Talk:Red hair/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

RV of edit by 63.65.68.246 on 19/10/06

Whilst the comments made by 63.65.68.246 were valid I believe the talk page is a better place to express them than within the body of the article. See below

"The results of a 2001 study, by University of Edinburgh and University of Oxford teams of geneticists led by Harding and Rees caused some to speculate that the gene responsible for red hair may have originated among the Neanderthals some 100,000 years ago.[2] THE REFERENCE GIVEN MAKES NO MENTION OF NEANDERTHALS OR EDINBURGH OR OXFORD UNIVERSITY - THIS SECTION IS A JOKE Red-haired people would then be descendents of Neanderthal admixtures to Cro-Magnon, and would have spread from the area of Neanderthal-Cro-Magnon contact. But interbreeding of Neanderthals with Homo sapiens is still a matter of debate (NO IT ISN'T, IT HAS BEEN RULED OUT), and in 2003, Edinburgh geneticist J. Rees suggested that the gene originated as recently as 40,000 to 20,000 years ago in Europe, well after the human migration from Africa, so that the geographical distribution of red hair would be due to post-glacial expansions from Europe."

References for any of the above statements would also be helpful .Agnellous 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't immediately recall references on the origin of the red-hair gene, but I do recall an issue of Science a few months ago discussing the ancestry of the human species, and concluding that there was liking interbreeding between the various sub-species of humanoid present in the past. I remember this because it is the only time I've ever heard the phrase "inter-species carnality". Michaelbusch 16:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Off topic post

How do hypocortisolism and obesity go hand in hand? hypo (meaning lack of) cortisol, typically results in minimal to extreme *weightloss* (vs. obesity, which would indicate potential "hyper"cortisolism.Off my high-horse...please continue with discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.251.127.57 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

Any reason for the tag? The article seems fine and there's no discussion here about it. -Pnkrockr 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look over the edit history, you'll see that the tag was added by an IP which was also used to repeatedly remove parts of the discussion of the origin of the red-haired gene. My guess is that someone feels they were being insulted, although I can't figure out why. Michaelbusch 18:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's clear to me. Woudln't you be insulted if someone said your hair color gene came from cavemen? Personally, I don't believe that at all, if that were true, wouldn't they be dumber than everyone else of other hair colors and this isn't true of them so I don't believe it either. Faris b 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a redhead and don't find it insulting. -Pnkrockr 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since we are all descended from cavemen, all of my genes came from them. Tracing back the particular subspecies of human that the red-hair gene came from isn't insulting, it is merely an interesting display of genetic analysis. Given that all this happened tens of thousands of years back, there should be no correlation between red hair and intelligence. A similar analysis could be applied to the blue-eye gene, which I carry. It has been suggested that that one evolved as a way to attract potential mates, by being unusual in appearance. This has lost any utility over time, but has been preserved in the population. Michaelbusch 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that having blue eyes has lost its utility to attract potential mates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.97.39 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In any event, there doesn't seem to be anything that could be considered insulting on the page right now, and there's no explanation for the POV tag here, so I'll remove it. If anyone wants to put it back, they should explain why here. Eron 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the way I understood it is that modern day humans and Neanderthals interbred and produced redheaded Homo Sapiens as is stated in the article as a possibility. Personally, I would find that offensive because it would imply that redheads are a devolved form of Homo Sapiens, if I read it wrong, please let me know. Faris b 20:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It would absolutely not imply that redheads were a devolved form of Homo Sapiens, only that the particular gene may come from Neanderthals (and the article is clear to point out that this is disputed). Given that we share genes with animals much lower on the evolutionary chart than Neanderthals, I think you are reading that bit incorrectly. Given that a great many other people also share this gene without having red hair, I don't think you have anything to worry about even if this hypothesis is true. --Yamla 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The logic of the cited study is as follows: between a few hundred thousand and about forty thousand years ago, there were many different subspecies of humanity, including the Neanderthals. These subspecies interbred to a considerable extent. We (homo sapiens sapiens) carry genes from many of the subspecies. Sequencing of Neanderthal DNA shows that some of them had red hair, which hasn't been seen in the other subspecies for which there are good sequences. The inference is that the red-haired gene entered the human population from a mutation in a Neanderthal. Red-heads aren't 'devolved', they simply express a gene from one of our ancestors. And, as noted above, many people who do not have red hair themselves carry that gene. Michaelbusch 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both statements above, and would like to add that the geographical range of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis coincides remarkably with the occurance of red hair (Europe through the Middle East) The Great Attractor 02:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, make of this what you want but this pretty much disproves the whole red hair came from cave men theory to me. http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20061115/hl_hsn/neanderthaldnashowsnointerbreedingwithhumans Faris b 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The Science and Nature papers do give the main time of divergence as ~500000 years ago. However, that doesn't rule out interbreeding. It merely means that the populations became genetically distinct. Michaelbusch 20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me there are two discussions here. (1) Did modern humans interbreed with Neanderthals. Interesting but only indirectly relevant to an article about red hair. (2) Is red hair a genetic legacy of Neanderthals? Even if it’s unlikely, it’s certainly worthy of discussion in an article about red hair. I cut out this bit:

However, in November 2006, a paper was published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which a team a European researchers report that Neanderthals and humans interbred. Co-author Erik Trinkaus from Washington University explains, "Closely related species of mammals freely interbreed, produce fertile viable offspring, and blend populations." The study claims to settle the extinction controversy that according to researchers, the human and neanderthal populations blended together through sexual reproduction. Erick Trinkaus states, "Extinction through absorption is a common phenomenon."

Not because it was wrong (I'm not really qualified to judge) but because it belongs more properly in a general discussion of Neandertal interaction with Cro-Magnons (and I see that this article too has been updated - nice work). In the Red hair article, I replaced this section with a more general sentence about (disputed) Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon interbreeding and a link to the Neanderthal interaction article. Can we keep the Red hair article focused on red hair? Fionah 09:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Neanderthal stuff is also starting to distort the organization of the article. The first section under the TOC is titled "Historical distribution". After its first paragraph, this section discusses the areas where red-haired people were found historically, and are found today. That is what I would expect in a historical distribution sections. But the first paragraph now discusses theories of the appearance of the genes for red hair, for red hair among Neanderthals, etc. I think this information would be better placed in the section on "Biochemistry and genetics of red hair". I also agree that, cited or not, content about interbreeding and extinction through absorption isn't really on-topic for an article on red hair. I'll try to move the Neanderthal stuff to a more appropriate place in the article. Eron 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that the Neanderthal speculation belongs in the Evolution section. I'm still not convinced that the sentence "However, in November 2006, a paper was published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which a team a European researchers report that Neanderthals and humans interbred"is relevant to this particular article. Even if Neanderthals and modern humans did interbreed (something which is apparantly disputed), this implies no link to red hair more than any other trait. Fionah 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

www.ox.ac.uk/blueprint/2000-01/3105/11.shtml Suggesting humans interbred with Neanderthals and so produced a hybrid red-haired human belongs in a yet to be established Sci Fi section. The reference given in the main text is not, as is implied, to PNAS, but is to the speculative magazine COSMOS. The current state of play is I believe as set out below.

Dr Harding, a population geneticist at the Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, said: 'This research is part of other work we are currently doing in genetics. We wanted to put the red hair gene into an evolutionary context, and the model used for examining this gene is a good basis for further research on other genes. We are doing more sequencing which will hopefully give us more data that are sensitive for revealing natural selection and therefore better results and clearer answers.'

It has been widely reported that the gene originated in Neanderthal man. Dr Harding says this just isn't true: 'We have never stated in our research that this gene is Neanderthal, but at the moment I cannot statistically prove that it isn't which is why others have drawn these conclusions.' It is thought that now people are moving around the world and meeting people from other cultures, the red hair gene is being spread into areas where it would not naturally occur, such as Jamaica. Red hair is also found in Papua New Guinea although it's not known why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.65.68.246 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between suggesting that the gene coding for red hair may have originated in Neanderthals and been transmitted into modern humans by interbreeding, and stating that "humans interbred with Neanderthals and so produced a hybrid red-haired human." I don't think there's any suggestion that red-haired humans are somehow hybrid Neanderthals; I would think that if interbreeding did occur, every h.sapiens alive today would carry some genetic legacy of the Neanderthals.

That aside, I think a lot of the issues with this content in this article is that it relies on second-hand sources. We have several references that talk about the Oxford study, but we don't have a reference to the study itself. We have a reference that talks about the Proceedings paper, but none to the paper itself. We don't really know what those sources say; we only know what people say they say. This reduces their value somewhat.

What can we say for certain based on the sources? We can say that "estimates on the original occurrence of the gene for red hair vary from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago." We can also reference statements that there is speculation that this gene may have originated in Neanderthals. After that, we risk getting side-tracked into a swamp of off-topic "Some say... others believe..." on the subject of prehistoric interbreeding. Perhaps a simple "Some have speculated that this gene originated in Neanderthals and entered the human genetic code through interbreeding, but this theory remains controversial." Throw in a link to Neandertal interaction with Cro-Magnons and leave it at that. Eron 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this would be a tolerable approach. I just feel that this Neanderthal / Red Hair link is *someones* fantasy. Rufosity is not rare in the animal kingdom. For example, Orangutan's have reddish hair, many breeds of dog (e.g. King Charles Spaniels) have what can only be described as ginger hair. This would appear to be a common mutation that does not require a fanciful explanation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.65.68.246 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Eron's approach. I think the redhead/Neanderthal hypothesis needs to be mentioned, because some readers will be looking for info about it, but it should be clear that this is in the realm of speculation at this stage. Also, the debate about whether or not Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons interbred should be kept to the appropriate page and not clog up the Red Hair article. Fionah 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like scientific racism to me. The authors of the original study already indicated that the information was being taken out of context - in other words this debate doesn't even exist among the scientific community. I'm going to remove this BS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.165.32.189 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Scientific racism"? That seems a bit strong. In any case, all the text you removed was referenced and some of it was useful to the article:

Estimates on the original occurrence of the gene for red hair vary from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago. Referenced, and a useful, factual addition to the article.

Based on a 2001 Oxford University study, some commentators speculated that Neanderthals had red hair, and that some red-headed and freckled humans today share some genetic heritage with Neanderthals. Referenced. Note that the article is not saying "people with red hair have Neanderthal heritage" - it is simply saying that someone has made that claim.

Other researchers disagree, and some of the scientists who conducted the study claim this is a misinterpretation of their findings. Referenced rebuttal of the claims that concern you.

However, in November 2006, a paper was published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which a team of European researchers report that Neanderthals and humans may have interbred, although no reference was made to red hair. Referenced, although as the reference doesn't talk about red hair, it should probably go.

I've restored all the deleted content; I'll take that last sentence out now. - Eron ^Talk 13:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Rufosity"

I removed the redirect (didn't realize I wasn't logged in) since it redirects right to this article, but at the cost of clarity. Could somebody fix this? Alternator 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Rufosity" is just another way of saying "having red hair", right? Fionah 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but many readers aren't going to know that, so I'm thinking that it might be best to reword the phrase. I didn't have any good ideas, though, so I just made the note here in the talk page. Alternator 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the fact that having red hair is sometimes called rufosity to the intro. Given that this page is a redirect from rufosity, it is probably a good idea to explain that early. Eron 13:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what is the etymology of that word and such? Where does it come from? Personally, when I hear it, I think of dogs not Red hair. Faris b 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that it came from "rufous", an adjective meaning reddish-brown. But I'm not an etymologist; I added the line about rufosity in an attempt to explain why that term redirected here. From its use in the article, ("based on a 2001 Oxford University study, some commentators speculated that Neanderthals exhibited rufosity,") I assumed that it was an anthropological term and didn't go any further than that.

I have now, as best I can. My Concise Oxford doesn't list the word. Neither do any of the open-source dictionaries I have been able to find. I googled "rufosity" both alone and with keywords like "red hair" and "anthropology" and the results were interesting. Many links are to this page or to mirrors of it. Others are to sites that posit... let's call them fringe racial theories. None are what I would consider reputable sources. One or two include forums that make me want to take a shower after reading them.

From what I can tell, the word "rufosity" occurs seven times on Wikipedia, in four articles. Most of those occurences are variants of the phrase I quoted above. Given that this does not appear to be a "real" word, or at least a word commonly used by reputable persons studying human pigmentation, I would suggest replacing all its occurences with "red hair" or something along those lines, and then putting the redirect up for deletion. Anyone think that's a bad idea? Eron 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds bad. I agree, remove the phrase as well as it's redirects. Faris b 02:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that we should leave the redirect from the Rufosity article intact, because some people might actually check that, and it does appear to be a valid (if rare) English word. I've seen it in a few dictionaries after checking, but none of the big ones; my best guess is that it is archaic. However, I support removing all occurances in other articles. Alternator 08:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When I looked into policy on deleting redirects I came to the same conclusion, so I left the redirect intact and didn't bother posting it for deletion. The other edits are all done. - Eron 20:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if rufosity itself is a word, but it has roots in Latin. The name "Rufus," in Latin, means a red head. ɱўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 04:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to Popular Belief

Scots

Contrary to popular belief, Scotland is the nation with the most redheads. Most redheads, in the British Isles, USA, Canada, Australia and so on are of Scottish descent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.199.52.99 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

North Germany has a large population of redheads too. user:FLJuJitsu 27 Sept 07 00:05 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Celts, Picts and Nordics

In addition to the above I would like to make some points:

1) Celts proper tend to have brown or black hair and brown eyes - see Black Irish, etc. Celts come from Gaul. The "Celtic" countries in the British Isles have a more significant mixture of Nordic (I haplogroup) blood than pure Celts, as well as having been mixed with Picts and other prehistoric populations who may or may not have been R1B haplogroup like Celts, but clearly had somewhat different features.

2) I think Tacitus was describing the Picts in the modern-day Scotland as having red hair, need to check Germania.

3) I think the redheaded Scots tend to be lowland Scots, in other words primarily Germanic and Nordic people - in addition to the Pict blood which was historically described as red. I believe Celts did not come to Scotland en masse until later.

4) Tacitus described Germans in general as having red hair, I do not remember anything from his work about Gaulish redheads at all. The statement was simply "Germans have red(ish) hair".

5) I think the big question is whether red hair is more associated with haplogroup R1B or I, or a person with parents from each type, or associated with some particular mitochondrial DNA line. Of course it is not only inherited along those lines, but the question is whether it is a Germanic/Nordic feature or Celtic (R1B) - I think emphatically it is the former.

-- Fourdee 20:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that red hair has its origins in the Nordic region and is too often mistaken as a "Celtic" feature. I have a best friend with red hair that gets ticked off every time I say it's a Scandinavian thing. Her mother is a blonde Anglo whose parents are English and her father's parents are Russian. I have explained that in order to get red hair both her parents must carry the gene so where did her father pick it up? Undoubtedly from the Swedish Vikings who settled the Rus. I don't recall too many Celts settling in the Russia area.

1) In all areas where red hair is found in a substantial amount, the Vikings and other Scandinavian descendants (Germanic tribes) played a predominant role in their history. Much the same can be said for the blonde gene. Russia, Northern Italy, the British Isles and even the Middle East are examples of these areas that all have Scandinavian settlers in common.

2) Evidence suggests that the Picts in the British Isles due to geographical location, early language and cultural finds, were descendants of Scandinavians and absorbed surrounding Celtic culture.

3) Red hair may be more prominent in the British Isles today, but this can be attributed to the high incidence of "inter-mingling" of genes which make its recessiveness more prominent.

4) A study of men in the British Isles with red hair proved that they have more in common genetically with modern Norwegians than other people in their communities considered to be of Celtic/"Black Irish" descent.

5) I have not one drop of Irish blood in me, yet on my mother's side of the family (3/4 Swedish, 1/4 Norwegian) we have enough redheads to rival the percentage of redheads in Ireland today.

[interjection] Vikings often took slaves to scandanavia from scotland. This would explain the gene flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.211.59 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Rapunzel In Van 07:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember Wikipedia:No original research and that this is a talk page. Michaelbusch 07:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above is not original research. It is fact that has been published numerous times by genetics and history professionals to counter the belief that Red hair has its origins with the Celts. I did not feel the need to cite sources since this is indeed the Talk page, and this is the venue is it not on how to improve the article and its contributions? Such contributions put into the article and cited would be dismissed easily by those who believe red hair has its origins in Ireland, therefore this is the perfect venue to discuss it. Rapunzel In Van 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Redheads are not only Nordics. Picts from North Africa. Nagara373 10:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Red hair (in Caucasians) was not only in Nordics but also Mediterreaneans (mostly Atlanto-Mediterraneans). Nagara373 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost no red hair between Rhine river and Ural mountains, because Nazi Germany killed redheaded around World War II. Nagara373 09:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Redheads are almost extinct between Rhine river and Ural mountains, because Nazi Germany killed redheaded around World War II. Nagara373 20:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Sousa?

Why is this in the article? "The most beautiful of all red head's is by far, Cindy Sousa." 149.167.210.127 05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How about because it was vandalism? I see this quite a bit on other articles. http://www.ncdes.ca/index.php/Profiles/CindySousa That's all I could find and she doesn't even have red hair. Faris b 16:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to this article

I am confused by a large portion of the vandalism to this article. Where do people get the idea to add such bollocks as 'redheds have no souls?' This has been added by numerous IPs, so I'm fairly sure it isn't a single person. This is not a general 'why is there vandalism' question. Is there some strange mythos around red hair? Michaelbusch 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably just the usual anti-white racism that shows up on all the relevant articles... The only thing scientific I remember hearing is that redheads feel pain more accutely. Not sure if that is true either but it was published as science and reported in the news. I've also heard, both directly from them and from other people, that redheaded women have short tempers; not sure of the veracity of that either but it might be an interesting matter for research. Fourdee 21:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be a response to a "South Park" (American television program) episode in which one main character insists that "ginger kids" (redheads) have no souls. And in reponse to Fourdee, I can attest that redheaded women do tend to be of short temper, although I believe this may be due to the propensity for the gene to be associated with certain cultural groups. The stereotypical Irish matriarch springs to mind... :) The Great Attractor 02:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have the page protected against vandalism as this is getting out of hand. It happens about every day and I've been watching this page for a while now.

You know, I was always told that people hated redheads (other whites as well) but I never believed it was true until I saw the amount of vandalism to this page. Faris b 01:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Loads of people hate red headeds especially in britain, with southpark's ginger kids seems to have feuled the vandalism -- wolfmankurd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.129.59 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?? I can't believe what I'm reading! Why is this? I can't believe people hate redheads like that! I love them, in fact I think they're superior to dark haired people. And no, I don't have red hair but I wish I did. Faris b 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the South Park episode "Ginger Kids" probably contributed to the stereotypes. The racially insensitive Eric Cartman character gives a presentation to his class claiming that children with red hair, light skin, and freckles have a fictitous disease called "Gingervitis" and do not have souls. It is actually a funny episode, if not taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.153.136 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this explains it. South Park is the bane of Wikipedia, apparently. Michaelbusch 03:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"gingerphobia"

There's got to be a better word for it than that. It may seem like nothing to you, but some of the vandalism mentioned above suggests there is indeed "gingerphobia" present in today's society. Surely this ... discrimination has a name. Is there any correct label for such a thing, mockery on the basis of having red hair (or blonde hair or brown hair for that matter)? They have a name for everything. EmpComm 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I’ve grown up with the word 'ginger' being used towards me in a derogatory way. I believe this word is extremely derogatory. Although not classed as racist because red heads are, in majority, Caucasians and those who use the word ginger also Caucasians.

Many words have been described to generalise a race throughout history which in today’s society of political correctness are deemed disgraceful and insulting. Why then is it still alright for newspapers and magazines to use the words ‘Ginger Winger’ etc in describing someone with red hair.

Red, orange or auburn are examples of what I see politically correct and which accurately describe the colour. Ginger is not a colour and therefore should not be used as slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.128.97 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The BBC has been using the term Gingerism for a whileJayneyalice 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Red haired women are beautiful, but red haired men are very bad. My ideal guys are blond-haired guys, brown-haired guys are secondary good.

guys ideality:

1. blond hair (ideal guys)

2. light brown hair

3. medium brown hair

4. dark brown hair

5. black hair

6. reddish hair (strawberry blond or auburn)

7. red hair (worst guys)

Nagara373 07:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Red hair and Neanderthals

Considering that DNA evidence has now determined that Neanderthals could not have interbred with us, an unscientific source claiming the genes for red hair come from them should not be included in this article. Even if it was possible, that article is not a reliable source. I know it's asking a lot, but please think next time before blindly reverting. 70.50.52.152 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not call edits you disagree with "vandalism". If you delete content with no explanation, you can expect that deletion to be reverted. That's not vandalism. If you have a problem with article content, discuss it - or at least explain yourself - before removing it. - Eron ^Talk 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you refer to the Neanderthal genomic work reported in Nature on Nov 16, 2006, be aware that this does not rule out gene transfer between Neanderthals and modern humans. The paper merely demonstrates that the populations of Neanderthal and human diverged on average 500000 years ago. This is not the same as saying that they could not have inter-bred. In fact, inter-breeding is a common suspicion based on the same studies, because of strange mutations that show up in a few humans and many Neanderthals. This was reported in Nature earlier in 2006, and was the first time the phrase 'inter-species carnality' ever appeared in the journal. Michaelbusch 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Red hair was not only in Neanderthals but also in African decent. Nagara373 07:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Research on red hair and temperament?

Has there been any peer-reviewed academic research on whether the temperamental attributes associated by folklore with red hair, such as aggression and libidinousness, actually have any basis in reality? Given the genetic origin of red hair, and its known correlation with variations in the perception of pain, this would seem like a reasonable direction for research, but I cannot find anything in Medline that suggests this area is being investigated.

Any statistically significant result would be interesting, whether it tended to confirm the folklore about redheads, or to refute it by confirming the null hypothesis that hair colour has no influence on personality, or even demonstrated a correlation in the reverse direction to that suggested by folklore.

It really wouldn't be very hard to do, and could be piggybacked onto just about any other study of impulsivity, aggression, etc., or even data-mined out of other, older, studies if pictures of the participants were available.

The California Twin Study seems to have combined data-gathering on physical attributes including hair color with personality tests: that might be a candidate for data mining. -- The Anome 16:34-17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've now found the following studies on hair color and personality:

• Lawson ED. Hair color, personality, and the observer. Psychol Rep. 1971 Feb;28(1):311-22. PMID 5549452
• Moehler E, Kagan J, Brunner R, Wiebel A, Kaufmann C, Resch F. Association of behavioral inhibition with hair pigmentation in a European sample. Biol Psychol. 2006 Jun;72(3):344-6. Epub 2006 Jan 18. PMID 16414174

Since I don't have access to the text of either, I have no idea whether either of these has data on red hair vs. other hair colors. -- The Anome 17:15-17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone believe that if you have red hair you will have a bad temper? Does that mean if you have black hair your calm in personality? The problem is that if you question old wife’s tales, the old wife questions your temperament and you’re then perceived as angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.128.97 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually completely understand this statement. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm a redhead, and I have some weird mood swings, and talking about redheads comes up alot since I am one, and almost every person I talk to says "redheads are crazy!" I would honestly be really interested in participating in a study for this because it's something that really fascinates me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MmmBoxy (talk • contribs) 00:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

being a red headed man....gingerman

im a 44 male with longred hair, same hair as ive had all my life, with no signs of aging and yet before being online, ive never really new that being a redhead was something sience wouold find so interesting to study......what is the point in all this research about redhairs..do i know any redheads outside the family, no i dont ...i have no neighbors either, no coworkers taht share the redhead sysdrome......and the hate part of being redhead.if i travel to the UK....do 8I need to be careful in what i say or do so i am not attacked for being redheaded.....or should i travel to parts of the world where it doesnot matter, like scotland......whats next, the judging of a person based on there skin color...no wait, we already do that dont we...whats next, the hatred of people who are human? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.7.20 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Biochemistry vs genetics

The section on Biochemistry, genetics and evolution is a bit confusing to me. What, or where, is the distinction between genetics and biochem? It seems the MCR1 is genetics, but it's called biochemistry. This section needs a bit more organization, but I'm afraid I just don't know enough about genetics, etc. to dare try it. I'd appreciate someone's help. Thanks! --Zuejay 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Too much vandalism!

We need to seriously think about making this page a protected page. The daily insults about redheads, and today even a stupid picture. The picture is visible in the page history as I've reverted it.

Is there a possibility for page protection? Faris b 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at the present time. User:Arjun concludes that the vandalism rate is low enough to be managable. Michaelbusch 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Ok then. I just thought I should bring it up. What would be an unacceptable level of vandalism? Faris b 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism more often than once every six hours or so seems to be the normal threshold. Michaelbusch 05:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ehlers-Danlos

Ehlers-Danlos type V has only been documented in one family and is not included in current lists of the types. Thus, it's irrelevant and not necessarily related to EDS.Ninquerinquar 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it! If it only occured in one family, the red hair may have been totally coincidental and not related to the syndrome. Fionah 10:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lady Sovereign

About the British slang, the London hip-hop artist Louise Harmon aka Lady Sovereign frequently uses the term "ginger" in her songs, but I don't know how this relates to redheaded people, i.e. the context doesn't seem to refer to hair type. Arkhamite 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Red Haired Pharaohs?

The following claim needs prof or to be clearly marked as a claim without proof.

"...Ancient Egyptians...The dynasties Tutmoses, Rammeses and Mentuhotep included red (and orange) haired pharaohs.[citation needed]..."

These are African dynasties of Kemet and there is no evidence of White or Red headed Africans in Kemet except possibly in the North during the Hyksos invasion of Africa (c. 1500 B.C.E.) and brief occupation before being driven out.

Any evidence of so called White Africans would need to be accompanied with melanin dosage tests to merit credibility. --Aunk 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of Black Pharaoh's. This is purely a Black Supuriority trick. Complete nonsense.

Pharaoh Ramses II had red hair. There have been many tests by Egyptian (Arab) researches who officialized he had red hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu Musab al-Suri (talk • contribs) 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Red haired man image

Since there is a user insisting that the picture Image:Gingerkid.jpg is more appropriate to the article than Image:RedheadedGuy.jpg, perhaps we should discuss it. The RedheadedGuy image is solely of an individual with red hair. The other image, Gingerkid, shows an individual with red hair and a beer can. I feel RedheadedGuy is more encyclopedic. Please, express your opinion before we continue the RV war. Perhaps we can gain concensus. Thanks ZueJay (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The images are: RedheadedGuyGingerkidZueJay (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the RedheadedGuy(picture 1) is more encyclopedic, as it is just a picture of a boy with red hair, while the Gingerkid (picture2) picture has other distractions, such as the beer can and the other person's arm. Pnkrockr 03:35-03:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[interjection] red haired guys have nearly auburn (female have higher pheomelanin/eumelanin ratio than males) Nagara373 08:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Illbill1000 has edited Image:Gingerkid.jpg to Image:head187.jpg and installed it on the page. The image subject appears to have "red eye" thus the original Image:ReadheadedGuy.jpg still seems better. The new image is:
File:Head187.JPG ZueJay (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Apart from that, the beercan dude pic is only a quarter the resolution and has some really bad anti-aliasing going on - Alison^☺ 05:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The first image is not perfect, but better than the second/new one. -- nae'blis 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all just vandalism. Leave the "redheadedguy" pic as it is. Vala M 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Another go at replacing this image has been made - the newly proposed image has an awful lot of background "clutter" that the original does not. ZueJay (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And another red headed guy image has been replacing the current image.The requested image has clutter in the background and the red hair is not as obvious as in the original picture. File:L 30aa264da902a7bba01b1d36e600bfcc.jpg Pnkrockr 01:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image speedy deleted as unlicensed and used in attacks. Editor in question repeatedly reverted to their version and inserted "[blah blah] is gay". Blocked 24 hours - Alison ☺ 02:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Red haired guys have slightly light brownish than red haired women. Red hair in males, less reddish than red hair in females. Nagara373 07:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Top image suggestion

How about a single image at the top showing a variety of red-hair colours of both sexes, much like the composite images I've seen in animal and World War II. Richard001 06:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Should we include red-haired celebrities such as Nicole Kidman and David Caruso? Fionah 08:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not unless you're getting pics of people with firery red hair like the 2 in use now. Some people, you can't tell that they have red hair like Nicole Kidman. Vala M 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should use the two pictures already there, they clearly display the hair and the typical redhead complexion. But a composite image should also include different shades such as auburn. Fionah 08:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen Nicole Kidman go on record as saying that she dyed her hair ginger and that is not her natural colour. Goldgreen 7 May 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldgreen (talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, she didn't appear to have any features common to redheads. Vala M 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What are "features common to redheads"? AFAIK, the only feature definitely associated with red hair (other than the hair color itself) is pale skin with a tendency to freckle, and Kidman certainly has that. I wouldn't assume anything about her natural hair color on the basis of her features. Fionah 09:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, these features are:

*Blonde and/or red eyebrows and eyelashes

*Numerous freckles (Most whites only have a few compared to redheads)

*Pink nipples

*Orange colored palms of the hands and feet

*Wider hands/feet

I know some of these are probably a bit hard to believe but I've done my own research. Vala M 13:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eyebrows and freckles, yes, but pink nipples?? And wider hands?? Wow ... - Alison ☺ 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the last three features on that list. Pnkrockr 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. Anyway, it's true. See for yourself next time you see a redheaded person. The nipple one might be tough though.

Anyway, regarding the hands/feet. It's the opposite in darker peoples. They have narrower hands/feet. Vala M 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to ask you how you did the informal nipple research! - Alison ☺ 04:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You did that just to make me look at my hands, didn't you? Nope, palms are definitely pink, not orange, and if anything they're slightly narrower than average. If there's formal research to back it up, I'll happily accept that I'm the freaky one with red hair and non-orange narrow hands. Otherwise, I'll counter you're anecdotal evidence with my anecdotal evidence. Not commenting on the nipples! Fionah 07:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm in the same boat as you, as I'm a redhead but my hands and feet are pretty much the same color as the rest of me, if not a little pink. Not sure if they are wider or narrower than a national average, but I'd pretty much say they're in the middle. So unless there is research to backup the above claims, I can also counter them with my own anecdotal evidence. Pnkrockr 13:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I said common to redheads, not present in all. As far as I know, there's no formal research done on the matter, just the notes I've taken myself. Vala M 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have very red hair, about as red as it gets, and most of those features are true for me.

Darkish blond eyebrows, and my eyelashes are brown with blond tips. Not as many freckles as some redheads, but still a good number on my arms despite the fact that I avoid the sun like the plague. Pink nipples, yes, though I would have thought that a common feature among most of caucasian descent. As for the orange palms and bottoms of feet, not a distinct orange, but a peachier pink, on the warm side, as opposed to a cooler pink. In keeping with my small frame, my hands are also somewhat small, but proportionately, I've noticed the palms of my hands are a bit more square than some women's. Also, I do have wider feet.

Considering I partially or fully fit each of the traits listed, I suppose I would be positive anecdotal evidence. -Cassandra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.130.228 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for sharing and proving my studies to be correct. So does that mean that we can work this info into the page now? Vala M 02:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunately. Sorry :( - Alison ☺ 02:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Partially red hair?

This page seems only to mention cases where all of a persons hair is red, but for me it is different. I have light blond hair on my head, but my beard is red, and the chesthair is brown, so where does that put me? Additionally, I have pale skin, very sensitive to the sun, and a tendency to freckles if sunburnt. Am I then some kind of semi-redhead? Both my parents were blond, but my mothers father was a full redhead.(62.20.115.40 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

As the article says, the redhair gene is recessive. That means that you have to have two redhair genes, one from your mother and one from your father, before you will have flaming red hair. However even people with one redhair gene may show signs of redness. If they inherit a redhair gene and a blackhair gene, the redness may not be easy to see since they will still have some melanin in their hair and skin and will therefore tan without freckles. However if they inherit a redhair and a blondhair gene, the redness may well be easy to spot due to the lack of melanin, leading to pale skin, freckles, etc. That appears to be what has happened in your case. You are what is commonly known as a "strawberry blond" in common parlance. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure genetics work that way. A person who is heterogenous with a combination of a recessive/dominant trait will not necessarily express any evidence of their genotype in their phenotype. For example, a person with the alleles for both the blue and brown eyed trait will exhibit only brown eyes. I could be wrong, though, because I seem to recall Mendel's experiments involving roses in which a white and red rose crossbred resulted in a pink flower? (Could have been the wrinkled/smooth peas, too... not sure). The Great Attractor 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I not into the technical terms but i'm quite sure that there is situation where the dominant gene has some kind of defect which allows the recessive one to have some dictation of the prevailing phenotype, such as green eyes coming from sets of blue and brown eyes. 82.22.131.140 10:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Redheads

Upon finding this page, I was happy to see that Iranians were identified as a group commonly diplaying the trait. Most people automatically attribute red hair to Celtic inheritance. A good friend of mine, who is half Iranian, looks like she just got off the boat from Dublin, despite the fact that she has no European heritage. Amusingly, I'm 100% Irish heritage, but she possesses far more of the traits normally attributed to the island that I. Perhaps it might be a good idea to include the fact that Iranians (or Persians, depending on one's preference) can be Aryan despite the connotation of the stereotypical Nordic phenotype associated with the word? Iran is not an Arabic nation, despite Western perception. The Great Attractor 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that you have to mention this. First of all, it's your own short-sightedness, then indeed, the short-sightedness of a lot of people. Of course Iranians can have red hair. Chechens, Tatars, Kazakhs, Mongolians, Turks and Arabs are known for having a high percentage of red haired people among them. Why are people always so shocked to find this out? For me it was very funny to read your thing (you, The Great Attractor). It's so obvious for me that there are many red haired people from the Middle East, Persia, North India, Central Asia and the Altaic Region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.35.179 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I never said that ONLY Iranians have red hair. My assertion was that people most commonly associate the trait with northern European ethnicities, not Middle Eastern ones. Second, if you have an issue with something I said on a discussion page, leave it at that and refrain from editing my user page with snide, condescending comments without having the cojones to sign your edit. The Great Attractor 01:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

not encyclopaedic?

According to a Clairol Color Attitudes Survey, redheaded women see themselves as fearless and savvy. Ummm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.0.37 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

From the article:

In modern-day UK and Ireland, despite being the places with the highest populations of redheads, the word "ginger", pronounced /gɪ.ŋə(ɹ)/ as opposed to the standard pronunciation /'dʒɪn.dʒə(ɹ)/) is derogatorily used to describe red headed people.

Really? I live in the UK, and I hear people making jokes about ginger people fairly often, but I've never heard them say /gɪ.ŋə(ɹ)/ ("ghinga" with two hard "g"s). That sounds like a facetious word to me. The regular pronunciation is definitely the preferred one. RobbieG 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm English amd I've heard the alternate pronunciation a fair bit perhaps because one of my friends is ginger. The number of times I've heard someone bellow "Ginger!" at him for no apparent reason... --Meridius 01:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it a regional thing then? I know several ginger people, and while people quite often use the word as an insult towards them, they pronounce it the normal way. But then, I live in Gloucestershire, so your local area might have a different slang vocabulary. After all, England is a big place, and the UK and Ireland is an even bigger area. We ought to be a bit more specific. RobbieG 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am from New Zealand, where "ginger" is always pronounced with two hard "g"s when used as a pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.93.10 (talk) 20:34, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Ginger People

You should add something about ginger people. 8D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkittydance (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm yes I see you are smarter than most people on this sight [sic] XD --Meridius 07:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Er...I thought that "ginger" was a derogatory word. But then it's all over the article, although unaccompanied by other racist remarks, leading me to believe that it's not being used in a racist sense. >_> Can it be used that way? Count DeSheep 22:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya... Ginger is generaly taken as a very derogatory word. If nothing else I think something about it being viewd as derogatroy needs to be added user:FLJuJitsu 27 Sept 07 00:09 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All about Redheads link: False information

The external links list a site "All about Redheads". On this site is information that is incorrect. It states that redheads do not make good soldiers and that in fact only one noted general in US history had red hair--General Custer. This is plainly false. Some of the most noted and revered Generals in US history had red hair, namely George Washington, George Tecumseh Sherman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. There is no link to contact the administrator of this website and I suggest it be removed until it's errors are corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halhiker (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I think the only general you mentioned who wasn't ginger was Custer, who was, I believe, blond! That site may not be terribly accurate o_o; RobbieG 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

attitudes towards redheads (gender difference)

People attitude toward redheads, positive or negative, different due to gender of redheads. People positive attitude toward female redheads, but negative attitudes towards male redheads.

attitudes towards redheads (gender difference):

Positive attitudes towards redheads - Redheaded women are beautiful.

Negative attitudes towards redheads - Redheaded men are bad.

Nagara373 09:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. For example, I have a friend who is a girl and she is sort of ginger-ish, and she sometimes gets laughed at for it. And there have been recorded cases of redheaded women getting mocked or even harassed because of their hair colour. It is true that males generally tend to recieve more negative reactions than females, though. RobbieG 16:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Evil

Why does no one discuss Red heads being so evil? Very little scientific evidence proves that they are not evil and so I think that this lack of evidence should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.250.65.158 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Are Reds White or Related to Africans?

I ask because they do not look like the majority or whites and they do look very different. The spots on their skins is unique as well. It is almost as if you 'connected the dots' on their skin, it would turn to a brown tone instead of pink. It is almost as if their skin used to be brown and has left and the spots are the proof of what once was.--71.235.88.8 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew

The article states that the words for Adam and red in Hebrew are pronounced identically, but in fact the first is pronounced "adam" and the second "adom". 76.220.200.130 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, wovels aren't as important in semitic languages as in indo-european languages. Originally, the Hebrew alphabeth didn't even contain letters for most wovel sounds. So the difference between "adam" and "adom" would be minimal in Hebrew. There's also the word "Edom", which in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) is (1)another name for Esau, Jacob's brother, and most importantly (2)the name of Esau's descendants and their country. The name "Edom" is supposed to mean "red" too, and Esau got the name either because he had red hair or because the soup that he sold his birth right to Jacob for was red, maybe both. It's of course possible that the country of Edom got their name from something totally different, and that the story about Esau being their ancestor developed later. In fact, that's very much likely. But this shows how little importance wovels have in Hebrew and other semitic languages, and that the consonants are what's important. Two words containing the same consonants are often considered related, even if they're not, no matter what the wovels in the words are.

A large percentage of modern Jews have ginger hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.12.120 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Negro Also?

My parents use to tell me that in Brazil, especially in their region, there would be many African descendants with light skin and red hair. I just came back a few weeks ago after spending only a month in Espirito Santo with my parents again, and as it turns out, my cousin is marrying a redhead! He has Native, Italian and African ancestry. I found this interesting, but this article doesn't seem to discuss this phenomena. Here's a Brazilian redhead and there's also this, and this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.193.225 (talk) 05:10-05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC) and 05:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups With Red Hair

Ashkenazi Jews have a high degree of red-heads and especially men with red-beards. Last time I wrote this it was deleted I wonder why?

The ethnic groups with high percentages of red hair are Scots, Irish, Udmurts (Finnic People from the Ural Mountains) and Chechens. Anyone have statistics? Numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.57.90 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It only mentions Caucasian nationalities (because 'Irish' is not an ethnicity) with red hair... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.116.192 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm... Irish is an ethnicity, Ireland NOT being part of Britain.... 80.5.155.167 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Irish is a nationality, not an ethnicity. (FLJuJitsu) 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My cousin in Ireland tells me that 'Red Irish' are considered to be of Scottish blood, Yellow Irish are of Viking blood, and Black Irih are true Irish. With that said, anyone find it interesting that the regions you find the most gingers in Europe are the areas that were most heavily occupied by the Moors? I've read that Red Hair is a result of a genetic mutation of the gene that produces melanin. It would make sense considering we are always lighter than the rest of our family...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.169.228.108 (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Subject of Juan de Flandes painting is not certain

It appears the painting's webpage at Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza indicates that the identification of the subject of this painting is not certain. Specifically note the use of "Retrato de una Infanta (¿Catalina de Aragón?)" as the title and the comment within the text "De todos modos la identificación no es segura." --Dfred (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of notable redheads (real and fictional)

This section is totally out of control and is basically useless as a source of information. Can we try to cut it down to a few, at least? About 90% of them are not exactly notable for having red hair (they're notable and have red hair. Big difference!). It's also a magnet for people adding their family and friends, etc. - Alison ^❤ 04:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose a more comprehensive list: I agree that most of the names were not terribly known. However, I also argue that it should be of all famous or notable redheads, not people notable for their red hair. For example, George Washington was not on it. 198.140.202.1 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the list be independent of the article (such as List of notable redheads) with only those notable for their red hair listed in this main article, then a link provided to the whole list as a 'see also'. I agree its totally out of control here - seeing that section added was like watching an impending train wreck. ZueJay (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been done. (see page history) And it was deleted because Wikipedia "is not a laundry list." I liked it so I copied it to my user page [1]. You can update it there if you like. If someone tries to get a new one started on the main site I don't think it will last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDA (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody. My name is Ryan and I am the individual responsible for first creating the "notable redheaded men" list. Somebody else did the women. I created the list for many reasons. First, a tiny fraction of the redhead page actually mentions men. You'd think we didn't exist. A majority of the picture are women, the topics discuss women more often, and almost all the quotes are concerning redheaded females. I have found this bias on basically every "redhead website" I've encountered, the only difference is that here, I can actually change it.

Second, frankly I'm getting sick of the perception that redheads, especially men (we have more negative connotations ladies) haven't done anything important. I felt the most straightforward way of combating this stereotype is to post the names of "notable" redheads.

I didn't actually believe many people visited the redheaded webpage, so frankly I thought I could tinker with it and maybe some kid would stumble upon it and start taking pride in their appearance. It's awesome that others have taken notice and someone actually copied it to their user page. I have come back now and then to post names of other men I forgot or just didn't realize WERE redheads (another reason for the list. Who knew Vivaldi was a redhead, really). Lo and Behold the list is gone. My blood starts to boil, then I find this discussion.

I'd like to address some of the criticism.

First, it's true some of the names weren't notable. I went from memory and from the "Redhead Encyclopedia." Unfortunately, the Encyclopedia thinks just about everyone was redheaded. Also, turns out "Jeremiah Johnson" wasn'real. My bad. But Robert Redford played him, and he is. I've taken down names when I found out they weren't redheads. Or didn't exist...

Second, I'm American. Non-Americans probably won't know who Bill Walton is. Bill Walton is a hall-of-fame pro basketball player. That's a big deal here. Is it really a problem if Bill Walton isn't world famous? I wish I knew more non-American redheads. I don't. Please post names of redheads famous in your country, then people could find out who they were and it would be interesting for everyone.

Lastly, one has remarked "they're not notable redheads, they're redheaded and notable." I don't understand this. That's like saying "Martin Luther King Jr. is not a famous African-American. He just happens to be famous AND African-American." Putting people on the list who are famous BECAUSE of their red hair would be the useless decision. Who wants to be famous for only that anyway. How shallow.

We're the smallest minority in the world (unless you'd like to get into "People named Adolf" and "minorities" like that.) If we do anything on a national scale, isn't that notable in itself? I did it to instill pride more than anything, something we need more of. I almost put myself on there to, for laughs. This is a select club. Anyways, it's not like the individuals on there aren't famous for something. Carrot Top is the King of prop comedy in the United States. No, he didn't win any World Cups. But we'll take what we can get.

Obviously I'd like to see the list remain. We need to monitor it to ensure Allison doesn't return and we need to expand it to include more non-Americans. I want people to realize redheads have done great things and will do great things in the future, despite all the prejudice and unwanted attention we receive sometimes. I mean, Hell, the article details the mutation of chromosome so-and-so and the theories of red hair migration. I don't think a few lists of famous redheads will make the article any more ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.5.59 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that, as CDA noted, wikipedia aims to be 'encyclopedic', and there has been a lot of thought given to what this means. Here's the style guideline on lists of people: WP:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people. Your MLK example is not really fair, since I think most people would associate his work in civil rights with his experience as an African-American, and would be happy to put him on a list of notable African Americans. Actually, MLK is an instructive example of how lists can work well: he is listed on the List of civil rights leaders, which itself is listed on the 'list of lists' page List of African Americans . For an example of how lists can get out of hand see List of Canadians, especially the acrimonious talk page discussion about who should be on the list and what it should represent. In any case, if you decide to try to maintain the list, I'm pretty certain it should go on its own page. Good luck! (Oh, also, if you are going to be doing much editing, you will probably find it really helpful to create an account, so that you can keep track of your edit history, get feedback from others, etc.) Cheakamus (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's how all interesting articles and lists get deleted from Wikipedia. The Battle For Wikipedia's Soul. I just watched the South Park episode "Ginger Kids", in which the only 'ginger' Cartman can come up with is Ron Howard. I was wondering if Wikipedia had a list with more people and... YES, you did it again, the list has been deleted. Someone put a lot of effort into creating one and you deleted it. Way to go. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Different list(s)

"This has been done. (see page history) And it was deleted because Wikipedia "is not a laundry list." I liked it so I copied it to my user page [2]. You can update it there if you like. If someone tries to get a new one started on the main site I don't think it will last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDA (talk • contribs) 12:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC) "

Think there were to many names on it, that didn't belong on it. Like that it was not only informative, but also misinformative. Further on their was the objection, that many names on it were not really notable. This can very well be solved by making more than one list. One, contending the names of worldwide generally known ("famous") 'red'haired persons and apart from that, several national lists, contending also the names of merely nationally known persons.

In case these lists than won't last eather, the cause is probably in the fact, that the listtitles again will be misinformative, because the person who's name is on the lists, are/were not at all "redheaded" nor really redhaired, but in fact goldenhaired, or orangehaired, or golden/orangehaired.

In the mean time a start has been made with finding out, what names were mentioned abusively on the former list, and wich one belong on a national list. (see [[3]].

When this is finished, a start can be made with a list of famous blond persons, which will include whiteblondes, golden/orangeblondes and the other kind(s) of (real) blondes . (But of course it would be welcomed, if somebody else would start it now already). VKing (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Irish Red Heads

Physical anthropologists distinguish "clear" red hair from red-brown hair, although the casual observer may not. In "The Physical Anthropology of Ireland" by Earnest A. Hooton (1955) which involved about 10,000 subjects he found the following:

Clear red.....4.2% (true red)

Red-brown.....5.3% (reddish)

(I have always wondered why the Irish are stereotypically regarded as largely red haired or light-haired when the actual percentages are 9.5% for red and reddish and 10.4% for the combined lights.) 156.63.68.221 13:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)iwerdhon

Johann Nestroy

Johann Nestroy's play Der Talisman is all about prejudice against red-heads.. Churchh 12:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this notable?

I've removed the following section from the article for the moment, as I have concerns about its notability. Any comments? In the event of there being consensus for restoring it, some re-writing is also indicated. Michaelbusch 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Redhead gatherings

-

About 1000 red-haired people, mainly women, pose for a group photo at the 2007 redheads gathering in Breda, the Netherlands.

- In the last few years, some massive gatherings of red-haired people have taken place. Possibly motivated by news articles on the extinction of red-haired people, and enabled by the availability of social networking websites where red-haired people gather virtually, two large scale redhead gatherings have been organised in the Netherlands in 2005 and 2007. The gathering in 2007 was attended by about 1000 red-haired people. On September 7, 2008, a large scale Global Gathering is planned (website), and thousands of red haired people are expected from different countries, including the US and Canada. The gatherings are organised by Dutch artpainter Bart Rouwenhorst, who mainly paints red-haired women.

concerning the topic redheads gatherings

Michael has been repeatingly deleting the part on redheads gatherings in order to force a discussion on the relevancy of this topic. I wonder if this is the correct way of doing things. Discussing first, taking actions based on the outcome of the discussion next, would be a more appropriate way in my opinion.

motivation for inclusion in the wikipedia page on red hair. 1. wikipedia should only contain facts, not opinions. i think this is true, the text contains some bare fact, which can be checked. Further, there are two explanations offered, which are founded, but may be improved. Finally, actual developments are described. there are no opinions, or advertisements, or any commercial interests involved. 2. wikipedia facts should be relevant to the subject. i think this applies. in this wiki, it is for example mentioned that redheads bruise more easily. this is a popular believe, and that why it is mentioned, and explained. Gatherings of people that have red hair is also a topic that is often in the news (in Europe more than in the US I think). In the future, it may be more in the news than it is today. I think it is appropriate if Wiki treats this subject, just like bruising. Also, these red heads gatherings are unique and typical for this hair colour. I do not know of any gathering of blondes, or brunettes, or black hair. I think the social bond that redhaired people have is unique, causing redheads gatherings, and this should be mentioned in the redhead wiki.

Finally, Michael deleted this part mentioned the Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy. There, it can be read: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies."

I think this applies to my contribution to the red hair wiki. I made the concerned photo myself, and do know a lot about redheads and redhead gatherings as an organiser. To prevent possible discussion on conflict of interests, I made the text on redheads gatherings as neutral and informative as possible. However, improvements are welcome.

Deleting te entire text without prior discussion on the red hair discussion page, is not.

kind regards,

Bartart 08:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove that material to 'force a discussion on the relevancy of this topic'. I removed it because it does not, in my opinion, satisfy Wikipedia:Notability and then opened the thread here after deciding that there might be objection. I realize that this is not quite in accordance with the strict letter of policy. I mentioned WP:COI in my notice to you so that you would be aware of it. Your conflict-of-interest with regards to this section makes your assertion of its notability insufficient grounds for inclusion. Please do not restore the material yourself - there must be consensus for putting it back. Michaelbusch 08:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, please, please, use the policy that Wikipedia prescribes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies states "Editing policy Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid making large deletions without discussing on the talk page first."

If you want to break the wikipedia policy, please explain why you think you should break it.

if your state that the relevancy of the specific topic is questionable, please explain why. Coverage in secondary sources is widerange ans sustaining. Search for "roodharigendag" on google, for example.

you repeatingly remove a large part of an article, contrary to wikipedia policy, and the only way to stop you is by discussing on this page. That is why I stated that you 'force a discussion on the relevancy of this topic'.
concluding: Please refrain from breaking wikipedia policy, this policy was not invented for everyone-but-you. If you want a discussion about relevancy of the redheads gathering
1. restore the text on the red hair page
2. open a discussion on the discussion page
3. argue why you think that the topic is not notable
Bartart 11:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bartart, don't try to wikilawyer. I've been here long enough to know policy, and I know full well that I skirted rather close to the edge with removing the content - but that was before I recognized your conflict-of-interest. In the case of blatant COI, large blocks of text may be removed (see also WP:ADVERT). You have added material to the article which I deem un-notable. Therefore, I removed it. You contest this, fair enough. But given you conflict of interest on this matter - which is, I believe, being the organizer of these gatherings? - your assertion of notability is not sufficient. Let someone else add it back in. I operate under that same restriction. Michaelbusch 17:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Can some-one please tell Micheal that it it not nessesary to do things that are "not quite in accordance with the strict letter of policy", or to "skirt rather close to the edge [of the wikipedia editing policy]" (quotes of Micheal)
In the mean time, Micheal, could you be so polite to explain why you think that the topic of the acticle is not notable? Or is it your personal right to delete texts without explanation? So far, your explanation of a possible low relevancy is "it is not notable", which is rather short. Do you think that the number of references is too little, that the topic should be elsewhere, do you think the secondary resourses are low quality, or is there another explanation? I agree with you that my personal opinion is not important, therefore i gave you evidence of relevancy of the topic: number of references, and a way to find these resources.

And please tell me and all other users why you think it is wrong to keep the text on the page, while discussing the relevancy, like wikipedia policy suggests.

Bartart 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I've looked at the material, and at Michaelbusch's editing, and I find that Michaelbusch has acted appropriately. It is appropriate to question a sudden input of unsourced material, especially when that material appears to be Spam. And a good method of doing that is to cut and paste the material onto the talk page and ask for comments. It is not advised to put back the questionable material without some discussion and a consensus being reached. This is the procedure that has been developed on Wikipedia; this is the procedure that has been found to work best; and this is the procedure that Michaelbusch has followed. Added to which, the material does appear to be a conflict of interest in that Bartart appears to be the person organising the gathering. And finally, the material could be considered to be trivial. I'm not convinced that the material adds anything significant to the topic of Red hair, and could be seen to detract from an article that is developing quite soundly. There are one or two other sections of the article that are verging on trivial and the article could benefit from a close examination and a possible clean up. I would not advise replacing the material that Michaelbusch has removed. Any question, please ask. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reaction

SilkTork, thank you for your third opinion. I do not share your opinion on triviallity or classification as spam, but I understand that my background strongly suggests COI, and I respect the opinion of the majority.

Bartart 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Hair and Islam

Is the first paragraph in the Religious and Mythological traditions true? If someone with some more knowledge than me in this subject could check this over it would be much appreciated. --Bremerenator (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the men?

I'd like to spark discussion over the fact redheaded men are discussed, well, almost never in the article. Practically all we have on the page is the pic of that guy with a goofy grin.

In the positive attitudes, there is not a single word about men. We do have one sentence I spotted in the prejudice/discrimination portion about Prince Harry.

This is the double standard I routinely see. Despite our extremely low numbers, there have been a number of redheaded political and military figures who have shaped our world. Eisenhower and Churchill, to name two.

Prince Harry is third in line to the British crown, a military officer, world famous, young, attractive. But what do we know about him? "He was bullied at school."

This is why I created the notable redheaded men list--to show that we do, in fact, exist among various colors and amongst redheaded women and shockingly, we can do great things despite being called "Carrot Top" when we were five.

Also, the modern fiction section is weak. Writers use redheaded characters all the time, albeit usually for weirdos and promiscuous characters. If I hadn't already written an entirely too long post about the "notables" list, I'd be willing to do more work on improving it right now.

There's "The Da Vinci Code," where red hair is a sign of the royal bloodline.

Lord of the Flies and Nausea are two other books the spring to mind with redheaded characters.

Does anyone have any comments about my statements or ideas on how to incorporate the male sex into our "red hair" page or on improving the modern fiction list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.5.59 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"We need to monitor it to ensure Allison doesn't return" - lol :) Let me assure you that Alison hasn't gone anywhere. Indeed, she spends her time reverting vandalism here. In seriousness, the problem with your recent edits is that you're adding meaningless lists of names to articles; that's just listcruft (see WP:LISTCRUFT for more info). If there's isn't enough "maleness" in the article, or if you think it's biased, it's better to address that directly by providing cited sources, etc to make your point. Adding lists of red-headed guys just turns into bloat as ever red-haired guy on the planet ends up there - Alison ^❤ 02:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This article as been through this before. Lists of people (of whatever gender) who just happen to have red hair is list cruft. They all have red hair... and... so what? In the vast majority of cases their hair colour is completely irrelevant to who they are and why they are notable. And the problem with allowing these lists to exist is they invariably continue to grow, gathering name after totally pointless name, until you have paragraphs of names that absolutely no-one is going to plough through, and that mean absolutely nothing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Early artistic representations of Mary Magdalene usually depict her as having long flowing red hair, although a description of her hair color was never mentioned in the Bible, and it is possible the color is an effect caused by pigment degradation in the ancient paint. This tradition is used as a plot device in the book and movie The Da Vinci Code."

-This is what I'm talking about. Judging by this statement, The Da Vinci Code believes the redheaded line comes thru Mary. The Da Vinci Code did not say that. There are just as many representations of Christ with red hair. But, along with the rest of the page, females dominate. Is no one else seeing this? If we're to have a page about redheads, give the guys some love.

As for the list, again the belief the list is somehow going to "invariably continue to grow" and that "every red-haired guy on the planet ends up there" is silly, but I understand the perspective.

Would it be all right to insert names of notable men within the other sections of the article, much like what occured with the women? That would correct every drawback associated with just listing names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.5.59 (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have relevant and cited examples of the cultural representation of red-headed males, then by all means please add them in the appropriate places. And when I say relevant, I mean that there's a point to mentioning them, other than "some famous people have red hair". Was their notability reliant on their hair colour? Is their portrayal a particular example of attitudes to red-heads? A random list of men who just happen to have red hair adds nothing to the value of the article, or indeed Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Redheads in the US

That figure from that article seems suspect- was this just reffering to the white population of the US, or the entire country? The idea of 6-18 million redheads in the entire US seems vastly too high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.130.174 (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no estimate for the number of red heads in England? Surely, the number of red heads in England is much greater than Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together? There is suspiciously no percentage given for England, I actually suspect there are more red heads in England than the rest of the world put together. If, eight percent of the English have read hair that gives a population of 4 million! In most of Europe the physical stereotype of an Englishman is a pale skinned man with freckles and red hair.

If you read the article you'll see that the number of red-heads in the USA far outstrips this. There is nothing 'suspicious' about the lack of figures for England. If you know of any (and not just meaningless guesses plucked out the air), please add them.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, where is this figure for so many jews being redheaded? I've never seen a single redhaired ashkenazi in my life. The european genetic contribution to the Ashkenazi came entirely from areas where red hair is very uncommon, so where does this come in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.130.174 (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know two ashkenazi jews with red hair. A more important question to ask is whether or not the prevalence of red hair among ashkenzai jews is statistically significantly higher than the prevalence of red hair in the general population. This would obviously apply to any ethnic group, not just ashkenzai jews. Additionally, the prevalence of red heads among orthodox jews is probably lower than among jews (and gen. pop.) because they are less likely to marry and have kids with people from another ethnic group, thus reducing likelihood of introducing recessive genes. Dachande (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

European Jews were far more likely to survive the Second World War if they lived in Britian, at the time, than if they lived in Germany or Poland. So, it is hardly surprising you find more Red headed Jews than Blonde haired Jews, are alive today.

I don't follow your logic, but in any case this is just your personal theory.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there also an entry from before on this page about MCR1 have a pleitropic effect on personality traits, supposedly going in line with the idea of redheads being fiery? I don't know. From personal experience, I've never met a single redhead who fit in with this, and just one or two who came off as ditzy or goofy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.130.174 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Culture section tidy-up

I did a bit of tidying in the Culture section. We can't just list people (real or fictional) just because they have red hair! I've listed these deleted sections below in case anyone wants to discuss them.

From:Beliefs about temperament

The writer of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson, famous American patriot and orator Patrick Henry, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill were all red-headed.

From:Positive attitudes toward redheads

In comics, cartoons and science fiction, female characters with red hair (and often green eyes) are frequently portrayed as strong and "fiery" personalities. Examples are: Asuka Langley Sohryu (from Neon Genesis Evangelion), Mara Jade (from the Star Wars Expanded Universe), Lady Jessica (of Frank Herbert's Dune universe), Barbara Gordon (the DC Comics Universe heroine), Mary-Jane Watson (wife of Spider-Man), Jean Grey (founding X-Man), Poison Ivy (Batman villain), Shayera Hol (Justice League animated series), Red Sonja (of Marvel Comics' Conan and Kull canons), Lois Griffin (Family Guy), Ariel (The Little Mermaid), and Kimberly Ann Possible (Kim Possible).

Many Goths with bright hair color to red and there are some notable Gothic metal singers with red hair, such as Simone Simons, Floor Jansen and Anneke van Giersbergen.

American writer Mark Twain, a redhead himself wrote: "While the rest of the species is descended from apes, redheads are descended from cats". Bruce Springsteen praised his wife, Patti Scialfa, in the bawdy song "Red-Headed Woman", The Zutons missed the "ginger hair" of an ex-girlfriend in their song "Valerie", while Jack White of the White Stripes has mentioned red hair in such songs as "Fell in Love with a Girl", "Icky Thump (song)", "300 MPH Torrential Outpour Blues" and "Take, Take, Take".

From: Prejudice/Discrimination towards redheads

Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, mentions many redheads, including twin-witch/vampires Maharet and Mekare in Queen of the Damned, Maharet's fledgling Thorne in Blood and Gold, her other fledgling and once-mortal blood descendant, Jesse Reeves (also introduced in Queen of the Damned), Mona Mayfair in Blackwood Farm and Armand, described as an auburn red in Interview with the Vampire. In Dracula, the vampire-hunter Abraham Van Helsing is ironically depicted as having red hair and blue eyes.

Prince Harry was bullied at school because of his red hair.

From:Modern fiction

Several children's book characters are depicted with red hair, including Pippi Longstocking, Anne of Green Gables, and Little Orphan Annie.

Many of Robert A. Heinlein's characters were redheads, inspired by his red-headed wife Virginia.

In Doctor Who (2005), David Tennant's Tenth Doctor is disappointed not to be ginger. As he says, he's rude and not ginger and he wanted to be ginger because he's never been in his past regenerations.

Another powerful red hair-related fiction novel is the international bestseller Perfume (originally published in German as Das Parfum) by Patrick Süskind. The main character, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, a man with an incredible sense of scent, is engaged in creating the most powerful perfume of them all. The heart of it, the fragrance of Laura Richis, a beautiful red hair young virgin.

In the film The Last King of Scotland, Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin maintains that while attractive to their own kind (Northern Europeans), Africans find red hair revolting.

I wonder if it is worth adding to this article that the recessive nature of the red-head gene was one of the jokes in a series of sketches on the tv show, Laugh-In. These sketchwere about Fred and Fanny Farkle, & their best friend Ferd, who had red hair...as did all of the Farkle children. -- llywrch (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Extinction of Red Hair

On a number of occasions I've been told that red hair is becoming extinct. Is this true? Is it a commonly held belief? Most importantly, is it worthy of mentioning in the article. 86.40.210.191 (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I thought I was signed in. Blaise Joshua (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The clue is in the introductory paragraph; Red hair appears in people with two copies of a recessive gene on chromosome 16 which causes a change in the MC1R protein. This means that for someone to pass on their red hair to their children they first need a partner who carries the same gene (even if they're not a redhead themselves), and then there is only a 33% chance of a child inheriting red hair (if I understand it correctly). So in the long run the odds are stacked against red hair, particularly as populations increasingly mingle. Eventually it's doomed to disappear, but that's not going to happen any time soon. It may be worth mentioning in the Evolution section, but I couldn't find a decent cite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a rather vague clue for persons like me who only have a basic education : o ) Blaise Joshua (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the same said about blonde hair (search on bbc website if u want) .. but is probably just sensationalism since everyone has the gene anyway and also if it were true red hair could reappear in future (if we don't destroy humanity first). --maxrspct ping me 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a hoax. Just like the "Disappearing blonde" hoax in 2002. And I'm sure many more people than is presently known have copies of the red hair gene even if it isn't expressed. I also read a while back that the only reason a trait would disappear is it it held an evolutionary disadvantage which red hair does not have.

Vala M (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a hoax and here is the proof:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/redhead-extinction.htm

Apparently, it started circulating about 6 months ago.

Vala M (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article. Certainly the idea that red-heads would disappear by 2060 was always going to be bunk. I was thinking more in the range of thousands of years. But then in that time scale, redheads aren't the only things that could change. Perhaps it would be worth adding this in the "Evolution" section, as it is a popular myth that could do with being cleared up. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think it should be mentioned for good measure.

Vala M (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, having red hair *is* an evolutionary disadvantage, but having a single recessive gene is not.

This site was recently set up on the extinction basis: http://redhedd.com/Salopian (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only an evolutionary disadvantage if it inhibits your opportunities to reproduce. Red heads are not at a disadvantage, it's a trait that a great number of people find attractive.--RLent (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

~ Hi, im mallorie i just wanted to tell you that, ive looked on the internet and and ive been to websites, where they've shown me that Redheads Will be extinct in the year 2100, Here is a website i found ~ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2002266852_redhair09.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.0.134 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just a version of white people in general becoming extinct. First you'll have blondes, then redheads, then people with blue eyes, and in the end humanity shall all look Central Asian. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sociological analysis of "Gingerphobia"?

Has anyone ever seen any analysis of why "Gingerphobia" is such a phenomenon in the UK? I suspect it has to do with political strife between the English and the Irish and Scots, but I don't have any source to back that up. Does anyone know? Steve Carlson^Talk 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll find any cites on this. I doubt it has anything to do with what you suggest. More likely the it's just a fashionable target for those who feel the need to denigrate others. Previously they would have targeted blacks, or Irish, but that's no longer PC. So some other minority has to fill in. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Gingerophobia is present in many other countries as well, like Germany or Russia. Red hair is traditionally associated with various otherworldly things. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your comments, I appreciate the dialog. Interesting association between red hair and otherworldly things. Would love to see a reference for that one. I agree that it's probably not on the scale of the historical oppression of blacks and the Irish, but the fact that it has widespread traction in English society suggests that it has some meaning besides just redheads being an easy target. Why redheads? Why not tall people, or people with bushy eyebrows, or something else? Steve Carlson^Talk 21:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bullies are cowards and so they'll pick on a tiny minority of course. Tall people tend to be more muscular than non-tall people as everyone knows and nobody gets picked on over their eyebrows. -Sioraf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sioraf (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an odd one and you won't find any good sources for it. Purley speculating I would disregard the England/Scotland/Ireland conflicts as the 'phobia' is possibly from pre-English times.

We know for sure that redheads were in abudence in the north of Britain from Roman accounts, we also know from Roman accounts that the people of West Britain (wales, cornwall?) were dark haired (once again roman accounts) so maybe there was a conflict between those people, and maybe thats why most of the land between those borders have brown hair?

We know for sure that the Picts (scottish) were fighters and often headed south to attack settlements, maybe this is why there is a 'phobia' of gingers? None the less there is a large population of redheads in England anyhow. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In Poland there was some resentment against redheads which had been ascribed to antisemitism (Slawic people never have red hair and among jewish people red hair is not uncommon.) However the reference for this would be a german book, and I guess that is not allowed here, right? (It is a very well written book with good references, though. Written by a former TV-news anchorwomen with red hair (Irmela Hanover [[4]])) Gerriet42 (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous Gingers

There ought to be a list of famous people with red hair Brett (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about having red hair and being famous, unless you are famous because you have red hair. Very few people match this criteria. This article used to have a list of "famous redheads", but it just got out of hand and a random mess, as these kind of lists usually do. So we don't need it back. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How about individuals like Carrottop? Without red hair, he would not be famous, ergo he is famous because of his read hair. Brett (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

sunscreen and melanoma use

someone keeps saying that sunscreen use increases risk of melanoma and this is NOT TRUE!!!!! Someone edit to remove this dangerous inaccuracy - their reference for this statement is an article that is not even remotely linked to the statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.13.116 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My Comment: The reference ([5]) is perfectly clear about the negative effects of sunscreen use. It critizises the use of benzophenone-derivatives because it is a free radical generator. The reference is a copy of a scientific article that has been peer-reviewed. So are the citations in this reference. There are many articles which proof epidemiologically that sunscreen use is linked to a higher risk for melanoma development, and there are laboratory experiments which explain the mechanism of this effect: sunscreen does surpass the epidermal barrier, and it does get into contact with living tissue. Than it generates free radicals which do increase the damage to DNA.! Regions in which the sunscreen use had been promoted are the ones, where the melanoma rate has increased most steeply. Sunscreen is photocarcinogenic. Epidemiology: Very good Lab experiments: other lab experiments: Gerriet42 (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to enter a debate about the facts or cites here. Since it is only tangentially relevant to red hair (hair doesn't get skin cancer) its addition here is placing undue weight on a contested research. WhatGerriet42 is contributing to this, and other pages on Wikipedia, is disputed and has not reached a consensus on the Sunscreen article itself, where it is most relevant. This article is not the place to outline all the pros and cons of this disputed subject, it belongs on the Sunscreen page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What annoys me so much is that most people are not aware of the dispute that is going on in the scientific world. The average user has an unlimited confidence into sunscreens - even so many are proven to be photocarcinogenic. Take the example of Queensland in Australia: How do you explain, that this region is getting a higher Melanoma rate after PABA containing sunscreens had been heavily promoted? Did all the people with fair skin move to Queensland? Unlikely. Was the Ozone- hole only over Queensland and not over the rest of Australia? Unlikely since Queensland is in the north. Redheaded people should at least know that there is a discussion about the subject. So the reference does belong in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerriet42 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agreee with Escape_Orbit... it just doesn't fit in this article, at least as you added it. If you can find something that says that redheads use more sunscreen, then it would make sense. That might be a reasonable assumption, but it is just an assumption unless you can find some evidence.

Your entries in the sunscreen article are the right place for the information. This isn't a place for you to spread the word about this topic. The debate is certainly very interesting regarding sunscreens, but it doesn't make sense here unless you can:

• • Reference some research that relates to sunscreen usage to red hair.
  • Make it a balanced, mentioning that most doctors recommend sunscreen (especially for fair-skinned people), but some recent research questions whether sunscreen actually increases the rate of skin cancer.
  • Make it brief, linking to the main suncreen article. Wshallwshall (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. Unless the cites specifically mention people with red hair, inclusion of this information on this article is original synthesis by Gerriet42 --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Gerriet42's recent (April 15th 2008) edits. We've been through this before. Unless your cites specifically mention people with red hair you are indulging in original synthesis. You are saying;

• A - Suncream may cause skin cancer
• plus B - Red haired people worry more about sunburn and may use a lot of suncream
• therefore C - Red haired people in particular may get cancer through suncream use.

Unless you can cite a reputable source for this it is your own synthesis, and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Autier is talking about poor tanners and about skin type I individuals. I think redheads fall into these category. I want these edits back in there, because skin type I individuals are affected by the mistakes more severely than others. This is exactly what you where asking for. Do not use the argument that skin type I individuals are not necessarily redheads, that would be to ridiculous. Gerriet42 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm going to use the argument that redheads (you know, what the article is about) are not necessarily skin type I individuals. And you "think" redheads fall into this category? Wikipedia isn't interested in what you "think", it's interested in what you can cite. You cannot cite that Philip Autier is talking about redheads, so you have decided for yourself. Please stop adding this material to this article. You have been asked before and it has been explained before. This article is not about suncream and the connection between it and redheads is only as established by you. This is blatant original synthesis. Please read what this policy has to say and explain why what you are doing is not original synthesis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've continued this discussion on Gerriet42's talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Medical implications of the red hair gene

In the first line, there's a quote "There is little or no evidence to support the belief that redheads are more likely than non-redheads to hemorrhage or suffer other bleeding complications" then in the same paragraph, an explanation for that hypothesis is presented without linking the two: "One study found that redheads are more sensitive to thermal pain (a natural vitamin K deficiency is to blame for this)".

If natural red heads have a natural vitamin K deficiency, then hemorrhaging and/or other bleeding complications would be a valid concern since vitamin K is necessary for proper blood coagulation .

As for the higher rates of bruising, could it be due to the fact that red heads have paler skin and any aberration would be more visible? Tamar 16:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with this issues is that it varies from ethnic subgroup to ethnic subgroup. I am a red head of German descent and among redheaded Germans the Vitamin K deficiency isn't as common as among Irsh redheads. Just like Germanic redheads also tend to be less susceptible to burning in the sun. (FLJuJitsu)18:12 25 June 08

Hormones

I removed the following paragraph:

There is some indication that the uncommon pheomelanin/eumelanin ratios found in redheads may be correlated with some corresponding variations in the abundance of other hormones and neuropeptides, including epinephrine (adrenaline), dopamine, and oxytocin . Wolves which are bred to be tame have been found to acquire a progressively paler coat of fur as they become tamer and tamer through successive generations. The speculation is that the cell biology which produces epinephrine (adrenaline) and estrogens needed for the high-energy fight-or-flight response is linked to the cell biology that governs the relative production of pheomelanin and eumelanin.

Googling "red hair epinephrine dopamine" and other combinations didn't bring up anything relevant other than a speculative blog.Fionah (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

picture of the redheaded male

There is some jackass, who is constantly trying to bring his propaganda against redheaded people into this article. His edit (inserting a picture): [[6]] The picture has obviously been chosen in order to ridicule redheads. The picture: [[7]]
And the user who is doing this has an account only for this purpose. His edits: [[8]] Can we block the user Ridley276 somehow? I don't know how to do it, so somebody else please do so. And tell me how to demand such a block of one user for one specific wiki-page.Gerriet42 (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Settlement of British Isles

I've reverted recent addition by Trigaranus. The issue raised (dispute over population movement and settlement of British Isles) appear to be very much a contested matter within the relevant WP article. (Settlement of Great Britain and Ireland). The cited book appears to be a minority view and introducing the issue here is not helpful and probably constitutes undue weight within an article that really has little to do with it. If and when it is resolved elsewhere we can consider the matter here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Villains in fiction often have Red Hair.

This is just personal research, but it's just crazy to think about. OK, here are all the villains from books, movies, videogames, whatever, that have red hair... Ganondorf (Zelda), Doctor Ivo Robotnik (Sonic), Bowser (Mario), Uriah Heep (David Copperfield), Dr. Octopus (Spiderman), that's just to name a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.198 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

origins

In reference to the origins section in the post on red hair, Rees (2004) says nothing about sexual attraction what-so-ever. The study does talk about African populations having low genetic diversity at MC1R and suggest that it is under functional constraint in that population whereas there is increased diversity in European populations and two possible reasons are given. One is that there is selection for functionally significant variants in non-African populations and the other is merely due to what might be expected under neutral theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskm (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Red hair Evolution?

It is known that Britain and most of northern Europe was covered with a primeval, broadleaved forest for hundreds of thousands of years. Is it possible that red hair was a mutation that had an evolutionary advantage for humans hunting and foraging in the low level light conditions of these vast forests? The lower levels of melanin in the skin has an advantage that enough concentration of Vitamin D,(which helps synthesize calcium)gets produced in the low light conditions. A hint of our hunter gatherer, forest dwelling past?

(RED) - 15/06/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.130 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Entertaining idea, but unsupported by any evidence. Besides, you're talking about the skin, not hair. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Italic text Hey I was just wondering, as a red head, is it true that red heads wont be produced in 60 to 100yrs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.123.17 (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article covers this if you read it.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, red hair evolved to absorb heat from the weak winter sun and at the same time be transparent to UV and blue light, to maximise vitamin D production. If, you put a blue object and red object in front of a heat source the red object heats up very much quicker than the blue object. Red hair heats up almost as fast as black hair, much faster than blond hair. The sun in the winter, just south of the Arctic Circle, is very weak but winter temperatures in maritime locations, like Ireland, are mild enough to allow all day exposure of the head and neck without much risk of developing hypothermia. On average, red heads have the highest number of hair follicles and blondes the very lowest on their heads, black haired people have more hair follicles than blondes but less than reds. This to me suggests that Red hair has evolved to maximise heat retention and absorb as much heat from the sun as is possible. Red hair, unlike black hair, is completely transparent to blue light which along with UV light can be used to manufacture vitamin D, in the skin of the scalp and neck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.122.175 (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting theory. Do you know of any cites that discuss this? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Distribution map?

Can someone dig up a distribution map of red haired incidence? The page needs one like in the blond hair page.Fig (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Where did the raw data for this come from? It would appear to say that percentages in the North of England exceed those in Scotland & Ireland, which seems unlikely to me.

Also it only covers England & Wales, despite being misnamed "Britain". So the shading on Scotland is very misleading. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Red Hair England-Wales.gif

Correction: (England & Wales, not Britain) I found the file on www.biodiversityforum.com. I suppose, Scotland is more red haired than England and Wales, but the brownish-red hair amount in England might be also included in the map. Scotland is not visible, unfortunately. I'm looking a new and better version of distrubiton. Once I find it, it will be uploaded immediately.

I hate citing from Coon (his book is too old for our time) but there have been no other resources since 1945 (especially in Europe because of Nazis). Here we go:

Ireland The hair color of the Irish is predominantly brown; black hair accounts for less than 3 per cent of the total, while the ashen series (Fischer #20-26) amounts to but one-half of one per cent. Forty per cent have dark brown hair (Fischer #4-5); 35 per cent have medium brown (Fischer #7-9); reddish brown hues total over 5 per cent (closest to Fischer #6, #10), while clear reds (Fischer #1-3) run higher than 4 per cent. The rest, some 15 per cent, fall into a light brown to golden blond category (Fischer #11-19).

Wales In Wales, 10 per cent of the total have black hair, and only 8 per cent are fair in the English sense. Dark brown predominates over medium brown, while red, which averages 5 per cent, runs as high as 9 per cent in small localities. Beddoe finds as much as 86 to 89 per cent of black and dark brown hair in such places as Newquay and Denbighshire Upland. On the whole, Wales, in accordance with its mountainous character and its general preservation of ancient cultural traits, is a region of strong local variability, which manifests itself particularly in pigmentation.

Scotland In Scotland, the systematic study of 7000 adult males and of half a million schoolchildren20 makes our knowledge of the regional distribution of hair color relatively complete. Black hair ranges among adults from 0 to 8 per cent by counties, but nowhere attains the figures observed in Cornwall, Devonshire, and Wales. Dark brown hair accounts for 38 per cent of the population; the medium to light brown shade, with 42 per cent, is the most numerous; fair hair runs to 11 per cent, and red to 5 per cent.

No data for England. Zylan (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Teeth

What about the relationship between red hair and a person's teeth? I can't be the only one who's noticed that people with red hair more often than not have larger and more visible front teeth. I don't think they are normally have overbites though. Anyway, this feature is also part of what makes redheads attractive to many people. 193.91.181.142 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (Nick)

overestimate

It's hard for me to believe that that 1-2% of the world population is red-haired. 68 million people ? It was also poorly referenced. 'National Geographic September 2007' ???? How about giving us a page number. I'm not going to look through every single page of that magazine to confirm this . strawberry blonde does not count as red-haired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.230.15 (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be wrong, that redheads constitute approximately 4 percent of the European population, because according to the German wikipedia even in England it's only 4 percent, in Germany only 2 and I guess, there are not many South Europe. The reference is also wrong, because you can't find there figures for whole Europe. Moreover a site called hair.lovetoknow.com is not very reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.213.50 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

28 million red heards is 4 % of 700 million? Still, that's too many redheads, more like very very very low, like 300 000 at max. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.2.59 (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)