Talk:Blond/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861689142
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105101522/http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_1.htm to http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_1.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Swedish Blonde

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

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

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) "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) 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) 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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) 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) @Aditya Kabir: see WP:DFTT for why I just removed the comment. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 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) @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) 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) 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) 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)

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) "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) 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)

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) 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)

Request for comment on the lead image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of these images seems best for the lead? --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Options

I have dug back through the entire history of this article and brought back all the previous lead images since 2007 that have been used for extended periods of time as possible options, in addition to the ones discussed above. Here they all are:

• 
  Option A
  The long-standing lead image, originally added on 14 February 2012 by an IP user without explanation. It has remained the lead image ever since, but has recently been challenged by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, who contends that it has "paedophilic overtones in context."
• 
  Option B
  A long-standing image in the article, which I proposed as the lead image in an attempt to compromise with NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM. If chosen, it would be swapped with the current lead image, so both would remain in the article
• 
  Option C
  The new image NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM has now proposed to replace the current lead image (He originally proposed a different one.)
• 
  Option D
  A previous lead image used for almost a year from January 2007 until April 2008
• 
  Option E
  Another previous lead image added on September 2008 by Bloodofox with the express purpose to avoid using a photograph of a living person. Removed on 12 February 2010 by AnwarSadatFan with the explanation that the article "needs less images"
• 
  Option F
  Another previous lead image. Young Woman with Unicorn, a famous painting by the Italian Renaissance painter Raphael, added by Flyer22 Reborn on 12 July 2010 with the explanation "Better to have a lead picture. This topic heavily relies on visuals." Removed on 15 May 2011 by Alphasinus with the explanation "too many pictures"
• 
  Option G
  Another long-standing image in the article that was moved up as the main image after the Raphael painting was removed. Moved down on 28 July 2011. Still in the article.
• 
  Option H
  Another old lead image. Added to replace Option G in the same edit. Intended to show different shades of blondness. Removed and replaced on 11 January 2012 by an IP user without explanation
• 
  Option I
  The lead image immediately before the current one. Added in the same edit in which Option H was removed. Removed and replaced with current lead image on 14 February 2012 by an IP user without explanation

Other users are welcome to offer additional proposals if they believe they are necessary. For the poll below, I recommend listing one's top three choices in ranked order, so we know which images generally tend to be favored. --Katolophyromai (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In the Child section above, I just told NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM "do not include any more options in the RfC. The more options there are, the more overwhelmed editors are and less likely they are to vote." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Poll

• First choice: Option F. Second choice: Option A. Third choice: Option B. I chose Option F over Option A because I think it is a better quality image and it skirts the issue that repeatedly came up as I was going through the search history about having a photograph of a living person as the lead image. This could be partly biased, though, just because I happen to be an admirer of Renaissance paintings. Option A is definitely a strong second choice for me. If consensus favors Option A, as I suspect it will, I will probably replace Veneto's Portrait of a Woman with Option F. --Katolophyromai (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why do we have to use any children at all? That seems rather unsavoury, particularly over such a broad subject as this. Incidentally, Option I effectively resolves the issue of using living people, as, although the figure is alive, they are unidentifiable, and that is the spirit of the objection.—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• First choice: Option A. Like I stated in the #Child section above, it is the (most recent) long-standing lead image. It is of higher quality when compared to the other real-life images. And when compared to the paintings, I also find it of higher quality. This is because of its photography and that it is a real-life image. If we are going to use a real-life image, which I think many find preferable, it should at least be of good quality or high quality. I disagree with NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM that the child image is sexualized and presents a pedophilic tone; Katolophyromai made strong arguments against that reasoning in the Child section above. Unlike Serial Number 54129, I also don't find the child image unsavory. Why is it "unsavory"? Also, that person has aged since the image was taken. My second choice is Option G because the image is of okay (somewhat okay anyway) quality, the man is facing the camera, and is smiling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

On second thought regarding my second choice, I'm torn between Option G and Option F, but I lean more toward Option F than G. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Well; if you also do find the child image unsavory, then that's rather my position also. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Serial Number 54129, I meant "don't, and tweaked my post above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Option C: It is a picture of a well-known, male adult. High resolution and a neutral background. It also displays a blond beard and the subject is not looking at camera so the viewer's eye is focused on the hair. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC) My second choice is option D. It is similar to C but of a worse composition--distracting background--and the man's hair is scraggly. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think any one of them are fine except option H, which contains a couple kids with brunet hair, and only two with blond hair. The kids with brunet hair in that photo don't even have blondish brunet hair, it's just your average brunet color. That's my input! Everything else looks acceptable. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I see, all of the kids except one is blond. But I agree that this image would be a poor lead image. Best to just focus on one person for the lead image, or at least have all the kids be blond. We don't need the lead image to look like a comparison of blond and brown hair. A lead image for the article could be a variation of different kinds of blond hair, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Option A or Option C: These are both strong, well-shot, high-quality photographs that highlight the hair, but illustrate the topic with a person. I don't think we should use a painter's impression of the color being discussed here. I object to the idea that the remedy for implicit sexualization is to make female children invisible.--Carwil (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• First choice Option I. Second choice Option H. Third choice Option A. SlightSmile 20:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• First choice: Option C because the subject is looking away from the camera, and has a beard, so the focus is on the color of hair. Option D is my second choice; Option G is third choice. Option A is my least favorite, as the image seems sexualized to me, especially given its contextual location and the multiple mentions of sexuality in the article.AnaSoc (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Summoned here by bot. First, a big kudos to Katolophyromai for compiling these images and expanding their histories. My !votes are first choice Option C, second choice Option F, third choice either Option G or Option I. C shows the variation in tones comma as well as what blond facial hair looks like. F is idealized, but shows a good artistic representation of blonde hair. G and I show rather standard photos of people with blond hair. I somewhat agree that the current image is creepy, though I wouldn't call it pedophilic. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You see it all the time - someone having the subject in this case a kid waiting for the camera to click. Like - take the picture already. While it's not my style of picture taking I'm not seeing how it's creepy or unsavory. All I see is a kid with better things to do than stand there waiting for some grownup to take a picture. But yes I agree we can do better than the current image. SlightSmile 15:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Slightsmile, I don't know if all of the editors who have an issue with the child image are Americans (from the United States), but Americans have a tendency to sexualize things that needn't or shouldn't be sexualized. And I state that as an American. For example, there was an uproar over the "Elastic Heart" video, which stars Shia LaBeouf and a little girl. I and others didn't see anything sexual when looking at the video, but enough people did (which in turn made others see something sexual by watching the video). But given how the characters are dressed in that video, and that it's an adult male with a little girl, I can see why people's minds jumped to "it's sexual." In the case of the child image that started this dispute, I just don't get it at all. We have other child images in the article. Are we saying that a child image can never be the lead image in this article? Or is it just a problem with this image because the girl is what people would categorize as pretty and she is leaning against the wall in a nonchalant manner staring right at the camera? And how sexist is it to state that we must have a male lead image? Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Flyer22 Reborn that the image of the girl is the best picture, but I (as a Brit, not an American) can see what people are talking about with the sexualisation: it's not overt, but if a significant number of people think that way when they look at it, even if they are wrong to do so, then we should consider changing it. I agree with you that it's depressing to think that we must have a picture of a male, but there's another way to think about it - if someone's gendered assumption about the descriptor 'a blond' is to imagine a (presumably twenty-something, attractive) woman, wouldn't the image of a bearded man challenge that? I think there's something worthwhile in that. Girth Summit (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I see no sexualization. And Wikipedia doesn't work on personal opinions or righting the great wrongs. There needs to be rule-based reasons for content-based exclusions. WP:Consensus is also clear about this (that WP:Consensus is about rule-based arguments; it's not merely a headcount). That stated, there is more leeway with images. As for "blond," "blonde" is feminine. But this article is not titled "Blonde" or Dumb blonde (Blonde stereotype). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. First choice is Option C since it is an actual picture (not painting) and the subject is an adult. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Results

Results. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• A: 1 first choice, 1 second choice, 1 third choice, 1 for A or C.

• B: 1 third choice

• C: 4 first choice, 1 for A or C.

• D: 2 second choice

• E:

• F: 1 first choice, 2 second choice

• G: 2 third choice, 1 third choice for G or I

• H: 1 second choice

• I: 1 first choice, 1 third choice for G or I, 1 support

Assigning 3 marks for first choice, 2 for second choice and 1 for third choice results in:

• C: 12, or 15 if you include the A or C choice

• I: 7 (if you count the support as first choice), or 8 if you include the G or I choice

• F: 7

• A: 6, or 9 if you include the A or C choice

• D: 4

• G: 2, or 3 if you include the G or I choice

• H: 2

• B: 1

• E: 0 --— Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs)

It looks like Option C has the strongest support, judging from NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM's tally above. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The RfC has been listed at WP:Requests for closure. We can simply wait for an uninvolved editor to close the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I know Option C has the votes and it's not actually a bad face. So what is it? Why don't I like that face? SlightSmile 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment after the close

Note: File:Lucy Merriam.jpg is still in the Child model and Human hair color articles, and on various Wikipedias. I would hope that NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM doesn't try to remove this WP:Featured image from all of those as well. What happens here does not mean that other articles or other Wikipedias must follow. They need not follow the odd reasoning here for excluding the image as a lead image. Furthermore, the image not being used for the lead of this article does not mean it cannot be used lower in the article. Indeed, since I'm comparing Wikipedias at the moment, I will also add that the image is used as the lead image or lower in the article at different Wikipedias. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning people with blond hair

@PericlesofAthens: I appreciate that you are trying to help by adding information to this article, but a person merely having blond hair does not make them warrant mention in this article. In order for a person to warrant mention in this article, that person must have significantly influenced perceptions of blond hair within his or her respective culture. Just having blond hair is not enough. So, for instance, you recently added mention of Sulla having blond hair. That would be noteworthy information to include in the article Sulla, but, unless Sulla completely revolutionized ancient Roman perceptions of blond hair (which I am pretty sure he did not), there is no good reason why we should talk about him in this article. Quite simply, we cannot possibly try to list every famous historical figure who happened to have blond hair. If we tried to do that, this article would be over a million kilobytes long and completely unreadable. I have left some of the others you added. I left Alexander the Great, for instance, because, while the sentence in the article does not make this clear, I could totally believe that Alexander the Great having blond hair would have made blond hair more popular. (After all, he popularized going clean-shaven.) I also left the mention of Lucius Verus because, while I am not convinced that he widely shaped Roman perceptions of blond hair, the famous story about him sprinkling his hair with gold dust does, I think, tell us something about what the Romans thought about blond hair. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

What if you edit this to the article

"Blond hair, blonde hair, or fair hair (diverted from the French words "blond" and "blonde" for someone with a hair color resembling yellow) is a [[human hair color|hair color]] caused by very little [[pigment]] in [[melanin|eumelanin]]. Though the word has no exact translation in [[French language|French]], it might have developed from the French word "blanc" meaning white, or "blanche" for the feminine version of the word "white". Like the French language, it is spelled without the "e" for "blond" for a male and "blonde" for a female; due to the silent "e" making a word a feminine noun in the French language." for the beginning means nice to me. <3 ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.1.126 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That is way too much etymological information for the first paragraph of the article. The first paragraph is supposed to introduce the reader to what the subject of the article is. It would be WP:UNDUE to make the entire first paragraph a detailed explanation of the etymology of the word, especially since we have a whole section on the etymology later in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Long, straight blond hair, rear view.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Vitamin D?

This partial sentence caught my eye:

"...and is believed to have evolved to enable more efficient synthesis of vitamin D..."

Now, this is why we think northern Europeans lost most of their skin pigmentation - since that is where we synthesize vitamin D.

But not so much in the hair. It's dead, right?

So this needs more clarification if it is to remain - for instance, that the lower levels of skin pigment tended to reduce the levels of hair pigment as a by-product. Or just leave it out.

Huw Powell (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Aphrodite hair color

It is said in the article that Aphrodite hair color is blond. In some of the roman frescoes, Venus/Aphrodite it's depicted as brunette and generally as brown-haired. But this article shows only two images of Aphrodite/Venus as blonde, in which one it seems that it's just gold plaqued hair (Aphrodite was assosiaced with the color red, white and gold). It is backed up by greek and roman sources or it's just popular depiction? Another thing: It is said that "In human culture, blond hair has long been associated with female beauty". I don't think that asians, africans and native americans culture associate blondness with beauty. Simply because it's almost non existent (if non existent at all) in those regions. Except for the indo-iranians in central Asia. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleistinos (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Aphrodite is sometimes portrayed in Greco-Roman art with blond hair and sometimes with dark hair, but portrayals of her with dark hair are not relevant to this article, because this article is about blond hair, which is why only images of portrayals of her with blond hair are included here. Portrayals of her with both blond and dark hair are included in the article "Aphrodite," which I was actually the primary contributor to, incidentally. As for Greek and Roman sources, one of Aphrodite's main epithets in the Homeric poems and elsewhere is χρυσέη (chryséē), meaning "golden," which may or may not necessarily refer to the color of her hair, but which would have at least given the Greeks good reason to envision her with golden hair, as she is portrayed in numerous depictions, examples of which are included in this article. –Katolophyromai (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Coatrack - phenotype and human categories

English Wikipedia has an unfortunate tendency to turn short, comprehensible and cohesive articles into overly long and complicated ones.

The section on racism and eugenics is long and tendentious - this violates due weight rules - articles on hair should be on hair, not spend multiple paragraphs on a long and tendentious diatribe about whether modern scholars accept concepts of "race". This is a clear coatrack of one issue into an article about hair color.

The Maureen Ryan book is a collection of anecdotes published by a scientific publisher - anecdotes are one form of biased source. Also note from the book title that this is not a book on hair - the wikipedia editor has cherrypicked sections to suit their tendentious argumentation.

I'm going to cut down on this section on sentences unrelated to hair color. -- Callinus (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Please change the following sentence: In human culture, blond hair has long been associated with female beauty. Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love and beauty, was reputed to have blond hair.

To new proposed content In western culture, blond hair has long been associated with female beauty. Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love and beauty, was reputed to have blond hair.

The remainder of the paragraph goes on to list numerous European cultures that revere blonde hair, to the exclusion of the rest of the world. Offers euro-centric point of view as humanity-wide. 2620:149:E0:5002:0:0:0:14E (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Blondes Have More Fun

Before Madonna released True Blue, there was the album Blondes Have More Fun by Rod Stewart. Should this be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.190.226 (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)