Jump to content

Talk:Blond

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Katolophyromai (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 6 July 2018 (→Child: adding reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

improper gender bias

While French may have gender English does not. This attempt to add gender when it doesn't exist is sexist. In every usage I have ever seen or heard there has never been a gender distinction. Sure I use blonde and I see blond occasionally but never has the distinction been other than local usage, laziness or America vs England. It is not gender based no matter what is used in France.

If you compare blond to blonde usage in American English, Blond is used half as often as Blonde. In England it is equal. Search Blond in books on Google and you get both male and female usage. If you search Blonde you get both used. Yes more Blondes are female but plenty are male. Blonde looks more feminine but it is not exclusively so. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=blond%2Cblonde&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=17&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cblond%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cblonde%3B%2Cc0

Please fix this. Blond (male), blonde (female) should be removed.

Ireland

Ireland is a predominantly light-haired country! 36% have dark brown and darker hair, 31% have light brown hair, 10% have red hair, 23% have blonde hair mainly of golden shades. This translate that 64% have light hair (non-dark brown/black) is similar to that of Northern Germany. Furthermore more than 80% of Irish have blue or green eyes and 76% have very fair skin types (I/II). They are palest-skinned of all Europeans.

Buddhacarita

@Editguy111: point out which specific text in Buddhacharita claims Brahmins were blonde and blue eyed.

@Joshua Jonathan: can you address this issue? you have more knowledge about Buddhist texts. His source is from rather controversial figure Gendün Chöphel, who is not a historian.

Britain

What's the percentage of light brown/blond hair in Britain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the east coast of Britain it's 60%, there are a lot of sources but most revert back to same source which is the 'Blonde Map of Europe'. [1], [2], [3]. Zarcadia (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to age - Recent change to show up to 16% natural blond is based on a citation in an article that has not been proven.

As blond hair tends to turn brunette with age, natural blond hair is rare. Natural blond hair is rare in adulthood, with claims of the world's population ranging from 2% naturally blond[35][self-published source] to 16 percent.[36]

I have searched and searched and cannot find a single source other than the article cited on this entry that shows up to 16% of the world being naturally blond in adulthood. Sixxgirl77 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blond, not light brown

Since this article is about blond, I think the map should be removed; light brown counts as brown. Melaneas (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too many pictures of classical representations

I never thought I would be saying this, but this article clearly has way to many pictures of classical sculptures and paintings depicting blonds. There are thirteen rows of pictures. Over half the article is a photo gallery. I will be clearing out some of the less notable depictions and depictions where the blond hair is not clearly visible or easily discernable to the naked eye. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and cleared out a whole bunch of images where the blond hair could not easily be seen without clicking on the image to enlarge it. I may remove a few more images in the future because there are still a lot of them, but now the number of images is not too terribly outrageous. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Katolophyromai, thanks for this and this. Yes, some editors need to familiarize themselves with WP:Gallery. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

platinum blond currently redirects here. This needs a hatnote. Please add:

"platinum blond" redirects here. Not to be confused with Platinum Blonde.

{{redirect-distinguish|platinum blond|Platinum Blonde}}

-- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Blonde

It's One Of My Favorite Natural Hair Colors. LaShondaFelton01 (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what changes you wish to be made to the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blondes in Asia

Wikipedia is not a forum (also, we don't like fascists)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Where it says "From the times of the Russian Tsardom of the 17th century through the Soviet Union rule in the 20th century, many ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Poles, and Germans were settled in or exiled en masse to Siberia and Central Asia." please remove Ukrainians from the list. Why? Because Ukrainians are never blond/e. The only white people (w/ red, brown, blond/e hair that is) you may have seen whose nationality happens to be "Ukrainian" are either Poles, Russians, Hungarians, Jews or even Tatars. Ukrainians are descended from Turkic tribes, such as Cumans, Torks, Berendeis and Pechenegs, which were all brunet/te/s and of Mongoloid race. After the Holodomor many Russians were moved into Ukraine in order to replace the ones Stalin starved to death. Therefore all the blondes you see in Ukraine are not ethnically Ukrainian. You can see plenty of white people in Africa, for example, due to European colonialism, but that doesn't mean the minority of Caucasian settlers represent the entirety of the continent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.134.31.86 (talk • contribs)

Do you have an academic source for any of this rambling? No? Then why even bring it up on the talk page? For starters, Turkic Cumans, Berendei and Pechenegs weren't the only peoples who were native to historical Ukraine before the arrival of Poles, Jews, Hungarians, or even Russians (a history which stretches back to the ancient Greeks colonists and nomadic, Iranian-speaking Scythians). The principle state of medieval Ukraine was Kievan Rus, founded by Oleg of Novgorod, brother of the Varangian ruler Rurik. The core of medieval Ukrainian society were ethnic Rus' people, largely descended from North Germanic/Scandinavians, who wed into the existing local culture and communities of the East Slavs of early medieval Ukraine and Russia. The people of Kievan Rus spoke Old East Slavic, which was also spoken at the time in Belarus and parts of Russia, which demonstrates that these were more or less the same peoples, or at the very least retained similar Slavic cultures. In light of that, your attempt to paint the core population group of Ukrainians as Turkic peoples is rather humorous and an idea I've come across before when listening to rabid Russian nationalists who were desperate to deny any sort of historical link between Russians and Ukrainians. If you want to argue that the East-Slavic-speaking Cossacks are partially descended from earlier Khazars, that's one thing, but to extrapolate this to the entire core Ukrainian ethnic group is quite another. --Pericles of AthensTalk 14:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"an idea I've come across before when listening to rabid Russian nationalists" I would actually argue that it was the Russian nationalists (read: imperialists) who invented this pan-Slavist racial ideology. The hypothesis suggesting the Chinese (Taklamakan Desert) origins of modern-day Ukrainians actually seems more grounded in reality than the fascist myth about Vikings/Scythians/Aryans and whatnot stormfront kiddies like you love sperging out whenever there's a discussion on the Internet about race, "white people" or an "International Jewish/Zionist NWO conspiracy". --212.111.202.6 (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I look like. I can easily tell the difference between an ethnic Ukrainian and Russian invaders from the north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.134.31.86 (talk • contribs)

Your absurd anecdotal observations are worthless considering WP:FORUM. Unless you have some sort of academic source, like a book or journal from a scholarly institution sharing this view of yours, then we can just go ahead and cut this conversation off right now. As an editor or commentator at Wiki, your opinions don't mean anything. The only thing that matters is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Even then, one source usually isn't enough, considering academic consensus versus WP:FRINGE. The idea you are presenting is almost undoubtedly a fringe idea, and one that's perhaps only discussed on random blogs, not by serious anthropologists. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a real historian. Your diploma is fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.50.48 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perception

It could be usefully explained that the perception of blondism is affected by the incidence of paler hair found in any population. Someone perceived as being blond in Tunisia might be described as brown-haired in Finland. Urselius (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! This is absolutely correct.--Marie Adelaide (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe not natural blonde

In the section about Marilyn one should say, that in reality she was not naturally blonde, but dyed (like many other stars: Marlene Dietrich, Catherine Deneuve, Madonna...). Greetings,--Marie Adelaide (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Catherine Deneuve is a natural blonde. --212.111.202.6 (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2018

Blond hair in Asia

This article makes a mistake in the blond hair in Asia section:

"Genetic research published in 2014, 2015 and 2016 found that Yamnaya Proto-Indo-Europeans, who migrated to Europe in the early Bronze Age were overwhelmingly dark-eyed (brown) and dark-haired, and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European.[34] While light pigmentation traits had already existed in pre-Indo-European Europeans (both farmers and hunter-gatherers), long-standing philological attempts to correlate them with the arrival of Indo-Europeans from the steppes were misguided.[35]

According to genetic studies, Yamnaya Proto-Indo-European migration to Europe led to Corded Ware culture, where Yamnaya Proto-Indo-Europeans mixed with "Scandinavian hunter-gatherer" women who carried genetic alleles HERC2/OCA2, which causes combination of blue eyes and blond hair.[56][57][33]"

First of all, the Yamna people are completely irrelevant here. There is new genetic evidence placing blond hair in central Asia prior to the existence of the Yamna people of the European steppe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afontova_Gora#Afontova_Gora_3

>Phenotypic analysis shows that Afontova Gora 3 carries the derived rs12821256 allele associated with blond hair color in Europeans, making Afontova Gora 3 the earliest individual known to carry this derived allele.[15]


So the oldest population in the world that was blond was from central Asia, not Scandinavia. It is now generally agreed upon that Scandinavian Hunter Gatheres had blond hair because they had admixture from Eastern Hunter Gatherers or Ancient North Eurasians.

This section of the article should mention the fact that the oldest evidence of blond hair anywhere in the world is found in central Asia not Europe, and that Scandinavian hunter gatherers likely inherited their blond hair from steppe populations. The blond hair gene in Europeans originated in the Ancient North Eurasians.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/european-blond-hair-may-have-originated.html

"The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans [4,5] is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine (I0124, I0014 and I1763), as well as several later individuals with Steppe ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that earliest known individual with the derived allele is the [Siberian] ANE individual Afontova Gora 3 which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE (14710±60 BP, MAMS-27186: a previously unpublished date that we newly report here)."

Joepellegrino (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't meet our reliable sourcing guidelines, we don't cite our own articles, and we don't use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

I wasn't offering that blog as a source. If you read the blog post, it concerns an excerpt from a paleogenetics study, and the text that I posted was in the study. I am only posting the blogger's commentary here in the talk page to offer context to fellow readers here in the talk page.
The very fact that the oldest sample of the gene that causes blond hair in Europeans is found in a Central Asian fossil is big news and it should be on the Asia and Europe sections of this article, as it is on the Afontova Gora article.

Respectfully, Joepellegrino (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

WP:DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ukrainian people are not white. I just want you to know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.230.250 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-white person I can tell you that "Ukrainians are not white" is a comment that is offensive to all white and non-white people, not just Ukrainians. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya Kabir: see WP:DFTT for why I just removed the comment. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already sympathised with your intention. But, [WP:TALKO]] requires that we try to refrain from editing other people's comments, unless they are obviously harmful. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Aditya Kabir: One of the exceptions in WP:TPO is "Removing harmful posts including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism." That your only possible response to that comment was "this is offensive" proves that 81.90 was just trolling. Restoring the comment just to call it offensive does not help the site, it just feeds a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend not citing WP:ESSAYs to justify violating WP:POLICYs, not even on the borderline, unless there is a very good reason. The editor didn't write something like "all Muslims are motherfuckers and should be killed as soon you see them". That would have been removed as soon it is seen. But "Ukrainians are not white" is a silly comment which, despite being offensive, does not permit your course of action. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend not focusing on enforcing rules without nuance when doing so doesn't help the site.
Again, that the only thing you could say to the IP was "that's offensive" is proof that the statement was trolling.
Have fun encouraging trolls. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trolling. The only white people you see in Ukraine are either Poles or ethnic Russians. --81.90.230.250 (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When did Wikipedia turn into Stormfront?!

Can we just stop feeding this troll?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Everybody knows that Ancient Egyptians were brown and the Byzantine Greeks were not real white people anyway. Enough with this Nazi horseshit already! Alright?! --81.90.230.250 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Not real white people"? For someone accusing others of Nazism, you use a lot of Nazi phrases yourself. Surtsicna (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You act like a monkey looking in the mirror and not recognizing its own reflection. Kys! --212.8.51.31 (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IF YOU WANTED TO "PROVE" YOUR EUROCENTRIST WET DREAM BY CLAIMING ANCIENT GREEKS WERE ALL GINGERS...

The trolling continues, look away, nothing really important to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

... then move the goddamn thing into the RED HAIR Wikipedia page then! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.230.250 (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know it must anger you that a minority of ancient Mediterranean people had light hair, but since it is somewhat subjective in some cases to tell the difference between red and blond hair in various ancient works of art, I'm afraid the current examples here are going to stay. You haven't sufficiently demonstrated that they are not examples of blond hair. Screaming in all-caps doesn't really change that, it just makes your post look inane. Pericles of AthensTalk 11:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Child

The picture of the child at the start of this page should be changed to a picture of an adult with blond hair. Children with blond hair often grow into brown hair so showing a young girl's blonde hair is not fully reflective of blond hair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs) 12:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC) I have changed the picture to one of an adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Also I didn't want to say this but to state blondes are "stereotyped as sexually attractive, but unintelligent" when a picture of a prepubescent girl is directly adjacent has paedophilic undertones that I think should be avoided if at all possible. The new picture has the added element of being of a Polish woman with brown eyes, so this may go against certain Nordicists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No valid reason to change the long-standing higher quality image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam. There are people there mentioning problems with the picture, and this is when the picture is seen in isolation. In this article directly beside it says blondes are stereotyped as sexually attractive but unintelligent. This has clear paedophilic undertones in context. Lucy Merriam is also not a well-known person. Alicja Janosz has a Wikipedia article. I admit the composition of the new picture is not as good but it does not have paedophilic undertones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: The objections you point to in the link are objections to the image becoming a "Featured Picture," which, in case you were unware, is the highest category of images Wikipedia has. The standard for a "Featured" image is extremely high, much higher than the standard for being used as a lead image. Those objections mean nothing here unless you can demonstrate that the photograph you wish to replace the image with is better. I am not a photography expert, but the image of the blonde girl was clearly taken by a professional photographer and it is a very high quality photograph with many technical merits. The image you are championing, on the other hand, appears to have been taken by an amateur on someone's phone.
As for your complaint that the image has "paedophilic undertones in context," there is nothing about the picture itself, in my view, that even remotely implies sexuality. As far as I can tell, it is just a typical portrait photograph. It is common for parents to hang photographs of their own children not totally unlike this one in their homes. As for the view that it has "paedophilic undertones" specifically in this context because the article mentions that blonde women "are stereotyped as sexually attractive but unintelligent," your argument fails on several points:
  1. The article states this as a western cultural perception, not as something that is actually true, so interpreting the images of blonde people used in the article in the context of this statement at all is just perpetuating a degrading, culturally-specific stereotype.
  2. The article says this about adult, blonde women, not about four-year-old blonde girls. You are taking a stereotype that society only applies to blonde women and applying it to blonde children. If a man wrote an article about blonde hair that included a photograph of a blond man, as well as the statement that blonde women "are stereotyped as sexually attractive but unintelligent," would you accuse him of being a closeted homosexual, since clearly he must be implying that blonde men are sexually attractive? No? Then why are you saying that using an image of a blonde child as the first image in an article about blonde hair must be pedophilia?
As for the notability of the people depicted in the photographs, I fail to see how that is relevant here, since this article is about blond hair, not about the person in the photograph, so the criteria for which image ought to be used should be based on the quality of the image and how well the image reflects the subject of blonde hair, not on how notable the person in the photograph is. (Indeed, your argument about blond hair darkening with age is actually a good argument in my view for why the current main image is a good one, since there are far more blonde children than blonde adults.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blond&oldid=849115119"