Talk:Blond

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blond article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Anthropology Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Removed paragraph

The recent study proved that the mental performance of a man worsened after looking at and talking to blonde women. At University of Paris X-Nanterre revealed that men's general knowledge results on tests decreased after viewing pictures that included blonde women. Such an effect is explained by the fact that men unconsciously think that they are dealing with someone with a decreased level of intellect. Thierry Meyer, joint author of the research and professor of social psychology at the University of Paris X-Nanterre said that the study shows how stereotypes can influence our behavior. [8]

I removed the preceding paragraph from the Relation to age and distribution on body section because it doesn't belong there and is highly biased anyways. Oddity- (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

"Young Northern European man with naturally blond hair." -- His hair is certainly (naturally) blond, but it looks like he dyed it, too (which 90% of us "blond" Europeans do. The overall percentage of "real" blond is strongly decreasing). That makes the picture pretty useless :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.24.47 (talk) 03:08, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Only hair?

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

Indeed, the word is used in other contexts as well (more or less poetical). "The blond dunes", "the blond reed" (when it has died off and in winter has a light colour, while the empty ares, even a bit lighter of colour look a bit like lightblond hair. So the titel of this article might be changed in "Blond hair". James Blond 03:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syrians and Lebanese should be included

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

some images of syrians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some from lebanon

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

Is that enough pictures for you?

Besides half my famliy are blondes and we are syrians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are correct sir, these lightly pigmented individuals are more than likely descendants of the Germanic tribes that had once migrated through the Middle East and North Africa, that is why you can still meet people with light eyes and fair hair in Morocco, Tunisia and Libya, however these people ARE NOT indigenous to the region. Why is every Arab suddenly trying to prove his people are "white". Jeez, take some pride in your own ancestry. Koalorka 05:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are the levels of pheomelanin really higher?

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

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

Add references in popular media section?

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

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

Origins

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

Mothers pass blond genes to male children. If society suddenly started sexually selecting for women with big noses, we would eventually see more male and female children with big noses. -- Stbalbach 15:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers pass blond genes to male children.

But when all men are darkhaired, the lighter blond women become, the more men's dark is dominating as usual, so that new men will keep being born darkhaired, no? VKing 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said all men are dark haired? It's not like blondness is a female trait, or that blond men don't procreate with other blond women. -- Stbalbach 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said? Well the theory, this is all about, tries to declare, how blond hair could have been developed genetically some tenthousand years ago. This includes the preposition, that before, all people were not blond and so darkhaired. (This theory in it's turn is trying to support a Japanese research, that resulted in the rather unlikely conclusion, that blond hair probably didn't occur more than some tenthousand years ago). VKing 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like confusion over how evolution works, it doesn't happen in just one generation. -- Stbalbach 05:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides it would be no use, as probably all women wanted to become blond. It's not very likely, that nature would cooperate in such a nonsensical operation. VKing 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we plan to remove this text and replace it by in principle this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When of 10 milion Irish 5 milion emigrate to the US, only 5 milion are left in Europe. When of 80 milion Turkeys 10 milion emigrate to Europe, there are 70 milion left in the Asian country of origin. When of 1,2 billion Chinese 100 milion emigrate to Northern- Europe, then there are still 1,1 bilion left in China.

It's not only Turkeys and Chinese, that were and still are are immigrating in the temperate (climate) part of Europe, it's also Moroccans, Hindustans and asylants from many other subtropical and tropical countries.

In less recent times population of this temperate European area was 'darkened' conciderably already by immigrated Jews and Southern-Europeans, like Italian and Spanish miners, who all intensively mixed up with blond autochtones.

By now in bigger cities like Amsterdam more than 70% of pupils in basic schools are non-European and so tropical, or subtropical Asians and Africans.

Less than one century ago more than 70% of them was blond.

Anybody who denies that the blond race is becoming extinct, is either blind, or an idiot (or has never been in the part of Europe, situated above the 50th degree of latitude).James Blond 21:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is because there are more dark-haired people in Amsterdam than before, not because there are less blondes. The percentage may change but there are still the same if not more blondes in the Netherlands. Also, there is no blonde race. I am a brown-haired Dutchman, and very much the same race as you. Lyraes 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe blond hair reduces fertility. Muntuwandi 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Blond, you miss the point that native whites are often leaving cities (look up counter-urbanisation or suburbanisation) - this, ALONG WITH immigration, is the reason why some parts of some cities are becoming minority-majority. I believe demographers like Coleman at Oxford forecast that many European countries will be 20-30% minority by mid-century, IF PRESENT TRENDS CONTINUE. However, extrapolating from the present is always a poor guide to the future. It's worth bearing in mind, as I said before, that MIGRATION PATTERNS CHANGE. Black Caribbeans immigrated to the UK in large numbers in the 50s and 60s, but their number has been stable since the 70s (there is now net outmigration of black Caribbeans from the UK, and their fertility rate is lower than whites).

Blond hair and blue eyes are NOT becoming extinct. The proportion of people with these traits IN THE TOTAL POPULATION may decline, and (depending on relative birth and death rates) the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of people with these traits may decline, but as long as a trait is not disadvantageous, it will NOT completely disappear from the population. Blond hair and blue eyes are NOT disadvantageous, therefore they will NOT disappear from the population.

Etymology

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

According to OED the origin is "uncertain". Used in English in the 15th C as "blounde". Goes on to say:

reintroduced from mod.Fr. in 17th c., and still sometimes treated as French, as to be written without final e when applied to a man, esp. substantively, a blonde; in N. Amer. commonly written blond like the Fr. masculine, but in Britain the form blonde is now preferred in all senses.

--Stbalbach 05:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is "orthodox English"? 81.102.242.145 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the swedish guy is not blonde

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

- Moreno: black hair.

- Castaño oscuro: dark brown.

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

- Rubio: blond

- Pelirrojo: red-haired

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

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

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

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

Agreed, I'd call this mousy brown. Not blond. I've had colour blindness tests and a recent eye test (I don't need glasses and am not colour blind). I live in the UK. My wife and son are blond. I'm brown haired (people say it's black, it isn't!). One of my best friends at secondary school (11-18) had a slightly darker shade of this colour of brown hair. Pbhj 00:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the colors on your screen need to be adjusted. The top pic is absolutely, quintessentially blond. The Swedish guy's hair is a darker blond, but still blond by most English speakers' definition, I think. (Maybe the boundary between "light brown" and "blond" is different in Spanish.) The two of them are the only blond adults on this page whose hair hasn't been dyed. —An gr 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The guy looks blond to me. In no way is his hair "dark". And considering that his hair IS light, I consider him very much blond.

Agreed, it also looks more light brown to me than dark blond. Doesn't mean he has dark hair, just doesn't look blond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.254.172.168 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

Taking a closer look at the beard, there is indeed some so called 'reddish' in it. Which on this side leads to the conclusion, that the guy must be brownhaired, although the picture is not very clear about that. For brown hair, like so called red hair, (which in fact is orangeblond) in principle is a mixture of black and lightblond. The difference is, that in case of orange the blond part dominates, while in case of brown the black part. In a way they're very close to each other, but both on an other side of the 'frontier', or the line, between North and South, blond and otherwise, light and dark.

(As for the beard, it occurs relatively often, that he's in a somewhat different colour, than the headhair. It often is more orange). But brown hair as good as always can be called dark, like in this case. And because it 's not predominantly blond, it's not blond. VKing 10:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

the swedish guy was on the right not the left, he was blonde.....Australian Jezza 07:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

color blindness and night blindness Nagara373 09:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed by the degree of bullshit about the Swedish guy's hair colour...!? All that rubbish about "his hair is dark, is mousy brown..." or even just "dark blond"... I can only conclude that some people are suffering from a physical or mental condition... This guy is absolutely, undoubtedly, in the best sense of the term "blond" a blond person. There is not a single trace of him being "somewhat" dark-haired or whatever... And the most extreme bullshit I read here is that his eyes are brown! WTF! - Granted, there are even more extreme light shades of blond (especially in children), but there is no way in hell, one could NOT call this guy blond (I am 100% positive that any Swede who is sane in his mind would agree that this is a perfect example of a blonde person!). Moreover, what is also obvious that this guy has some very scandinavian features in his face, the way he looks, something you only find in Scandinavians (and quite a few Germans, esp. in the North as well). I also do not think (at least, there is no good reason for such an unfounded assumption) that he dyed his hair. It looks very natural. - I say this as a person who was blond (or maybe dark blond) as a child and adolescent and whose hair got a bit darker while at the same time getting grey soon. My eye colour is blue and I am German. I cannot understand folks who claim that guy is NOT blond. This is beyond me! /MWV/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.180.153 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blondes in Finland

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

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

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

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

That Was A Good Joke! 10 points! But the truth is still that Finland has the highest percentage of blondes. (BBC agrees that, too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2284783.stm)

Blonde = Blond person

Blonds -> Blondes

nagara373 4:07, 8 Aug 2007 (JST)

I'm almoust shure, in finland or scandinavia. Many lithuanians have black hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this child blond?

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

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

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

This could very well be hormonal. My father was butter-blond as a child, and black-haired as an adult. I was dark-golden/brown as a child and am dark-brown-haired as an adult. The blond streak in the front of my hair has darkened to red - the darkening happened most sharply after I had children, leading me even more strongly to believe it is hormonal in nature.141.156.20.173 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would not have called you blond as a child; that hair looked like regular brown to me. Adorable, certainly, but not blond.141.156.20.173 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk thats such bullshit, REAL vikings had red hair :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.45.247 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Meh, most of them probably had brown or blonde hair, it's debatable whether even Eirik Raude had red hair. The blonde side of my family are descended from Lincolnshire Vikings, only the line has become distorted somewhat to the point where we now slaughter women and rape livestock. --JamesTheNumberless 11:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural reactions

Planning to ad to this section:

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

It is un-sourced and appears to be original research based on your personal observation and conclusion. I'm not saying it it right or wrong, just appears to be original research. -- Stbalbach 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention a little difficult to understand. Where did it come from? Who said it? When? Tinkstar1985 07:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is still a demand for sourcing aside this part of the text. (Strange thing, an encyclopedia, that asks for prooves of it's own text. This is an internal matter. The text should be removed, when and as long as the demanded sources are not (immediatly) provided).

In the mean time the proposed text to be added, hereabove, has been adapted to objections and provided of some explanation:

"But still, it's very well possible, that these women, by playing these roles, while wearing another, then their own more dark haircolour, have caused a, far from favourable, imagebuilding towards the other people, who's natural haircolour they artificcially wore. This for instance might be the reason of real blondes being perceived as "dumb". The masses saw persons, who were looking like that, acting dumb and as a result started thinking or unconsiously having the impression, that all or most persons looking like that, are dumb (or exhibitionistic, or servile, or prostitutional). This, whereas natural lighthaired persons never of their life would, or even could, have played such roles. This is no different, as far as concerns more or less scandalous escapades of nowadays bleached celebrities, like Palmela Anderson, Britney Spears, Madonna and Paris Hilton ".VKing 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

VKing 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't imagine there is a scientific way to objectively determine blondness. Just as there no scientific way to determine if someone is objectively black, or white, etc.. of course you can, if you have a pre-conception of what blond means, but that is a value judgment, open for opinion. It would very dangerous and wrong to say that science can objectively determine if someone is blond or not, based only on science. -- Stbalbach 15:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, any definition of hair colour is always going to be socially constructed. Perhaps this is a point that can be made in the article. However, with that said, it can't do any harm to also point out any definition of 'blondness' that hold wide consensus amongst the concerned scientific community (should such a definition exist). Perhaps this could even be broadened to a range of different pigment levels that are sometimes used in hair analysis. It is quite possible that these differ depending on the purpose of the hair analysis. The article I listed in my previous post is one example of this, where the defining of hair colour was found to be important in the analysis of hair for drugs.

Moreover, after reading the numerous postings on this talk page it is also apparent that there may not only be a difference in the definition of 'blondness' between science and culture, but also between cultures/societies. This is something that perhaps should be expanded on, as so far the main definitions of 'blondness' and shades has been a very western/American outlook. What are the Nordic, and Spanish definitions of the tones? I know they have been mentioned in previous posts, but perhaps they should receive their own sections in the main article.

Who would have thought hair colour could be such a contentious issue - I can only imagine what its like on the grey hair page! Tinkstar1985 07:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

You deleted Poland? It's stupid. Where is Latvia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.25.200.133 (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal Australian pictures

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

Picture of a brunette in blonde article

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

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

Fetish

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

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

Just out of curiosity for the absurd, what's that "elementary function"? If it is "to breed blondes", man, I do agree. --euyyn 10:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pubic Hair

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

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

I'm blonde (at least in the summer as I tend to sun bleach strongly) and I have light brown eyebrows and brown pubic hair.

Gallery images

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

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

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

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

The one on the right is hot. --euyyn 10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Frudakis

Regarding this text added to the 'Origins' section:

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

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

If you search, you'll find that Frost doesn't discuss the origin of blond hair either (though he does discuss a Thelen study using pictures of blonde and brunette women, and discusses whether blond hair might be sex-linked. Rather, he discusses the emergence of hair and eye color polymorphism (read, diversity) under a hypothetical diversifying sexual selection (based in part on the Thelen study). Frudakis, while mainly discussing eye color, is referring to skin, hair and eyes when he says "tissues" in this quote, which is on the first page. He also is describing the selection pressures, but describes them differently (and on the basis of the allele frequency rather than a hypothetical OSR imbalance among Europeans). While it's not Wikipedia's place to decide which is right, it is our job to report both, and in the light of other citations decide which is a minority or extreme minority opinion in the literature. This quote just does the first task.--Carwil 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I guess these things need to be put into a language most people can understand. What exactly is Frudakis saying about the origins of blond, in common every day language? I can't parse the above quote it makes no sense to me and I imagine most people. Frost does discuss blond[3] as does the linked paper in the article. -- Stbalbach 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the earlier bit of Frudakis added to the quote:

[M]inimal correlation exists among skin, hair, and iris color within or between individuals of a given population. In contrast, between-population comparisons show good concordance; populations with darker average iris color also tend to exhibit darker average skin tones and hair colors. These observations suggest that the genetic determinants for pigmentation in the various tissues are distinct and that these determinants have been subject to a common set of systematic and evolutionary forces that have shaped their distribution in world populations."^[1]

The point in English, is that (and here's proposed text) "While Frost suggests a unique form of selection for variety of hair and eye color diversity in Europe, Frudakis et al. argue that "a common set of systematic and evolutionary forces" has shaped hair, skin and eye color worldwide."

--Carwil 16:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than contrasting with Frost, can we say what the theory is, in a separate paragraph, and not mention Frost? As for the proposed text, Frost is saying sexual selection, is Frudakis et al saying it was natural selection, or, what exactly are the "common set of systematic and evolutionary forces", since that is the heart of the matter re: origins. -- Stbalbach 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frost is arguing it was sexual selection ("The alternative, sexual selection, has already been advanced to explain Europe’s hair- and eye-color diversity (Cavalli-Sforzaet et al., 1994, p. 266). This kind of selection is known to favor colorful traits"); his article proposes that it operated only in Eurasia. Frudakis is arguing that it was natural selection for lighter or darker features, with no color-diversifying component.

A third source, which Frost cites to get the 1 million year figure, evaluated MC1R, which Frost calls the "hair color gene." They found, to quote their abstract:

We conclude that MC1R is under strong functional constraint in Africa, where any diversion from eumelanin production (black pigmentation) appears to be evolutionarily deleterious. Although many of the MC1R amino acid variants observed in non-African populations do affect MC1R function [i.e., capacity to shield from damage due to the sun -Carwil] and contribute to high levels of MC1R diversity in Europeans, we found no evidence, in either the magnitude or the patterns of diversity, for its enhancement by selection; rather, our analyses show that levels of MC1R polymorphism simply reflect neutral expectations under relaxation of strong functional constraint outside Africa.

And more extensively,

The possibility that both the relatively high evolutionary rate and the high European diversity are consequences of adaptation, has been discussed by Rana et al. (1999) and Owens and King (1999). However, selection on the evolutionary-divergence rate is usually inferred when the rate of nonsynonymous substitution is greater than the silent rate (Goldman and Yang 1994; Nielsen and Yang 1998). In fact, although the nonsynonymous rate in MC1R is higher than the average found over many genes, it is still lower than the silent evolutionary rate. We have also investigated the level of European polymorphism. ... However, we found no statistical evidence that MC1R diversity has been enhanced by selection, either in its apparently high levels or in its haplotype frequency–distribution patterns.

--Carwil 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please date the guy in the first picture?

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

Pictures of living anonymous people

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

But you've brought us back to the same non-NPOV position we were in on this page a year ago: except for the toddler, all the images are of women. I have no objection to using historical images, but we have to maintain a balance between pictures of males and females for the sake of NPOV. —An gr 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about using this picture - 1. male, 2. not dyed, 3. dead (apropos vanity). Politically incorrect? 217.236.230.168 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

blonde

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

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

blond: masculine/adjective form

blonde: feminine/noun form

nagara373 19:14, 9 Aug 2007 (JST)

Image MoS

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

non-humans

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

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

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

Peter Frost

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

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

Crossbreeding with other Hominids

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

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

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

80.7.195.184 09:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent genetic tests have shown blond became widespread about 12-10k years ago, long after Neanderthals were extinct. -- Stbalbach 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossbreeding in China: Homo Erectus + Neanderthals interbred -> (hybrid) + early Homo sapiens interbred

Crossbreeding in Europe: Neanderthals + early Homo sapiens interbred (eliminate reason of Neanderthals) Nagara373 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

distrubution

Please add this link to the article.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.13.186.2 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Picture balance

This article is meant to provide examples of blond. We've had problems with people inserting their favorite movie star, porn star or other "hot blond" - in order to deal with this, a solution is to approach picture selection using some logical guidelines:

1) Pictures should, if possible, tie in with people mentioned in the text. 2) Failing that, the pictures should be as neutral as possible ie. they should not promote the interests of any person. There is actually a guideline about this. 3) The images should provide a balance between male/female, child/adult, westerner/non-westerner and painting/picture.

Currently the article is somewhat balanced according to these criteria. Picture "quality" is not really an issue, if users want high-rez pictures for some other reason there is a Wikicommons gallery with dozens of pictures to choose from. -- Stbalbach 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that using a photograph of a fifty-year old blonde model is "promoting [their] interests." Since I have photographed over 200 well-known people, I can assure you that my choice of Christie Brinkley is not a choice of my "favorite movie star, porn star or other 'hot blond'." This is your own criteria, and I don't know why you think you are setting the tone for the article. A high-quality image of a former model known for her blonde hair seems far more appropriate than a faded, poor-quality image just because you think it adds "balance," "neutrality" or whatever other POV criteria you are proposing here. The image is from the commons, and frankly I think it gives the article more cachet than the poor image you keep proposing for the lead. I have plenty of other blondes I have photographed that I could use, but since Brinkley's career is essentially over, I think your argument is myopic, at best. Right now this is your own personal crusade to keep the crap photo as the lead. Let's hear from some other people. Absent more consensus, I'll revert back and we can then invite the larger Wikipedia community to comment on which photo looks bests and illustrates the concept of blonde better. --David Shankbone 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the problem with Christie Brinkley is that it's "promot[ing] the interests of any person"--it was misguided to suggest this. However, I do prefer a non-famous person as the lead image. Though the image now is faded, I still prefer it over the Christie Brinkley image. An image of a famous person, unlike an image of an unknown, immediately brings to mind all sorts of associations that overshadow the fact of their blond hair. I think the best of all worlds would be to find a higher-quality image of a non-celebrity for the lead, but as it is, I prefer the faded picture of the random guy. Calliopejen1 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sexual selection

sexual selection 1:

Women are much more than men and extinct both Neanderthals and original Cro-Magnons in Europe, because a lot of men died due to long hunting trip. A lot of men died, women are more than twice concidered to men, only big blond-haired blue-eyed young men are alive.

sexual selection 2:

Men select blond-haired blue-eyed women. Men with color-blindness get married with women with red hair.

Nagara373 09:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

latitude

blond area: latitude between the 50th degree and the arctic circle (above the 50th degree and below the arctic circle of latitude) Nagara373 03:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

statistics

Not sure if this is a relevant and an acceptable source for statistics, but this 2006 paper tells that the highest number of people with depigmented hair can be found in a) Finland, b) Norway and c) Sweden. [5] These countries along with Iceland and Denmark can be grouped under the term Nordic Countries which also cleverly avoids the endless discussion of whether Iceland and Finland are part of Scandinavia or not. Clarifer 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction with another article

The Natalie Clifford Barney states that picture of her was made when she was 20 rather than 10. Someone, please, check this. --Taraborn 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe's Natural Hair Color

I don't know many people who would consider Marilyn Monroe's natural hair color any thing but reddish-brown as it's described in most biographies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.181.196 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Blonde hair... is in the majority"

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)[reply]

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." Urselius 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to this paper [6] 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). Clarifer 09:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sicilianmandolin 09:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Urselius 09:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe = negative image of blondes?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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 )

http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/38316/2003631590295084685_rs.jpg

(original version)

http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/36136/2004731625103268248_rs.jpg

Frost Maps

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.

Look a real map of pigmentation in Europe :

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/39908/2003854802501020027_rs.jpg

Carleton Coon was combining an awful lot of data based on inconsistent surveys to create that map. I can't personally see how Wales has such a 'Mediterranean' proportion of dark hair and eyes in Coon's map, especially given the high frequency of red hair (http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_1.htm) also common to supposedly 'fairer' Scotland and Ireland (which also happen to be near identical genetically - http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?&id=9639). Pondle (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blond Mongoloids

SOme mongoloids alsou are blond blond mongoloid mansi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blondness in Paradise Lost

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)[reply]

Aw well, be bold! right? I put in a link to the text. rewinn (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory about blonde origin

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)[reply]

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 March 2008 (GMT)

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". [[7]][[8]] 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)[reply]

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. --David Shankbone 06:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

the photo is important in understanding the biological and genetic issues associated with hair color. Muntuwandi (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Maps and photos present very different information. Your characterization of the photo is inaccurate. rewinn (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? --David Shankbone 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Protection is not necessary especially for such a long period.Muntuwandi (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looked like there was a deeper problem at first glance. Semi-protection for two weeks seem okay? —EncMstr (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection would be fine with me. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done —EncMstr (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 vandalism rewinn (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [9]: "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, I think the map is very useful - and after all, it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is usually considered to be a reliable source.Pondle (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

blonde asians

They're are a small number of blondes in hmongs. Where did this come from?75.6.139.70 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POLL: photo of blond non-European

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 vandalism rewinn (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep- ditto rewinn's argument.Pondle (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Your comments are quite strange 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. Kesälauantait (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Frudakis T, Thomas M, Gaskin Z, Venkateswarlu K, Chandra KS, Ginjupalli S, Gunturi S, Natrajan S, Ponnuswamy VK, Ponnuswamy KN. Sequences associated with human iris pigmentation." Genetics. 2003 Dec;165(4):2071-83. PMID 14704187.

[Fradikis-1] Frudakis T, Thomas M, Gaskin Z, Venkateswarlu K, Chandra KS, Ginjupalli S, Gunturi S, Natrajan S, Ponnuswamy VK, Ponnuswamy KN. Sequences associated with human iris pigmentation." Genetics. 2003 Dec;165(4):2071-83. PMID 14704187.

[1]