems reasonable if that is the general consensus in WP:RS. As you said, the main issue was the amount of content specifically about attractiveness. A succinct summary avoids giving the topic too much weight on the article. TylerBurden (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden Yeah, that's true, also like everyone always said that we're dumb and like posh... so I guess it was like "they're easier to win their love"... Just my personal opinion. J. G. is a blonde freak (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Genetics of Blond Hair" Section is Now Outdated and Lacks Relevant Information

This section contains outdated information. Specifically, the idea that the KITLG allele for blond hair originated in ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) and spread into Europe with WSH (western steppe herders) has been significantly challenged by more recent research papers and sequencing. This section should be updated for the following reasons:

1. Alleles for blond hair have been found in several populations not harboring ANE/WSH ancestry. Individuals of the neolithic Globular Amphora culture are predicted via HIrisPlex-S panel to have blond hair, with all sequenced individuals possessing the G allele of rs12821256 coding for light colored hair, notably found on the KITLG gene (see supplementary table 4)[1]. This culture predates the arrival of ANE-bearing western steppe herders from the east; this Early European Farmer population did not carry steppe related ancestry [2]. Blond hair was again inferred in Anatolian Neolithic/Early European Farmers, notably the Linear Pottery Culture of North and Central Europe (see page 22 of supplementals) [3]. In terms of autosomal ancestry, Linear Pottery is on the same ancestral cline as Globular Amphora. Blond hair was present in the Neolithic of Anatolia (Turkey) at Barcın, Chalcolithic Southeastern Europe (Romania at Bodrogkeresztur), Chalcolithic of the Levant (Israel), and a Minoan from Lasithi [4]. Thus, blonde hair was already present in the European continent before the arrival of steppe groups.

2. The presence of the KITLG pre-allele in a single ANE sample does not necessarily indicate its origin in the ANE population. It is true that the oldest example of KITLG rs12821256 was found in the Afontova Gora ANE individual. However, as already stated, this mutation appears in farmer populations which did not contact ancient north eurasians or steppe pastoralists. Logically, this mutation must have originated in an ancestral population that gave descent to many West Eurasian groups, including European and West Asian neolithic farmers and Ancient North Eurasians in order for members of the Globular Amphora Culture to have the G allele. Therefore, blonde hair

3. There are a number of alleles encoding for light hair coloring, but this section only focuses on a single allele: rs12821256. It is misleading to simplify the genotype behind light colored hair to only one mutation. The aforementioned HIrisPlex-S panel examines several high impact SNPs encoding hair color in addition to rs12821256. Even if steppe pastoralists did carry rs12821256 into Europe and elsewhere, we cannot in good faith say that blond hair as a general phenotype was brought to Europe with steppe pastoralists because without considering all genetic mutations encoding for this trait.

4. Many of the sources provided in this section predate the papers I have cited here or reference outdated information. At the very least, new information should be included to balance out the old. Recently released papers from the past few years have analyzed thousands of new skeletal samples, notably from Isof Lazaridis and David Reich.

I believe it is extremely relevant to include the above information in order to be objective and comprehensive. Noleb (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"Genetics of Blond Hair" Section is Now Outdated and Lacks Relevant Information

Please see my above post for an explanation of the following edits.

Please change:

Geneticist David Reich said that the hundreds of millions of copies of this SNP, the classic European blond hair mutation, entered continental Europe by way of a massive population migration from the Eurasian steppe, by a people who had substantial Ancient North Eurasian ancestry.

Ancient North Eurasian admixture is present in mesolithic fossils from Northern Europe, and is linked to the prediction of blond hair in stone-age Scandinavians by ancient DNA analysis.

Gavin Evans analyzed several years of research on the origin of European blond hair, and concluded that the widespread presence of blond hair in Europe is largely due to the territorial expansions of the "all-conquering" Western Steppe Herders; who carried the genes for blond hair.

A review article published in 2020 analyzes fossil data from a wide variety of published sources. The authors affirm the previous statements, noting that Ancient North Eurasian-derived populations carried the derived blond hair allele to Europe, and that the "massive spread" of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists likely caused the "rapid selective sweep in European populations toward light skin and hair."

to this:

The precise genetic origin and spread of blond hair into its present-day distribution is a topic of debate amongst population geneticists.

Geneticist David Reich said that the hundreds of millions of copies of this SNP, the classic European blond hair mutation, entered continental Europe by way of a massive population migration from the Eurasian steppe, by a people who had substantial Ancient North Eurasian ancestry. Ancient North Eurasian admixture is present in mesolithic fossils from Northern Europe, and is linked to the prediction of blond hair in stone-age Scandinavians by ancient DNA analysis. Gavin Evans analyzed several years of research on the origin of European blond hair, and concluded that the widespread presence of blond hair in Europe is largely due to the territorial expansions of the "all-conquering" Western Steppe Herders; who carried the genes for blond hair. A review article published in 2020 analyzes fossil data from a wide variety of published sources. The authors affirm the previous statements, noting that Ancient North Eurasian-derived populations carried the derived blond hair allele to Europe, and that the "massive spread" of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists likely caused the "rapid selective sweep in European populations toward light skin and hair."

In contrast, geneticist Isof Lazaridis in his 2022 paper showed that blond hair did not spread into Europe with steppe pastoralists carrying Ancient North Eurasian ancestry. Regarding the genetic history of light hair, eyes, and skin, the authors state that "aspects of this phenotype were distributed in the past among diverse ancestral populations and did not coincide in any single population except as isolated individuals, and certainly not in any of the proposed homelands of the Indo-European language family. The study analyzed thousands of newly sequenced ancient samples and identified genetic mutations for blond hair in individuals belonging to the neolithic Linear Pottery Culture of North and Central Europe, the Neolithic of Anatolia (Turkey) at Barcın, Chalcolithic Southeastern Europe (Romania at Bodrogkeresztur), Chalcolithic of the Levant (Israel), and a Minoan from Lasithi. These populations did not carry Ancient North Eurasian ancestry. Furthermore, Lazaridis noted that blond hair was virtually absent amongst the earliest steppe pastoralist groups such as the Yamnaya and Afanasievo cultures, but nominally higher in later steppe groups possessing Early European Farmer ancestry such as the Bell Beaker Culture. Lazaridis concluded that the prevalence of blond hair across ancient samples was "in reverse relationship to steppe ancestry, and thus inconsistent with the theory that steppe groups were spreading this set of phenotypes."

A 2019 study examining the neolithic Globular Amphora Culture found that all tested individuals carried the mutated allele rs12821256 of the KITLG gene encoding for blond hair. Notably, these Early European Farmers did not possess ancestry from Indo-European steppe pastoralists, and therefore lacked ancestry from Ancient North Eurasians.

Noleb (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

References