This is an archive of past discussions about Blond. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, I would like to propose a change of the main photo to a far superior and appropriate one. Although it's not my style to condemn the work of other photographers, in this case the current main photo condemns itself. It is simply horrid. Although the subject's hair may have once been naturally blond, it is now dark and it's green. Technically it is quite poor - colors are way off, it's grainy, out of focus, and the composition is as bad as they come - looking off to the side with no space between the subject and the side of the photo and looking away from the center of the page instead of at the camera or toward the center of the page. The current photo is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia prefers. My proposed replacement photo is perfect for this topic. It's a very pleasing photo of a beautiful naturally blond person which exemplifies what this article is about. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs)
Natural Blond Woman 2019
Toglenn, thanks for bringing this here after I reverted you and left a message on your talk page about the topic.
I'm not seeing this photo as an improvement, personally. Some of the arguments put forward seem quite subjective - is this person more beautiful? Is the beauty of the subject relevant here? I also don't see the problems with the current image - my preference would be to retain that. GirthSummit (blether)09:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello Girth Summit, I’m hoping you can clarify something for me. This article is not about beauty, it’s about Blond Hair. By looking at the main photo, you can clearly see the man’s real hair color is brown, which is well shown by looking at his beard and forehead area. His brown hair has at some point has been previously dyed to be lighter but his real hair color is brown – not blond.
This is a page about blond hair, not dyed brown hair. There is a Wikipedia page about dyed hair called Hair coloring which, if this photo were to be displayed anywhere, that would be the place.
So, what’s baffling to me is 1). Why is a photo of a person with brown hair the main photo for a page about blonde hair? That’s like going onto a Wikipedia page titled “Lion” and seeing a picture of a horse. 2). Why do you agree that a photo of a person with brown hair belongs on a page about blonde hair instead of a person who truly has naturally blond hair? It is a deception – something that Wikipedia is fanatically devoted in trying NOT to do. I simply do not understand your reason. Please explain. Thanks Glenn Francis (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Toglenn I've refactored your comment slightly per WP:INDENT, I hope that's OK by you. I agree the article isn't about beauty - in mentioning beauty, I was responding to your argument above where you described your proposed image as a very pleasing photo of a beautiful naturally blond person - my point was that the beauty of the subject is not relevant.
Do you really think deception is an appropriate word here? I can see that you might think it's inaccurate, but 'deception' seems a bit strong, don't you think? And the argument about lions and horses is just silly - it's more like arguing the toss between a brown horse and a chestnut horse - it's all rather subjective. FWIW, I don't agree that the current photo shows a person with brown hair which has been dyed blond; it looks like a person with blond hair to me, albeit a darker shade of blond hair than the subject of your photograph. The majority of people who expressed an opinion in the RfC last year presumably agreed with my assessment, and I don't see the benefit of going through another RfC (which is what would be required to overturn the previous consensus) - it ain't broke, it don't need fixing. That's just my opinion though - you are of course welcome to start another RfC, if you feel motivated enough about this. GirthSummit (blether)16:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not convinced this person even is "Natural Blond"! You can see dark brown roots on her Instagram page [1], nothing like the bleached hair in this picture, and looking at her Instagram page seems to reinforce negative stereotypes about people with "blond" hair! And how can you say the current picture features "green" hair? This is outrageous! And to say it is dyed blond... do you think he dyes his moustache and part of his beard? Unlike this newly proposed person, the person here is a professional footballer, so his image is not as important to his profession. He is clearly a person with natural blond hair [2], and the picture shows the natural variations in tones of blond hair, not an over-processed bleach blond as seen elsewhere! It also shows a blond beard and this was discussed when the picture was chosen. And to have posted your photo not just here, but seemingly on every language of Wikipedia you could find (with English captions on the Spanish [3], Russian [4] and German [5] Wikipedias!!), it smacks of using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your photography without concern for anything else! NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I have questioned if the woman in the proposed image is naturally blond, but I trusted the image description and that Toglenn may know that she is naturally blond. I also concluded that even if she is naturally blond, the type of blond hair she has isn't the typical color associated with blond hair and so I wouldn't use it for the lead image. Going back to the topic of dyed air, we can obviously include people who are not naturally blond in the article, since it gives an example of dyed blond hair, but it's best to have the lead image be of a naturally blond person. I also want to note that naturally blond people can have dark roots; I've seen this with a person I practically grew up with. Blond hair can darken as people age and can look brown instead of blond; this is seen with people like Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Pitt has occasionally dyed his hair blond because it doesn't have the same color it did when he was younger, and sometimes because he took on roles that required his hair to be darker. Men can also naturally have beards that don't match their hair color. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
To User:Girth Summit Thank you for taking the time to further explain. I looked at your User page and applaud all that you do for Wikipedia. It is because of dedicated editors such as yourself and User:Flyer22 Reborn that makes Wikipedia an outstanding success. With the same respect and admiration as a person thanking a soldier or a policeman for their service, I thank you for your service to Wikipedia. Salut!
Although I am impressed that NICHOLAS NEEDHAM took the time to explore this subject in more detail, I must say that I am quite dismayed at his mocking of me for posting on other Wikipedia’s. I do this with every photo I post once I learned how. Contrary to popular American belief, The U.S. is NOT the only country in the World.
I am very thorough in just about everything that I do. I find it rather, um, amateurish, careless, and outright sloppy to only post photos on the English Wikipedia and exclude everywhere else. If you’re gonna do something – do it right!
Regarding NEEDHAMS’s quip about my captions being in English, well, Wikipedia is written in 301 languages, but I only know one: English. Although written in English, it is the CORRECT CAPTION for the photo I posted, not the incorrect caption from the replaced photo (which I see all the time when photos are replaced). All foreign Wikipedia’s have editors who speak English. It is their Wikipedia – so they can provide the correct translation and are very happy to do so. I provide the content so they know what to say, and they translate. Foreign Wikipedians are very happy whenever I replace their current usually crappy photos with good ones. Revertions are extremely rare. My inbox is overflowing with Thank-yous.
Since there is no consensus on whether the pictured persons are still naturally blond or not, nor that it even matters, the FACT still remains that the picture of the guy is unquestionably a poor quality photo and fails MOS:IMAGES which states: ”Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images — should not be used.” Wikipedia is a very high-quality publication, and so should be the photos.
I’ve been a professional photographer for over 40 years and an instructor. Photographers see things that non-photographers don’t see because we are trained at what we are looking at and in what to look for. For example, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM said that he can’t even see the very obvious green color cast on the blond hair. The other reasons it is poor is that it’s Grainy, out-of-focus, off-color, and poorly cropped.
For these reasons the photo of the guy should not be used as the main when a high-quality and more suitable and appropriate photo is available. Glenn Francis (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Toglenn Decisions like this are inevitably subjective, to an extent, and people will weigh different elements of the MOS guidance differently - as with Nicholas, I couldn't see any green colour or graininess until I zoomed in very closely, and I'm afraid overall I still prefer the current image. Ultimately, these decisions are made by consensus though, and if you feel strongly enough about this you could start a new RfC - however, if you are arguing in favour of replacing a long-standing image with one that you took yourself, you should probably steel yourself for some questions about your motivation. Since your argument seems to hinge on the poor image quality of the current image, a better approach might be to browse through Commons, find a range of high-quality photographs of blond people - there must be thousands - and present ones that you did not take yourself. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)12:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
To User:Girth Summit Thank you for the further explanation. I have no personal interest in what photo is used. I just happened to come across this article and was appalled at the horrible picture that I saw. So I said to myself: ah-ha! I just so happen to have a picture of a natural blond that would be PERFECT for this article instead of that ugly green one – Glenn to the rescue! Never did I expect see the response and resistance I received, and never have I gotten so involved in having to try to explain something so obviously bad as that photo. Anyway, don’t mind me – carry on. Salut! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs)
Hi Flyer22 Reborn I have no doubt in my mind that he WAS naturally blond - but that has changed with age. When I was a child, my hair was pure white. During my teens it was blond, and now it's brown as an adult. When asked what color my hair is I say "Brown" which is what is - I don't say what it used to be: blond or white. At the time the photo of Lars was taken he was in the hair color transformation stage, where his roots are brown. On a page called "Blond" I would expect to see a photo of a natural blond who's hair is blond from beginning to end - not half and half, or dyed blond with the brown roots showing. Glenn Francis (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Toglenn, it appears that we are seeing two different colors. Unnerstall is a blond man; I see no brown when looking at his hair. This goes for both the short ends (right down to his scalp) and the long ends. If you consider a bit of his beard brown, I consider that bit to be just a slightly darker shade of blond. His beard is blond. I don't think that Unnerstall is dyeing his beard. I wouldn't even say he's dyeing his hair. If he is, it's just a little highlighting. And even if his beard looked brown or mostly brown, a man's beard can be a different color than his hair color; this is seen all the time, with different hair colors. Sometimes a naturally blond man will have a beard that looks brown or is essentially brown. Similar goes for people's eyebrows being darker than their hair color. It also seems that you are not considering that, like the Blond article notes, different shades of blond (including dirty blond) exist. On a side note: Since this article/talk page is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be WP:Pinged to it; I'll see your replies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Toglenn that would be easier to take at face value if the photo you had replaced with your own work was the same at each language variant of Wikipedia. In the links above however, you have replaced three different images with your own one - they did not all suffer from the issues you describe. GirthSummit (blether)06:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Posting photos to the foreign Wikipedia pages is very time consuming and exhausting – especially since I’m not a coder and the two words I fear the most are Math and HTML.
When I go onto a page I just hit Alt>Shift>e and paste my filename into the InfoBox filename space and the caption into whatever slot looks like it might be the right one. I do not evaluate or judge the quality of the current photos on the page or even look at them. That’s all I do. I provide them a new photo including a caption and they can arrange, delete, turn it upside down, or do whatever they want with it.
Everyone is happy; I get no complaints, and very few reversions – very few means 6 or 7 out of Thousands.
So… let’s move on. In your last transmission, you suggested I search WikiCommons for a suitable replacement photo. Although it’s possible you were actually serious, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Obviously, that didn’t work out too well for you, since out of over 55 million images on Wikipedia, the best you came up with was that ugly green picture of the side of a mans face – and only because that was the least horrid amongst the others.
Now is the time to get real. As a professional glamour photographer for over 40 years, I have countless thousands of excellent hi-quality photos of blonds. Literally. And you can literally choose whatever one you want. The best way I can think of is if I post a couple hundred onto a webpage, give you the link and you pick. Please let me know. Glenn Francis (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Toglenn I've refactored your comment again per WP:INDENT - I hope you don't mind.
I have to say that I am deeply concerned about the approach to editing that you have just outlined above - you insert your own images into articles without even looking at the photographs currently in the articles? I'm afraid that approach does not sound very responsible to me; a low number of reverts might indicate that the photos are appreciated, but it might also indicate that the pages aren't watched very much - I don't know which. You should always evaluate whether any change you make to an article is going to be an improvement or not, whether that's a change to the text or a change in an image. Indiscriminately adding your own work to articles without looking at the images you are replacing sounds a lot like spamming, which is not permitted.
And yes, I was quite serious in my earlier suggestion. I had no part in selecting the photographs in the previous RfC, I merely expressed an opinion about which one was better suited to the article. I made that suggestion because it would present a way for you to get the current article changed, while avoiding any possibility that you are motivated in any way by a desire to promote your own work. Given that you have now publicly admitted to adding your own work to thousands of articles without even looking at the images you are replacing, I'm not sure it will be possible to avoid such a suggestion now. GirthSummit (blether)11:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"I do not evaluate or judge the quality of the current photos on the page or even look at them"--Toglenn, that statement is antithetical to how we do article improvement. Really, words fail me. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
He might be a great soccer player but there's better blond faces to pop up when readers open the article. Ultimately it's about the readers. What they do at other encyclopedias is their problem. Here we do informative and nice to look at. SlightSmile14:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. "Nice to look at" doesn't and shouldn't enter into it. The proposed photo (the model) is inappropriate for several reasons, one of them being that it really isn't a very good representation of what actual people with blond hair look like. If the current photo is taken to RfC and changed, it should be changed to another representative photo from Commons, definitely not to some glamour shot. --bonadeacontributionstalk15:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say it has to be the model above. There's some good ones in the July 2018 thread above and I'm sure lots in Commons. I don't get your confusion about “Nice to look at”. Okay I'll be more encyclopaedic – I wouldn't have my dog look at that – on second thought let's keep it boring shall we. I do not think the current picture is appropriate in the lede. We can do better. SlightSmile15:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
SlightsmileI have no particular attachment to the current photo - if a better alternative is presented, I'd happily vote for it to be changed. I agree with Bonadea however that the one suggested above is not an improvement, and we should be looking for something that is not obviously a glamour shot. There must be plenty on Commons, anyone motivated to start a new RfC could propose some options. GirthSummit (blether)18:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit I'm glad I'm not the only one who's not impressed with the glamour shot suggested above. There's some good ones in the July 2018 thread above. I like Option H, kids enjoying themselves, cheerful and four shades of blond. If no one objects we can put that one in right now. Or if not for sure there's others to choose from here or at Commons. SlightSmile19:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Slightsmile, I'm afraid I share Flyer22 Reborn's concerns about changing the image without obtaining a new consensus. The previous image was selected via an RfC last year - I think a new RfC would be required to overturn that. Put me down as objecting to a change without wider discussion. GirthSummit (blether)19:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this latest picture posted by Toglenn. They look like a Barbie and Ken doll. I still say what's wrong with the choices from July 2018 above. Plain down to earth and yes - nice. People are so busy being open minded and objective they're not seeing what's in front of them. SlightSmile14:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that continually adding images for consideration to this section is helpful. Discussion has clearly stalled, and consensus is currently for the Unnerstall lead image. I'm stating this because I don't want you to think that no further replies in this section mean that editors agree with whatever image you have proposed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, I agree with you. Toglenn - there seems to be consensus here (admittedly amongst a small number of editors, but that's all we've got in this discussion) that a glamour shot would not be appropriate. You yourself have argued that the image shouldn't be of someone with died blond hair. Is there a particular reason why you are repeatedly adding glamour shots, taken by yourself, of people who appear to have died blond hair to this talk page? I genuinely don't want to accuse someone like yourself, who has been around for years and contributed lots of work to the project, of improper conduct - but your filling this page with your own work, without presenting any rationale, is hard for me to understand. I would like to politely suggest that you desist. If you genuinely want to change the image on the article, you need to start an RfC, and my advice to you would still be to select images from Commons that you did not take yourself; otherwise you risk people drawing their own conclusions about your motivations. GirthSummit (blether)21:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
When I first started using Wikipedia around 14 years ago, I noticed all the pictures I was seeing of people were absolutely horrible. Since I had good pictures of them, I decided to do them a big favor and replace them with one of mine.
Since some people don’t appear to understand this, please allow me to clarify some things that seem to need clarification.
@ Girth Summit: Thanks for your latest transmission. I must say I find your false accusations that I’m somehow using Wikipedia for self-promotion very disturbing. This is something that would apply to just about everyone who contributes regularly to Wikipedia including yourself. Your implied assumption that by donating pictures to Wikipedia is somehow financially beneficial is also absurd – it’s a loss - I have not profited even one cent. Time is money, and the posting of these photos is very time-consuming. All I’m doing is replacing bad pictures with good ones whenever I come across one. Why you find that so difficult to understand is beyond my comprehension.
The last paragraphs I read on this page said in essence: ‘let’s keep looking for a better picture’, of which I was simply obliging. I also find your notice to cease and desist quite revolting. You may want to read this: WP:OWN
I’m not going to present any more photos for now and possibly never - I’m Busy. I just feel sorry for the 1,000 people per day who are curious to know what blond hair looks like and made the mistake of entering ‘Blond’ into a search field and are shocked to see this horrid photo that you are defending, despite knowing otherwise, and having far superior and more appropriate pictures to use instead. Salut! Glenn Francis (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Toglenn, just to be clear, I do not think that you are donating pictures for any kind of financial gain, and I didn't mean to imply that, so apologies if I gave you that impression. I have read OWN already, thank you, but as someone who has never edited this page, I don't really see how it applies. The only contribution I've ever made to this article is to express an opinion in the above RfC - the result of which you disregarded when you changed the image, which is what started this discussion. I am happy enough to let this drop if you are, so thank you for confirming that you will stop adding photos now. Personally, I think if would be good if someone were to put them in one place and then hat them, as I think they're a distraction, but I won't do that myself since we've disagreed about them - I wouldn't want anyone to question my motivations. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)11:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Personally I would like to see my proposed photos reduced and "hatted" like the ones above. I would do it but I don't know how. I don't know HTML. Anyone knows how to to that - please do. Permission granted.Glenn Francis (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The "Asia" section in this article contains a load of misinformation, particularly with regards to genetics. These statements are, at best, POV from a highly overactive imagination; or, at worst, falsified to deliberately misinform the reader.
It begins with the odd, irrelevant statement about a "Yamnaya culture" that "migrated to Europe", which is factually incorrect, as the Yamnaya culture originated in Eastern Europe, in what is now Ukraine and Western Russia. And it is difficult to imagine how any of the following statements stood in the "Asia" section for so long, as they mostly concern archaeological finds from Europe, with the exception of Afanasievo.
To begin with, it is not relevant whether fossil remains attributed to a certain culture (such as Yamnaya) are not blond. This is an article about blond hair. The presence of the paraphrased statement "Yamnaya are not blond" is, in of itself, POV, as it is blatantly formed to construct an argument that blond hair did not come from the Eurasian steppe. The fact that most Yamnaya remains found so far were not blond does not mean that blond hair does not come from the Eurasian steppe. Furthermore, the claim that the Corded Ware culture (just as ancient as Yamnaya, and a competing candidate for the PIE Urheimat culture) is a byprodut of an admixture event between Yamnaya and some other culture is complete POV on the part of the author, and presumabky an intoxicant-enhanced POV, as there is nothing in Haak, Allentoft or Wilde, et al. to support such a definitive statement.
This statement: "According to genetic studies, Yamnaya Proto-Indo-European migration to Europe led to Corded Ware culture, where Yamnaya Proto-Indo-Europeans mixed with "Scandinavian hunter-gatherer" women who carried genetic alleles HERC2/OCA2, which causes a combination of blue eyes and blond hair."
Is not at all supported by the numerous sources referenced ahead of it:
None of these papers contain definitive statements about the origin of blond hair, blond hair genes, or blond hair in Indo Europeans. In fact, none of them contain the word "blond". None of them contain the phrase "Scandinavian Hunter Gatherer women", and none state that women transmitted blond hair to Indo Europeans.
The closest statement, and "closest" is a very generous word here, found in any of these four papers to assert anything like that, lies in Sandre Wilde's "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y", which reads:
"Conversely, continuity between early central European farmers and modern Europeans has been rejected in a previous study (33). However, the Eneolithic and Bronze Age sequences presented here are ∼500–2,000 y younger than the early Neolithic and belong to lineages identified both in early farmers and late hunter–gatherers from central Europe (33). A plausible explanation for this is that the prehistoric populations sampled in this study are a product of admixture between in situ hunter–gatherers and immigrant early farmers during the centuries after the arrival of farming, and that this admixture was a major process shaping modern patterns of mtDNA variation (34) and possibly also the variability observed in European hair, eye, and skin color."
This is not a certain declaration of anything, but a brainstorm. Nowhere does Wilde, et al. definitively state that blond hair in any ancient European population came from admixture between such-and-such individuals.
Even more ludicrous, the author of the "Asia" section suggets, in blatant POV, that these sources support the statement: "While light pigmentation traits had already existed in pre-Indo-European Europeans (both farmers and hunter-gatherers), long-standing philological attempts to correlate them with the arrival of Indo-Europeans from the steppes were misguided.[35]"
Nonsense. There is nothing in the Wilde paper that says anything about misguided attempts to link blond hair to the arrival of Indo Europeans. The terms "philological", "misguided", and even "language" or "Indo" are nowhere to be found in this article.
FURTHERMORE, there is plenty of reason to believe that the genetic material for blond hair does indeed come from the Eurasian steppe, in Siberia, and not from Europe. That should have been plainly obvious from the evidence about Afontova Gora that was already there. The oldest archaelogical specimen with the derived KITLG allele which is associated with blond hair in modern Europeans is from Siberia. And David Reich, one of the most highly respected geneticists in the world, has stated, in no uncertain terms, that this allele was likely brought to Europe by massive migrations from the Eurasian steppe along with "Ancient North Eurasian" ancestry:
These edits to the article are therefore extremely biased and factually inaccurate. In sum;
1.) No study referenced here ever said blond hair didn't come from the Steppes or from Indo Europeans
2.) No study ever said that Yamnaya was the source of Indo European language or that they mixed with Western or Northern European "females"
3.) David Reich says blond hair genes likely did come from Steppe migrations to Eastern Europe
4.) No study ever said that Corded Ware was a hybrid of Yamnaya mixed with something else (which is also improbable given the dearth of Y-DNA R1b in Corded Ware)
5.) No study has ever said that philological attempts to link blond hair to Indo Europeans were misguided.
6.) None of the information about Yamnaya or Corded Ware, or Indo Europeans is relevant to Asia.
Not only is it clearly made up it even says "own work" under it. There is no scientific basis for it. anybody who has ever been to poland or lithuania will know that hardly anybody in these places is blond. Remove this map if you want to keep the article factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The map is little better than a piece of imaginative artwork with no claim of a scientific basis. I agree that it should be deleted, but for the time being I've edited the caption to clarify that it is "illustrative". Tammbeck (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. That map is pure fiction. Anybody who has ever been to poland or lithuania knows that there are hardly any natural blondes there. Some inbetween yes but basically none compared to germanic countries to the west and north. Would argue even south western germany has more blonde haired folks than northern poland, lithuania. Same goes for the most eastern parts of germany due to the inhabitants stemming mostly from darker haired populations(slavs for the most part). That map definitely has to go, it's better to have no map than an inaccurate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, so I have removed the image. It appears it was improperly uploaded to Commons, as well, since it is copyrighted to a website, and thus should not be claimed as "own work" by an editor. I cannot find the image at eupedia.com, so I cannot find if any reliable sources have been cited. I do not think, at a glance, that eupedia.com is itself a reliable source, for various reasons. I will also nominate the image for deletion at commons, as a copyright violation. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Unisolate the sentence in lead
I propose deleting the last sentence in the lead or combing it into the previous paragraph somehow. (The introduction sentence of that paragraph may need to be changed such that does not signal the paragraph is only about women.) I do not think it is appropriate for it to be isolated, which gives it an implied importance. Iyyl (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Evolution of blond hair
"A 2014 study reported seven Mesolithzic hunter-gatherers found at Motala, southern Sweden, dated to 7,700 years ago, as the earliest known individuals in whom the modern Scandinavian phenotype, combining light skin, blue eyes and blond hair, was combined." Would have removed the "z" but there was no edit button on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.169.184 (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored
"Portrait of a Woman by Bartolomeo Veneto, traditionally assumed to be Lucrezia Borgia" shows the left nipple. But, you know, Wikipedia is not censored. Why isn't there a heading in this talk page saying "Wikipedia is not censored" like there is on talk pages of other articles containing sexually explicit content? Probably because the article is not saturated with explicit content like articles such as "pornography" or "body shape." See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldQuestioneer (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Evolution of blond hair
This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "Material was removed because primary research on biomedical subjects such as phenotypes is not welcome here. WP:.MEDRS applies. No self published sohrces or magazine articles either". I think it is relevant and should be included.
Natural lighter hair colors occur most often in Europe and less frequently in other areas.[1] In Northern European populations, the occurrence of blond hair is common. The hair color gene MC1R has at least seven variants in Europe, giving the continent a wide range of hair and eye shades. Based on genetic research carried out at three Japanese universities, the date of the genetic mutation that resulted in blond hair in Europe has been isolated to about 11,000 years ago during the last ice age.[2]
An alternative hypothesis was presented by Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost, who claims blond hair evolved very quickly in a specific area at the end of the last ice age by means of sexual selection.[3] According to Frost, the appearance of blond hair and blue eyes in some northern European women made them stand out from their rivals, and more sexually appealing to men, at a time of fierce competition for scarce males.[3][4]
A 2014 study reported seven Mesolithic hunter-gatherers found at Motala, southern Sweden, dated to 7,700 years ago, as the earliest known individuals in whom the modern Scandinavian phenotype, combining light skin, blue eyes and blond hair, was combined. These individuals had light skin gene alleles in SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, and HERC2/OCA2 alleles associated with blue eyes (also contributes to lighter skin and blond hair).[5]
Light pigmentation traits had thus already existed in pre-Indo-European Europeans, since at least the later Mesolithic.[6]
Later individuals with Yamnaya Indo-European ancestry, by contrast, were predominantly dark-eyed (brown) and dark-haired, and had a skin colour that was moderately light, though somewhat darker than that of the average modern European.[7]
It is possible that blond hair evolved more than once. A 2012 study published in Science reported a distinct genetic origin of blond hair in people from the Solomon Islands in Melanesia, associated with an amino acid change in TYRP1 that produced blond hair.[8][9]
These references are primary research, self published (in the case of the second Frost link) and/or low-quality (such as newspaper articles) and therefore not admissable as biomedical information per WP:SCIRS. The Motala + Yamnaya combo is also WP:SYNTH and POV. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hunan201's vandalism and misleading edits on this page
He is blantanty vandalizing and committing numerous acts of NPOV(Neutral point of view), WEASEL (Manual of Style/Words to watch), FRINGE THEORIES (prevailing from mainstream views) on this page and others.[1][2][3]
His edits claims both mythical figures like Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag as blonde haired historical figures, which everyone knows are "unconfirmed", and doesn't even belong to mainstream views and doesn't have any general concesus, mutual agreements or percieved that way in cultural perceptions, but still he insists on keeping his own personal views which is a complete violation of wikipedia rules.
He said this article makes numerous references to spiritual beings, Gods and Goddesses being blonde, which is true in western cultures for Norse Gods and Greeks Gods, but even they belong only to historical cultural perceptions, not in the Europe section. You don't see any historical figures, mythical figures, Gods mentioned in the sections of Europe, Africa and Oceana but yet Hunan201p just decides to edit his personal views on Asia section exclusively. There was no cultural perception in Chinese culture, Mongolian culture or in any culture that had percieved Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag as being blonde haired, but he still insist on editing it in the Asia section.
Hunan201p uses NPOV, WEASEL, FRINGE THEORIES to make it seem like his (manipulative) edits based are based on proven facts.
He tried to confuse people into thinking Xianbei were Caucasoid, for instance, on edit summarry he quoted two times " Added direct-bluelink to Wang (2018) describing Xianbei as Caucasoid " on two wiki pages.[4][5]
When you read book source that Hunan201p provided, it only says some Xianbei have blue eyes and blonde hair (which are described as Caucasoid-featured), never anything about them as having European features (facially). Hunan201p included European features on purpose to mislead people into believing that the Xianbei were racially proven European people or Caucasoid people.
Hunan201p commits FRINGE THEORIES on Bodonchar Munkhag, he cherry picks few scholars to support his views that the 9th generation ancestor of Genghis Khan was in fact a blonde haired man, but ridiculously enough, his mother Alan Guo was considered a mythical figure from "The Secret History of Mongols", which gives the following account of the immediate ancestry of Butunchar Munkhag:
" Every night a radiant yellow person used to come in through the opening in the roof of the ger (yurt) or through the space above the ger entrance and caress my belly, his light getting absorbed into my belly. When he left, he left like a yellow dog "
It only said that this yellow person impregnated Alan Guo with a ray of light. There is no mention of the yellow person being blonde haired, but for some reason it translated as blonde hair like by a few.
He also commits FRINGE THEORIES on Huangdi, only a very few translated him as blonde god, and only a very few supports the idea of him being blonde haired, yet he misleadingly edited numerous scholars based on superficial archaeological and linguistic research
on a mythical figure that most likely would never have existed as a real life figure. The fact that Hunan201p tries to even links this mythical figure with Indo-European, shows he is just trying to mislead people into thinking he was a real life figure of Indo-European origin, or trying to make it seem he was indo-european racially.
The mainstream view is that Huangdi was a mythical legend, there was no accurate historical descriptions of his existence that dated back to his exact lifetime.
By using FRINGE THEORIES, people should also believe ancient egyptian were african blacks ( which has far more numerous scholars supporting this theory compared with those claiming mythical Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag being blond, and ancient egyptians were confirmed real life figures ).
In Greek and Norse mythology they describe Aphrodite and Norse goddess as blonde, but this is also based only on cultural perceptions, they are non-existent people for mythical figures like Huangdi. As for Bodonchar Munkhag, he may have been a mythical figure, we all know is impossible that his mother ( Alan Guo ) was impregnated by a ray light by this glittering visitor (described as crawling on the sun- or moonbeams "like a yellow dog" ).
The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. There is cultural perception of Jesus being blond haired all of the world, but there is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence, and we also don't see him being mentioned iny any of the Europe or Asia section. So why is Hunan201 trying to make both Huangdi and Bodonchar Munkhag as real life figures, and trying to make it seem like that both of them confirmed blond haired figures ?
I really hope someone would do something about Hunan201p behaviour. You can see he just keeps removing and vandalizing the edits of respectable editor Tobby72 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tobby72) I would think someone like him would get more respect but still Hunan201p misuses wikipedia rules on the Uzbek and Turkmen wiki page, he was requested on those pages by Tobby72 he was requested to go on talk page but refuses to go and just keep on removing and vandalize.
You have provided no evidence for your statements that Bodonchar and Alan Gua were not real people. Furthermore, I provided a bluelinked reference mentioning the blond hair of the "yellow man visitor" who impregnated Alan Gua. It is on page 19 of this document;
Numerous scholars have remarked about the blond hair of the yellow visitor of Alan Gua. You have failed to provide a single reference that describes this individual as not blond.
You even referred to Huang-di as a "mythical figure". No, Huang-di was a human being and a prominent figure in Chinese history. Like many other historical figures, he was deified and worshipped as a God. The highly esteemed authors I cited clearly focus on Huangdi, the living person. One who they believe was blond haired.
None of the material I have posted here is fringe. It is historical research, conducted by prestigious authors, published by respectable outlets. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Your edit of Bodonchar was removed by Evergreen, but you just blatanly lie about not remembering to add Bodonchar Munkhag having blonde hair. You said "Forgot to add Bodonchar statement (perfectly well referenced) that was previously removed "[1]
That was just a day before that you reverted my my edits to your versions, even saying " Re-instated Bodonchar info. Article makes numerous references to spiritual beings, Gods and Goddesses. Bodonchar was a real lerson, however " [2]
The edit was removed by EvergreenFir[3], or were you hoping Evergreen would never find out and fall for your reason. There is no physical anthropolgy , no historical physical description on Huangdi , but a editor like you out of nowhere suddenly thinked you happened to confirmed Huangdi as a real life person.Huangdi Reign 2698–2598 BCE (mythical). Born 2711 BCE-Shinoshijak (talk) , 17 April 2020
Misrepresentation of references by Shinoshijak
Shinoshijak recently added these statements to the article:
"In ancient times of China, the Hmong people were historically described with blonde hair and blue eyes by the Chinese. These phenotypes made it easy for the Chinese to distinguish the Hmong people from their own. As the Hmong people migrated out from China these traits became less frequent.[4]
The ethnic Miao people of Guizhou province from China are a subgroup of Hmong people and were described with blue eyes and blonde hair. According to F.M Savina of the Paris Foreign missionary society the appearance of the Miao were are pale yellow in their skin complexion, almost white, their hair color often being light or dark brown, sometimes even red or corn-silk blond, and a few of them even have pale blue eyes.[5]"
However, he has falsified the publishing information for the references he cites. The first reference, "Mixed Race Student Politics: A Rising “Third Wave” Movement at UCLA", was not published at "UCLA Asian American studies Center", but by Lulu.com, a print-on-demand company, as can be clearly seen on the "About this book" page:
Likewise, the second reference, "Guizhou: The Precious Province" is not published by "Harvard university press", as listed in the citation by Shinoshijak, but by SPCK, a religious self-publishing company that primarily specializes in Christian literature:
Don't accuse me of misrepresting. The text on those books is what matters the most though, afterall, I wasn't misleading the general public by misinterpreting the text on those book sources, I wasn't misleading any wiki readers. I will try to establish a more simple link. I admit there was few mistakes, I may have accidentally added the wrong words since I've been searching for numerous (at least 9) book sources on anything about Hmong up. If you can please correct the links and edit them on the page, but I doubt you will. Creating a link like that was complicating, it was difficult and confusing, especially when you have to search up and down on the book to fill the link.
There's also a already established link. Hmong: History of a People is a book by H. Keith Quincy, PhD,l Government Department]" (). Eastern Washington University. December 6, 1998. Retrieved on July 12, 2014. "H. Keith Quincy (Ph.D. Claremont Colleges) Political theory, Viet Nam, American politics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmong:_History_of_a_People
Quincy cited some missionary beliefs stating that blue eyes and blonde hair
Tapp stated that there were other possible reasons for the blonde hair and blue eyes, such as relations with Westerners and albinism.
In my honest opinions, those section seem doesn't look like a place to edit historical ethnic groups and figures. Your editing ancient ethnic groups that can't be directly traced back to modern day ethnic groups (while mine can trace with modern day Hmong and Miao). It seems strange to me that your the only one deciding to edit those controversial claims in the Asian section. The Xianbei and Shiwei people (Khitans) were Mongolic speaking tribes which may not have been the same as the 13th century Mongols since. The Mongolic had many different tribes and may not correspond to modern day Mongols. It's just like Turkic and Uralic people, they too have have diverse number of their own diverse Turkic speaking tribes and Uralic speaking tribes. So I will decide to remove all ancient ethnic groups that can't be confirmed with modern day ethnic groups. I also don't see any historical figures and ancient ethnic groups being mentioned in the sections of Europe, Africa and Oceana. I'm sure there hundreds of different ancient ethnicities and tribes h blonde hair outside of Asia. Shinoshijak (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha, for someone who has accused me of weasel words, your excuse and failure to even admit responsibility for falsifying the references is just too cute. You falsified two non-peer reviewed, self-published sources that would never be acceptable as sources of data on biomedical information of human ethnic groups. That's the worse kind of misleading POV, because if I hadn't checked your references, they likely would have stayed up there. When you falsify references, you are not only attempting to mislead the readers, but your fellow contributors, as well.
There's no excuse for what you did here, and you don't have a single valid work of research that describes Hmongs as blond haired. Just a missionary rumor mill and a Lulu.com book. These references aren't valid. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Asia
This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "As seen on the talk page, this information was falsified." With all due respect, I disagree.
Today, higher frequencies of light hair in Asia are prevalent among Pamiris, Kalash, Nuristani and Uyghur ethnic groups.[1] About 75% of Russia is geographically considered North Asia; however, the Asian portion of Russia contributes to only an estimate of 20% of Russia's total population.[2] North Asia's population has an estimate of 1–19% with light hair.[3][4] From the times of the Russian Tsardom of the 17th century through the Soviet Union rule in the 20th century, many East Slavs, Germans and Balts were settled in or exiled en masse to Siberia and Central Asia. Blond hair is often seen in these groups, whereas the indigenous peoples are more likely to be dark haired.[5][6][7] For instance, their descendants currently contribute to an estimated 25% of Kazakhstan's total population.[8]
^Vishnevsky, Anatoly. (15 August 2000). "Replacement Migration: Is it a solution for Russia?" (PDF). Expert Group Meeting on Policy Responses to Population Ageing and Population Decline /UN/POP/PRA/2000/14. United Nations Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. pp. 6, 10.
^Gene Pool and Gene Geography of Population: Vol. 1. Nauka. 2000. ISBN978-5020258235.
^"The results of the national population census in 2009". Agency of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 12 November 2010. Retrieved 21 January 2010.
^Flynn, Moya (1994). Migrant resettlement in the Russian Federation: Reconstructing homes and homelands. ISBN978-1843311171.
^Ramet, S. Petra (1993). Religious Policy in the Soviet Union. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0521416436.
There is nothing in the Kazakhstan census link to support these POV statements. There is nothing in the Shoumatoff reference to indicate that light hair is "prevalent" among Uyghurs, Nuristanis or even Pamiris. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, I agree. But if the reference doesn't say anything about hair color, we can't use it as a reference for that statement. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Although page numbers weren't given, I also don't see anything in Moya or Ramet to indicate this and it wouldn't matter if there is, because both fail WP:SCIRS. Seems like a bad case of WP:SYNTH to me. - Hunan201p (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that finding sources for "blondness" in Kazakhstan (does anyone collect this for any country?) is more difficult than sources for ethnic Russians. I was champing at the bit reading the dismissal of the ethnic Russian figures which did not mesh with the Ethnic demography of Kazakhstan.Captain Macheath (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with the Kazakhstan census figures. Problem is, they're cited here alongside Mora and Ramet to support a claim about Russians being more blond than 'indigenous peoples in central asia'. There's nothing in the census data about blonds and neither Ramet nor Moya summarize studies on blond hair demographics, if even mentioning blonds at all. Like many, many things that have been removed from this article, the whole series of references is just deliciously falsified POV synthesis. In this case, it is less controversial than the others, but still bogus. This is why standards matter. - Hunan201p (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The following study by Belaresque, et al, cited for the claim that North Asians have 1-19% blond hair, is yet another example of a reference in this article that seemingly has nothing relating to the statement preceding it. It does not contain the words "hair", "blond", "pigmentation", "skin", etc. It's not in the supplementary data. It's just a haplogroup study.
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lars_Unnerstall_2011-08-03.jpg){kind=link}