Jump to content

Talk:Red hair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Massias (talk | contribs) at 12:47, 8 October 2014 (→‎Consistent spelling of "red-haired": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFashion C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Genetics

Ginger

Is "Ginger" derogatory? I read in a few places that it was. It's really a British term, I know that. I'm American and we say "red-hair" which is not derogatory. 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a derogatory term. No All Who Wander Are Lost (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal genes.

It now seems to be a fact that Europeans have about 3-5 per cent Neanderthal genes. What is most interesting is that it has been found out that Neanderthals had the gene for red hair. In fact European red hair and blond hair may be a Neanderthal trait. Look at this clip. The red hair gene comes in about minute 40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uRCVyJ7-0c Pipo.

Merge from Auburn hair and Titian hair

On another related topic (see my comment on orange hair above), I do wonder about the stand-alone notability of separate articles on Auburn hair and Titian hair, neither of which seems to even have a Commons category... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually created the Titian hair page. Not because I felt it necessary to keep it separate from this page, but because auburn was already it's own page. I feel like if both kept all their info and such intact, they would be perfectly fine to be merged on this page. Merged separately, of course. TomboyGuy (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead (pun intended) and merge. It seems that these articles are discussing (forgive me, but here's another pun) shades of grey. Speaking as somebody with ginger hair and an interest in colour vision I am not even sure myself if the distinction between these hair colours is warrented and might be a case of (enough! enough!) splitting hairs. I would, however, be very interested to read about whether 'auburn' or 'titian' hair have a different genetic basis. If they result from the same mutation, then essentially they are the same thing and the minor colour difference is less relevant. Colour only exists in the brain and when you get into non-spectral colours of the sort we are discussing, the distinctions become very flakey. Famousdog (c) 10:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is an artistic term, Titian hair or Titian red. It should be expanded also as a specific colour in painting. And it is reddish-gold, like the hair colour used in many of the works of Titian. Hafspajen (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Pain Tolerance Section

Refer to "Jeffrey Mogil and colleagues at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, recently discovered that some variants of the MC1R gene make people and mice more sensitive to pain and to pain relief mediated through the kappa-opioid receptor in the brain. Clinically, though, pain relief mediated through the mu-opioid receptor is more important. Now, the McGill team has found that mice lacking a functional MC1R gene, as well as human redheads, are also less sensitive to painful stimuli and more responsive to a morphine-like compound that acts through the mu-opioid receptor."

http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX031151.html

Current section is contradictory and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No All Who Wander Are Lost (talkcontribs) 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And too close to the source. See [1] about pain and dental care. I'm one of those red heads (well, at my age more blonde as the red has faded) who has found that it takes a lot of anaesthesia to numb me (as a nurse who thought she could do a biopsy in 5 minutes discovered). I think we should find better sources and rewrite. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And [2] and [3]. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird enough, the MythBusters seem to have busted this (at least with thermal pain). Pain tolerances are more of an individualistic trait (it even can be trained) that a hair color-associated trait.--83.40.73.52 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it can be trained, that doesn't make it not gene or hair-color related. The nurse who was going to give me a local biopsy in 5 minutes was not happy when it took over twice then just to get me anesthetised. Sure, that's a personal anecdote, but the reasearch explains it. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes

I've added the Mirror article; as with the previous round of hoax articles there's no science behind this. I can't think of any "leading scientists" who wouldn't want to give their names to experimental work. On further investigation, it would seem the person quoted in the article a) doesn't seem to have a doctorate, and b) has been criticised before for using the media to push commercial interests. So I add that not to denigrate Mr Moffat, but to highlight the hoaxy nature of the Mirror article.

I should declare that I work for the same institution as some of the scientists that have criticised ScotlandsDNA and Mr Moffat. However, I work in a completely different subject and department and had not been aware of this before researching for this post. Am actually quite proud that they stand up against pseudoscience and commercial peddling masquerading as journalism, but in the interests of neutrality, I thought I'd mention it. --Davoloid (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's nonsense (and I would tend to agree) why mention this stuff at all? HiLo48 (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it added to the hoaxes or myths, but as another editor has pointed out, there would need to be separate sources so as it stood was original research. If that doea arise, possibly worth adding back but makes sense now it's been pointed out to me. --Davoloid (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And lo: there are a couple of articles in the last few days: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/10/redheads-die-out-extinction-ginger-gene-bad-science-red-hair

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100279151/no-climate-change-isnt-going-to-make-gingers-extinct/

--Davoloid (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pippi Longstocking

What about Pippi Longstocking,why she is not mentioned in culture fashion and art subtitle?Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add it MicroMacroMania (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent spelling of "red-haired"

Someone with edit rights should fix all occurrences of "red haired" to match "red-haired" in the rest of the article. Massias (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]