Talk:Blond/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Blonds and Fertility

A television show informed me earlier that blond hair is a biological sign of fertility in adults, and suggested the possibility that this might be the cause of blonds being seen, traditionally, as attractive. The television show was hardly a reliable authority on this; has anyone else heard that theory? 82.69.37.32 11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dyejob photos

The photo currently at the top of the photo is clearly a dye-job. Just look at the dark eyebrows! I, for one, think that articles on hair color should have pictures of people whose hair is naturally that color. --68.239.204.54 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Replaced by a natural blond now. --Abu Badali 03:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The girl in that picture still has dyed hair. No doubt she is a blonde of some form, but her eyebrow colour suggests she is more an ash blonde than a pale blonde as depicted. I will work on getting some pictures of family as we all have varying shades of blonde. It would be cool to show the different shades. I myself have honey blonde hair, but will have to find a picture that doesn't show too much of my face as I really don't want to be on the Net. --Beckie S

PLEASE NOTE: I am a natural blonde and my eyebrows are dark... you can tell my hair is natural because it has many tones.. i.e. it's darker underneath and sunkissed on top. It goes darker in winter and the sun makes it light again in the summer. It was very white until I was 7 and is still blonde now. I am over 40 - but not out! ;o) oh yeah and I have a degree... but I am a bit dizzy sometimes! I have very dark skin too (I am a natural blonde with dark eyebrows and dark golden skin!) I have English-French-East European roots.

Suggestions: or File:A tattooed lady.jpg (both from commons) --Abu Badali 19:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not convinced that these two women are natural blondes. But although some may dislike the idea, why not suggest a male person? Here is a German actor who is definitely blond, and very much so: http://www.daserste.de/heimat3/darsteller_dyn~darsteller,291~cm.asp It's Uwe Steimle from Eastern Germany, well known as actor and cabaret artiste. Hopefully, there is no copyright issue here, but I gave you the reference, and the wikipedia image of Uwe Steimle is quite bad.

212.227.103.74 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The "natural blonde" photo, with the tan skin, black eyebrows and dark brown roots is most deffinately not a Nordic woman. Also the two pictures listed in the first one, that is also a dye job, and the second one looks like a person with natural light bown hair. Considering that natural blonde people make up 2% of the worlds population, finding a picture on one really would be hard to find!

About the dark eyebrows... I know some blond Scandinavians with EXTREMELY dark eyebrows and they've never dyed their hair. They also seem to have dark facial hair as well. In fact, this seems to be common among many natural blonds I am aquainted with. Can anyone explain it?

Yes, some blondes have dark eyebrows. I myself have light golden brown ones compared to my rather drastically lighter hair. Nowadays lots of blondes can have darker skin as well due to the fact that genes are so mixed and skin and hair pigment levels can vary. My sister is blonde and tans very well, whereas I am peaches and cream fair skinned. Being Scandinavian in ancestry myself, I can say that my sister carries more of our part Saami genes than I do and many Nords are Saami-mixed these days. However, there IS a difference between dark eyebrows as a result of darkening ash or golden blonde hair and dark eyebrows of a brunette. Eyebrow hair is thicker on average than scalp hair and will appear darker on almost everyone. However, the picture displayed is that of a Brazilian model who is known for dyeing her hair many colours and most often has bleached platinum locks. While she may be a darker blonde of some sort, I highly doubt that frosted blonde she is sporting in the picture is her natural colour. Beckie S.--07:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the picture of Marilyn Monroe? Isn't she the iconic blonde in Anglo-American culture?

Marilyn Monroe was actually a natural redhead, but her bottle blonde has set quite a standard for North American blondes, as fake as it may be. Most natural blondes don't have platinum or bleached looking locks.

Picture. Blonde VS. Albinism

WTF?! who deleted the picture of the boy with platinum blond hair that I had?-busboy 03:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who deleted it but I can imagine it was due to the fact that the boy did not have platinum blonde hair, but white hair due to albinism. The picture was also featured on the page for albinism in humans. Despite that someone said in here that they think light blonde hair/people are a type of albinism, albinism and being blonde are two VERY different things. A blonde person lacks pigment ethnicically and can pass down these colors. It is very possible for a person of northern European descent to be born so extremely fair that they have pale skin, white hair and blue eyes and NOT be albino. Albinism is a genetic defect that both normal colored parents must have and pass on to a child. If that child has children one day, unless they have children with someone else carrying the albino gene, their children have normal coloring. Same can not be said for the pale blonde person. So I can only imagine that was the only reason the picture was taken down, but I'm NOT possotive on the motive because I didn't remove it.

But I do stand by albinism not being the same as being born blonde. ;) Being blonde is not a form of albinism.

Actually, depending on which type of blonde you are talking about it is. The yellow-haired toddler on this page has OCA2 or a subtype of OCA1 in conjunction with ocular albinism. It is even said on the albinism page that, people with albinism can have dirty blonde or light brown hair. Various subtypes of OCA1&2 exist mostl among whites, scince all blondes are some type of albino.busboy 16:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not depending on what type of "blonde" I am talking about, being born ethnically blonde and being born ALBINO are not the same thing. There is a difference between a "blonde" person and a "person with blonde hair." A person of African ancestry can have albinism and have blonde, or even white hair, (and rarer cases of red) and still not be a "blonde". And there is a HUGE difference between occular albinism (the dirty blonde/light brown hair you're talking about which only affects their eyes and not their skin and hair) and occulocutaneous albinism. Having blonde hair means you have Scandanavian ancestry, no matter what nationally you are, even if your family has lived in Japan for x amount of generations and you consider yourself Japanese. Albinism is a condition. No, all blondes are not some type of albino, please understand the difference between pigment (think of it as contrast) and melanin (think of it as hue/saturation, what makes red hair red and blonde hair yellow), and that albinism is a condition which must be diognosed by an eye doctor (sometimes even as late as 18 people are diagnosed). I know a few blonde people I can take to an eye doctor and they can have perfectly normal eyes, no matter what color, or even if they are near/far sited and still not have the condition known as albinism.

X-posted to albinism for humans.

The same reason a blonde person is not an albino, is similar to why a maltese is not an albino dog, or why whites aren't albinos, however,the thing that causes them to be fair haired is directly related to albinism.

"How can a gene that tells someones DNA to produce little to no pigment in the hair and a certain type of melanin to turn the hair yellow be related to a genetic defect condition in which the person has no pigment or melanin at all? That is not the same. Blonde hair evolved when people started moving away from Africa and no longer needed pigment and began to migrate to other areas less hot/receiving straight UVA/UVB rays from the sun. They dropped the pigment because they no longer needed it, not because they picked up some form of albinism. This theory seems to be more of your own with disgarding a few scientific facts."

The same thing that causes blacks to have blonde hair, is the same thing that causes whites to have blonde hair, A type of albinism.

"It's not unusual for a white person to have blonde hair. It is unusual for a black person to have blonde hair since most people of African ancestry have either dark brown or black hair. This (having natural blonde hair) is usually attributed to perhaps mixed lineage or the condition occulocutaneous albinism, or even when a form of malnutrition can turn the hair different colours. You act as if it is perfectly normal for a black person to have blonde hair and though I have seen people of African ancestry with natural red hair because of mixed parenting, I have never seen one as a natural blonde though I have seen dyed blonde hair and extensions."

Consider this: Africans(albinos) were actually the first ones to have blonde hair and blue eyes.

"I cringed at this one. You have either not taken a few science classes or chose to diliberately disagree. I think you have your own personal opinion here, and I'm vaguely familiar with this theory "Africans use to be white, blonde haired and blue eyed and then turned black". Africans are not albinos since albinism is a condition, not representing a whole nationality like you have here. People moved out of African and into different parts of the Eastern hemisphere and developed different characteristics. They lost their pigment because they did not need it, not gained it. Blonde hair and blue eyes is one of the last things that humans attained when they began to move to the northern lattitudes of Scandanavia, not the earliest and certainly not the first. Red hair is actually more "recent" than blonde. There aren't many blue eyed blonde people in Africa, and if so, it's probably because they came from Europe a few hundred years ago (South Africa and England for example) not because they were there first."

You are using "blonde" here as a euphamism for "white", when blonde hair is technically race non-specific.

"The entire world attributes blonde hair to white people. It's not a secret. People all over the world of all races dye their hair blonde, yet usually when a girl of Japanese ancestry is born with natural blonde hair it's because she has mixed parenting. I have even seen an African-American with blue eyes, but he's not ashamed to say because one of this parents/grandparents was "white." These things are not unusual for "white" people, yet considered unusual when blonde hair turns up in other places. Hmmm, wonder why that is. Again, the entire world attributes it to white people."

We deem the name "albino" to those with OCA1, however,

"No, obviously you don't know much about albinism at all since OCA1 is just ONE form of albinism. There are nine others. All of whom under the condition are considered to be people with albinism."

scince albinism is fairly common,

"Like 1 in every 17,000 common?"

it is logical to say yellow blondes(like the toddler)have a type of albinism.

"A blonde toddler with yellow hair is not the same thing as a toddler with OCA1 with WHITE hair."

(P.S) Blonde hair does not mean you have scandinavian in you, as some italians do, and italians have black blood in them. And pure africans can have blonde hair to.busboy 23:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ever heard of immigration? That just about solves everything you said. Two black people from Africa can go to Ireland, have a baby and the baby would be considered Irish because that is the country the baby was born in. Doesn't mean that somewhere down the line the baby didn't have African ancestry. Blonde hair evolved in the latitudes we call Scandanavia, because it needed that region to be so far up in the Arctic circle for he hair to turn yellow because of the little UVA/UVB rays. Doesn't mean you won't find blonde people in Africa or Brazil, just means their ancestors came earlier from Scandanavia (or jumped from there to Europe and then to other place, ect.). The proper term for these fair skinned, blonde haired people would actually be Nordic, but that has a bad rep. due to some supremists, but it's actually a scientific term. If what you said happened normally and that people could not trace blonde hair to such attributes because it was so normal for it to pop up anywhere, then you would not have people who bother to study genetics. Your equation doesn't add up and some of the things you said are highly uneducated. Again, not sure where you're coming from, but most of this sounds like your opinion, like how Africans are really white blue eyed blonde people, which completely disagrees with science. I won't argue your opinion, I'll just argue for all the facts out there that being blonde is not a form of occulocutaneous albinism, and even if some people with albinism have blonde hair (and their parents both had brown), it doesn't mean they enherrited it from two parents with a recessive gene. Albinism is a condition."

I think, you are completely wrong when you state that a person with blond hair has scandinavian ancestors and that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia. I think, it is vice versa. Blond people (that were common all over Germania) migrated to Scandinavia and not the other way round. Moreover, hasn't it been often remarked that people in northern Sweden are less often blond than more down to the South of Sweden? Otherwise, give us evidence that blondes evolved in Scandinavia and spread from there! And let's not forget, many, many Russians have extremely blond hair and are blue-eyed and I am not convinced that all this started in Scandinavia, it ended there, maybe, yes.

212.227.103.74 20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

DID YOU EVEN READ THIS ARTICLE!?

You must be blind to not see I dissected the entire damn thing.

First off, the toddler did not have OCA1, BUT A SUBTYPE OF OCA2 WHICH CAUSES HER YELLOW HAIR!

Oh, so now your an opthalmologist? "who deleted the picture of the boy with platinum blond hair that I had?" Is now a girl with albinism?? Sounds like you don't know shit about this picture.

2: WHERE YOU WERE BORN ISN'T WHO YOU GENETICALLY ARE, A BLACK BABY BORN IN IRELAND IS STILL BLACK!

No fuck, so re-read your own analogy to see that you just proved my point that a blonde is still Scandanavian even in Africa.

3: AFRICANS WERE THE FIRST ONES WITH BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES,BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FIRST HUMANS SO OF COURSE A FEW WOULD HAVE BLONDE HAIR AND BLUE EYES FIRST! BLACK PEOPLE WERE BROWN, THEN BLACK, THEN TURNED WHITE AS THEY LEFT, DUE TO ALBINISM!

Wow, you're not only hideously uneducated, but a child who can't turn off the caps key. This quote has to be highlighted.

I don't know WHERE you got "black people were blonde and blue, then turned black", because I never said that,

Are you KIDDING me? your quote: "BLACK PEOPLE WERE BROWN, THEN BLACK, THEN TURNED WHITE AS THEY LEFT, DUE TO ALBINISM!"

It sounds like you got "Fish" from "Chicken".

Right, because "BLACK PEOPLE WERE BROWN, THEN BLACK, THEN TURNED WHITE AS THEY LEFT, DUE TO ALBINISM!" and " "black people were blonde and blue, then turned black", because I never said that." makes perfect sense. Looks like you're the one that got "fish" from "chicken." Or truth from delusion.

4: One in 70 people are carriers of some type of albinism, If you have blue eyes, you have a type of albinism, BUT ARE NOT AN ALBINO! 5: It is unusual for ANYONE to have very yellow hair. In my high school of 3000, only 6 students have pure yellow hair.6:Although some types of albinism cause absolutley no color, MOST types can cause normal color in certain places. If albinism is just a lack of pigment in hair, skin and eyes, THEN BLONDE HAIR IS A DIRECT RESULT OF A TYPE OF ALBINISM!

No, for the last time, a lack of pigment is NOT a type of albinism because blonde hair does NOT lack melanin and albinos have a lack of melanin. The difference between blonde hair and white.

At one time yellow hair was a fault but is not now due to where the europeans lived. 7:The thing that caused whites to drop the pigment they no longer needed is also related to albinism somehow.EX:When the blacks left africa, as they evolved,the ones with darker skin died of lack of vitamin D and the albinos survived and became what are white people today busboy 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll let a black person or an albino person deal with you, since obviously you've got blondes all wrong.

Wow. Seems like I got you all wrong...because, you are not only retarted, but incredibly phuqing stupid.

Because I'm more intelligent than you and have proper grammar? Oh, I'm wounded.

Now, let me reiterate my argument...1)If albinism is a lack of pigment anywhere due to recessive traits, THEN BLONDES HAVE A TYPE OF ALBINISM.

Nope. Take genetics.

EX: If 2 dark haired and dark skinned itialians have a yellow haired child with very light skin and bright blue eyes, then the baby has a type of albinism. If the child stays that blonde, with the fair skin and blue eyes, then the kid has A TYPE of albinism.

Wow, you weren't kidding when you said reiterate. A child with a certain degree of lighter features than the parents can make him/her albino, but that doesn't make the blonde haired child born of dark haired parents a blonde considering his coloring with not passed on by his parents properrly, but through a defect which caused a condition. There's a difference between two brunettes having a blonde haired child and two blondes having a blonde.

This is idiotic, sorry. It is very, very common for dark haired (European) parents to have blond children, firstly (and that is not my main argument here) because children usually have ligh(er) hair, but also secondly because either of the parents obviously carries a genetic feature for "blondness". This has absolutely zero to do with a genetic defect! And yes, there is usually no difference whatsoever in the status of such a child (should it keep on being blond later in his lifetime) as as blond as compared to the child of two blond parents. No need to talk about defects, but surely there seems to be a need to take a good lesson in genetics! ;-)

212.227.103.74 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying children don't often have lighter hair than their parents (which usually turns to the true color after puberty, that just doesn't mean they have albinism, retard) but if you agree with the idiot that thinks blondes are albinos and ""BLACK PEOPLE WERE BROWN, THEN BLACK, THEN TURNED WHITE AS THEY LEFT, DUE TO ALBINISM!" then that makes you a DEE DEE-DEEEEE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albinism#.22Blondes_are_albinos..22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albinism#White_ppl

Scince for most blondes, this is the case, PALE BLONDES have an albinism of some type.

Nope. I don't have albinism. And saying that someone has some type of albinism and isn't albino makes no sense.

2) This is what I think you are trying to say: The same type of albinism that causes very white people is different from that that causes people with lighter feautres, but who still retain some pigmentation.

No, you're the one that is saying that albinism is causing white people, not me. I'm the one saying that albinism is a condition because it is.

3) A BOY IS NOT A GIRL! I was talking about the photo of the YELLOW-HAIRED GIRL. If you got albino boy from yellow-haired girl, I fear for your kids.

If you seriously could not read your own posts in which you screamed "WTF?! who deleted the picture of the boy with platinum blond hair that I had?" and then said it was a girl with OCA2, and then scream at me for seeing that it changed from boy with blonde hair to girl with OCA2 - which you diognosed yourself - then I fear for your whole family line and whatever made you.

4) Blonde hair does lack melanin, WHICH IS WHY ITS BLONDE!

For the last time, it lacks pigment, blonde hair has to have melanin because melanin MAKES IT YELLOW. Same applies for redheasds.

If you say they just have phaeomelanin, you can say the same for someone with OCA2.busboy 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the posts, since you're obviously reading shit I'm not saying and can't even remember what the hell you said, even when I quote you. Albinism is a condition, and I don't have blonde hair because of some albino gene that technically doesn't make me albino but causes my hair to be yellow.

Ok goldilocks, let me put it to you this way in the most civil and polite manner: Blondes are not albinos, nor did I ever say they were albinos. I SAID THAT the thing that causes VERY YELLOW HAIR IN WHITES , THAT'S, VERY YELLOW HAIR is DIRECTLY RELATED TO ALBINISM . It is possible to have a TYPE OF ALBINISM AND NOT BE ALBINO . You have blue eyes, so you have ocular albinism, but you are not an albino . Like I stated before, we deem the name "albino" to those afflicted with true OCA1 or OCA2. OCA2 causes VERY YELLOW HAIR in blacks and some whites. What I am trying to say is...pale yellow blondes have something directly related to this without being albinos.busboy 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pashtun, Tajiks and Pakistani's the only ones?

From what I know, in the middle east, Iran has an even higher percentage then Afganistan and Pakistan, so that should be also mentioned.

Are there any reliable sources that can be cited on the issue? Angr (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Lebanon and Syria which has the highest percentage of blondes in the middle east.

Blondes are albinos

"Africans were the first ones with blonde hair and blue eyes, because they were the first humans so of course a few would have blonde hair and blue eyes first! Black people were brown, then black, then turned white as they left, due to albinism!" -busboy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.254.171.54 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that can be cited on the issue? No? Then don't bring it up on the talk page anymore. User:Angr 20:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said "blondes are albinos". I said, people with very yellow pale hair have something directly related to albinism! And also, yes the africans were the first known humans on earth.Busboy 06:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Um, no. See Human genetic variation. While the core human genome almost certainly derives ultimately from Africa, the origin of the so-called "races" doesn't have anything to do with albinism, and "white people" are largely a western-migratory split-off of central Asians mingled with older Pre-Indo-European populations who may have been in Europe since the last Ice Age (depending on which theory you prefer, both Asians and indigenous paleolithic Europeans were descended from different groups migrating out of Africa, or even the "native" Europeans may have been descended from an earlier west-moving group of Asians). "Caucasian" people are, like the Japanese and other north Asians, lighter-skinned than equatorial peoples apparently because they simply don't need the sun protection, and thus over a long period of time evolved away from producing what for them would have been excessive amounts of melanin pigment. Cf. genetically caucasoid populations in southern India, who are much darker than Europeans generally and even than many northern (cooler climate) Indic populations. Compare also the skin tone of Polynesians, ethnic Filipinos and others farther east and south to that of central-east Asians in China; the complexion of Amazonian Natives to that of North American First Nations, etc. Basically, the closer you get to the equator (when speaking of populations who have been indigenous since prehistory), the darker the skin tone is, to protect against the more direct UV radiation of the sun (there are always exceptions of course - Australian Aboriginals are quite a bit more southerly than equatorial Africans but quite dark when not hybridized with European genes; but they also colonized an area that is basically a desert, with little cloud cover for most of the year). Personally I don't think anyone has an adequate theory yet why certain populations become much paler than others, such as Scandinavians and true Russians (by which I mean ethnic Russians in the area historically known as Russia, not Soviets or Russian Federation citizens in general, who are from a wide variety of ethnicities) - despite being commonly thought of as "extra-White" they have even more definitively Asian genes, on average, than most other Euopeans due to historical invasions of Huns, Avars, Tatars, etc. See also the Japanese who on average are paler than Koreans at roughly the same latitude (and especially see the Ainu, a unique and even paler ethinicity that lingers in a few places in modern Japan). Native North Americans have lived at climes just as temperate-to-cold and northerly as the aforementioned groups for seemingly about as long a period of time, but are uniformly darker than the Old World populations. The climate effect is clearly just one factor among many, with gene dominance being the prevailing one. If you sent a million Irish to a desert-and-jungle planet and a million Congolese to an ice planet, I do not believe that if you returned in fifty thousand years you'd find they'd traded skin tones. Rather, they'd probably both be a medium color, on the way to evolving to suit their environment better, and most of their non-hue-related ethic features would remain unchanged (though probably not all of them - some traits are probably genetically linked to others.) And to come full circle, the albinism gene woud not have helped those on the ice planet in evolving toward producting less melanin - the albinism gene almost certainly causes too many problems for it to be naturally selected for - the vision deficits easily cancel out, in surivability terms, the benefits of not wasting bodily resources generating unneeded pigment. Would an "anti-albino" hyperpigmentation gene do well on the hot planet? Dunno. I have not read up on hypermelanism at all, so I don't know if comes with any negative side effects the way albinism does, and it is (as a genetic disorder; I'm not speaking of an ethic tendency toward a darker shade that some other ethnicity) very rare in humans anyway, much more so than albinism." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting post. Your basically saying natural selection is at work which takes a long time, but see this article for a discussion of sexual selection as a way to explain why blond's appeared so recently in the human record in Europe. If a culture values blond hair (or light skin - not sure if they always go together), this gives those who are naturally blond a reproductive advantage, which can spread a trait very rapidly, in particular among small isolated populations. I would say this could only occur in northern latitudes because no culture near the equator would value blond hair and light skin simply because it is a disadvantage (skin cancer). -- Stbalbach 14:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Natural Platinum Blond Adults

In response to the article's assertation to the contrary, Natural Platinum Blonde or Towhead, does not occur in children only. I am a living example. Although my beard and sideburns are red, the royale/soulpatch is Platinum as well.

--72.196.12.175 04:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)UaConchobair

Could the Neanderthals have been blonde?

Would make sense that an Artic predator would adopt white (e.g. Artic Fox, polar bears etc) Since we are so close geneticly to chimps it would strike me as obvious we could breed with Neanderthals, who originated from Homo Erectus; This would all help to explain the rapid evolution, not sexual selection just cross-breeding with a near relative AND one that was adapted to the conditions (ice, snow etc)

87.74.129.54 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Stalinvlad

Was Elvis Blond?

Just wondering if its true, i once heard the rumour that he dyed his hair black for some reasson.

My rumour has it that it was to make filming of his movies that much better for the lustre in his locks. Or that of a dark blue sheen under the studio lights.RandomEcho 08:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Again: Particularly Scandinavia?

"Researchers predict the last truly natural blonde will be born in Finland - the country with the highest proportion of blondes." [1] strictly speaking Finland is NOT part of Scandinavia, but one of the five Nordic Countries or, if you wish, it's part of Fennoscandia. So shouldn't the sentence regarding the high number of people with fair hair in Northern Europe read: "particularly Finland and the other Nordic countries..."? Last time this was changed for a while but now seems to have been returned. Clarifer 14:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok,ok, the BBC report about disappearing blonds seems to be a hoax but is the estimate on the distribution of blond hair a hoax too? Clarifer 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Syrians and lebanese should be included as having a high population of blondes in the middle east.

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)

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)

Why is the main picture showing a supposed "rock star" who bleached their hair as an example? If it is There should be an image of a child if it's difficult to find an example of an adult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmkrantz (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a picture of London Mayor Boris Johnson a while ago, who has naturally platinum blond hair. London mayor is probably second to New York mayor in world significance in terms of mayoralty, and I thought it would be an improvement over this rock star with ostensibly bleached hair. However, it was removed first without explanation, and then readded by someone else, then removed by an unregistered user complaining that it wasn't a good example due to Johnson being too "controversial". I don't think that personality should come into it, I just added him because he is a rare example of an adult with platinum blond hair. Here is the image which I think should replace the Danish rock star:

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/Juggertrout-borisjohnson.JPG

(it's on my uploadit account, so feel free to use it; though it should still be available from when I uploaded it to wikimedia)Juggertrout (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added both the original picture of the Finnish skier and Johnson. If someone finds them disagreeable, post here why. I realise that Johnson may be a 'controversial' figure to some, but it's silly to have a girl with bleached hair in the section. If anyone can find an anonymous or little known, uncontroversial figure, who is a verifiable adult platinum blond, then post them here so we can add them. Juggertrout (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2008 (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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

Are the levels of pheomelanin really higher?

Is it certain that all blonds have higher levels of phoemelanin than eumelanin? on this site[2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

No it's not. In the UK it would be a grammatical error to write 'the blonde boy' Vauxhall1964 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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. —Angr 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

I personally have light blond hair and dark brown eyes, it's not impossible VKing Halesoda (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Blond hair is common among Nordic people, such as this Swedish man.

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)

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

I agree! ;) Where they come from? -- 89.61.182.89 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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."

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)

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)

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[4] as does the linked paper in the article. -- Stbalbach 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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."

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)

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)

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)

Can I please date the guy in the first picture?

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

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 ([5]) 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)

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. —Angr 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. —Angr 19:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [6] 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)

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)

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)