Talk:Red hair/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Obvious commercial self-promotion: "How To Be a Redhead"

Under "See also", there is a link to an article about the "How To Be a Redhead" commercial website, that I assume was added by the site owners. I didn't want to remove it without asking if this is a normal Wikipedia practice, but it definitely jumped out at me, listed alongside much more relevant-seeming links like "Black hair" and "List of redheads". Stellar Cardiogram (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not a commercial website. It's another Wikipedia article, something it's perfectly valid to link to. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean it's a Wikipedia article about a commercial website that markets beauty products to redheaded women. It just seems obvious that someone put it there to raise awareness of their business. But hey, if it's allowed, it's allowed. Good for them for finding a "legit" way to promote their company on Wikipedia for free. Stellar Cardiogram (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If you feel the linked article shouldn't exist, got there and argue for its deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's allowed to be there, it's allowed. My initial concern was misunderstanding the criteria by which a "See Also" bullet merits inclusion. But respectfully, I have to say both your replies appear to be either accidental, or intentional, misreadings of what I've said:

• "That's not a commercial website." I didn't say it was. I said it was a link to an article about a commercial website.
• "If you feel the linked article shouldn't exist..." I didn't say that either. I questioned whether a link to that article from such a broad topic as "Red hair" was appropriate, given that the other "See also" links are equally broad, like Blond and Erythrism (red hair in non-humans).

To put it another way: Why not add Brilliant (website) to Physics#See also or Physics education#See also), given that it's "an American for-profit company and associated community that features problems and courses in mathematics, physics, quantitative finance, and computer science" with over 4 million users? If How to be a Redhead belongs on Red hair#See also, then no doubt there are thousands of other for-profit companies' marketing departments who ought to be leveraging this precedent across thousands of broad Wikipedia topics!

But hey, I don't personally care much if the proprietors of this private company are getting away with a mostly harmless promotional gimmick on Wikipedia. I'm satisfied I understand what's happening here, and someone else can decide to get into (what I assume would be) an edit war over an article about red hair with someone whose beauty product revenue would be jeopardized.

So: Don't worry, and best luck to you/your clients with your business. Stellar Cardiogram (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The see also link was added by a long term editor (I strongly doubt they have anything to do with the company) as part of a de orphaning effort. Brilliant doesn't seem to be an orphaned article so it doesn't need such treatment. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, fascinating! Thank you. I had no idea "de-orphaning" was a thing, so I appreciate your comment. That does help explain the heretofore bizarre (to me, anyway) provenance of such a link which, when combined with the other editor's non-sequitur responses, I could only think to attribute to a commercial motive. Stellar Cardiogram (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure we should show a picture of a happy Uyghur girl in Xinjiang?

I mean, China treats Uyghurs in Xinjiang terribly, putting them in concentration camps, so it may be problematic to show a picture of a happy Uyghur girl in Xinjiang, otherwise, it may downplay the human rights abuses that China does to Uyghurs. 100.16.152.25 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no politically/socially perfect image. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What, are you saying that Uyghurs can't be happy? Obviously a nonsensical assertion. Furthermore, your reasoning is essentially that because of China's repression of Uyghurs, we should not display images of Uyghurs having positive experiences. Which ironically, would amount to censorship for the purpose of political goals, and is decidedly not neutral or objective.

Fake red hair description of Odegei Khan and Mukan Qhan inserted.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg/800px-YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg

The source for this image edited by user:Hunan201p says "A portrait of a man with a light-colored beard and mustache and a turquoise cap." which could mean any color and it clearly shows brown color, just like it shows on the portrait. You clearly don't see anything red, it is clearly brown. Saying that beard is red is like saying blue is purple. But Hunan201p decided to edit it as reddish beard and mustache. Gemmaso (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The edit you described was made by JJnito, not me.[1] Ogedei's beard is obviously reddish.[2] The late 13th and 14th c. portraits of the Mongol khans and their wives often show them with rather light (hazel or greenish) eyes. For example, the 14th c. portrait of Ögedei Khan (1186-1241) clearly depicts him as having greenish blue eyes and a reddish (definitely light colored) mustache and beard. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Well this edit in 18 July 2022 from you clearly proves your lying.[3] Your the original editor to that fake source not JJnito from Novemeber 2022

Your using a fake secondary blog as your answer? https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=48160 Do you realize that is original research. Why are you highlighting in green like it was some authentic historical source? It's just a random opinion of the editor who started that blog.

Beard clearly look brown like some commentators had said. How can one not able to distinguish brown and red? The beard even looks dark brown.

Odegei Khan with black hair, dark eyes.

https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/images/3/3f/Ogadai.jpg

Why is there not a real physical description of Odegei Khan being described by red hair. Your using Rashid al din, a person born in 1247 who never even met any of early Khans, born 20 years after Genghis Khan and not even born when Odegei Khan. Since was it confirmed he had red hair

According to John Andrew Boyle, Rashid al-Din's text of red hair referred to ruddy skin complexion, and that Genghis Khan was of ruddy complexion like most of his children except for Kublai Khan who was swarthy. He translated the text as “It chanced that he was born 2 months before Möge, and when Chingiz-Khan's eye fell upon him he said: “all our children are of a ruddy complexion, but this child is swarthy like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqoqtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be reared”. Gemmaso (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing in Andrew Boyle's book that says Rashid was only referring to skin color and this has no relevence to a Chinese painting. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

See your the one here breaking the three revert rule. Since when was there authentic historical description of Odegei Khan being described as red haired or red beard? You can't even name one. What do you mean a blog is subject to expert? Are we suppose to use a blog as reliable source? Blogs are full of superficial opinion, there some that say his eyes are not even blue, gray but hazel. You see, there you go lying again. The source from Andrew Boyle https://archive.org/details/Boyle1971RashidAlDin/page/n245/mode/2up (all about skin color as their real red color, not their red hair) so Where does your idea of red beard Odegei Khan comes from when you don't have any authentic source. That painting of Odegei Khan probably isn't even his real painting. Gemmaso (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have not broken the 3 revert rule and there is nothing in Andrew Boyle that says Rashid wasn't referring to *insert trait here*. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So why are you still keeping that portrait of Odegei Khan and interpreting his (obviously) brown beard as red beard? You do not have a source of his historical description. Your source only says light coloered beard. Where is the reliable evidence of his red hair based on? Him having red beard and mustache is edited only by you. You clearly adding original research here and you dare deny it?

Did you even understand the rules you used. It clearly says "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.[2] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer-Gemmaso (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I suspect you may suffer from color-blindness, or perhaps an improperly adjusted screen; in any case here is a second source for you describing the portrait as red-bearded.

[4]

Ogedei was confirmed as the new ruler in 1229 and reigned until his death in 1241. We may know what he looked like, thanks to his well-known portrait, (painted about a hundred years after his death), showing him as stocky in the same way as Genghis, red bearded, hazel eyed, and well prepared for Northern interiors with his domed, fur-trimmed winter helmet.

Also, just to remind you, Ogodei is dead. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Forget the fact that you failed to provide a medieval source from either the Chinese, Persians or Mongols. Your source is rather contradicting and speculating historian author. She says we may know what he looked like, thanks to his well known portraits, painted after hundred years his deaths? how is that even reliable if it's hundred years after his death? If anything that sounds like she isn't even 100% sure. And more same lies about Genghis being red bearded and hazel eyes? You telling me is confirmed now that he had red beard. Where did the Genghis Khan red beard come from when there is no authentic portrait of him with red beard?

The only people to have lived in the times of Genghis Khan was Persian Minjah and Chinese Zhao Hong in 1220 and 1221. Where is Odegei Khan historical physical description that confirms him with red hair?

"The only individuals to have recorded Genghis Khan's physical appearance during his lifetime were the Persian chronicler Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani and Chinese diplomat Zhao Hong.[182] Minhaj al-Siraj described Genghis Khan as "a man of tall stature, of vigorous build, robust in body, the hair of his face scanty and turned white, with cats’ eyes, possessed of dedicated energy, discernment, genius, and understanding, awe-striking...".[183] The chronicler had also previously commented on Genghis Khan's height, powerful build, with cat's eyes and lack of grey hair, based on the evidence of eyes witnesses in 1220, which saw Genghis Khan fighting in the Khorasan (modern day northwest Persia).[184][185]

According to Paul Ratchnevsky, the Song dynasty envoy Zhao Hong who visited the Mongols in 1221,[186] described Genghis Khan as "of tall and majestic stature, his brow is broad and his beard is long".[184]

You again failed to provide a historical description but rather instead you chose to use some historian/author speculation that can't back up their claim with historical records."Gemmaso (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The source says the portrait depicts red hair, Gemmaso. Lay off the original research. Also -- who said anything about Genghis in this discussion? - Hunan201p (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That's her opinion. Her opinions and speculation doesn't represent facts. It is not a proven fact that a historical figure like Odegei Khan had red haired and she is basing on a portrait that existed hundred years later as factual evidence. She mentioned Genghis Khan had red hair, hazel eyes, but according to whom? All of what she said is her own speculation, not based on historical confirmations. Your the one doing original research. In your other edits like Ashina Muqun Khan you used historical Chinese medieval text to back up your claim but you can't do the same for Odegei Khan.Gemmaso (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no description of Ashina Muqan Qaghan having red hair. At best he was described with colored clazes with red complexion (skin color obviously) and his own wikipedia lapis blue eyes which was again falsely edited by Hunan201p.

But the correct Chinese translations Zhoushu, vol. 50 ""狀貌多奇異，面廣尺餘，其色甚赤，眼若瑠璃。Gemmaso (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a few points.

1. - The editors above are likely to be blocked, perhaps temporarily, for their edit warring on this and other articles. If they'd both approached the matter more sensibly, and discussed instead of edit warred, this would be avoided.
2. - The inclusion of Ogodei Khan needs a reliable source that unequivocally describes his hair as red. Interpretations of images by editors are not acceptable and much of the discussion above appears to be irrelevant original research. If someone can produce a simple, to the point source, the matter can be easily resolved. Does anyone have one? If not, Khan's inclusion has been challenged and should be removed until a source is found.
3. - The image currently being used has actually been colour adjusted by others. (As can be seen in the image history]) Interpretations of shades of colour on it are therefore misguided.
4. - The last source cited on the article has actually copied the image and alt-text from Wikipedia (as can be seen on the credit on the webpage). So nothing on this image on the webpage can be used as a source.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither Shylock nor Fagin were actually depicted as "villains" by their creators.

While both are often referred to by the general public as villains (often due to poor teaching in schools which maintains outdated interpretations of the texts), neither is the archetypal "bad guy". In Oliver Twist, Fagin is one of many characters doing distasteful and criminal things to get by in a society that has little or no care for marginalised groups and people trapped in poverty - Fagin organises a group of children to act as thieves on his behalf and lives off the profits. However, he uses children in the knowledge that they are less likely to be caught, arrested, or prosecuted. Also, he shares the spoils fairly equally, making sure that the children are well fed, have a roof over their head and are protected from the many horrors of street life. The villains in this book are Bill Sykes, a man Shylock works with because he is simply terrified of him, and the gentile society that preaches Christian Values but makes no real effort to ease the sufferings of the poor. Shakespeare wrote at a time when antisemitism was endemic across Europe.Jews moved country to country because of pogroms and where ghettoised if they were "lucky" enough to be allowed to live. At a glance, the hero of The Merchant of Venice would appear to be Antonio, the titular merchant. This would make his opponent, Shylock the Jew appear to be the villain. Shakespeare, however, is doing what he has done so well in many of his plays - he holds a mirror up to English society and make people take a good, hard look at the ugliness. As usual, he cushions the blow by setting it in Italy and suggesting "Thank goodness we're nothing like those awful Italian, right?" Antonio is a thoroughly unlovely character. Although he does apparently good things he is sufficiently unpleasantly smug in his manner that the audience cannot warm to him.He offers money to his young friend, Bassanio, so that Bassanio can go away and get himself a wife. The subtext is that their friendship might have had romantic undertones but it was traditional that a young man would reach an age when it was proper to get a wife. Antonio seems to be making a generous gesture of friendship but there is a suggestion of obligation to it. When the audience meets Shylock they are made aware of just how much abuse he has suffered for being a Jew, both generally and specifically from Antonio. Despite this, he is magnanimous enough to provide the money Antonio wants.When he makes the deal that, if Antonio defaults on the loan, Shylock can claim a pound of Antonio's flesh he can have no possible way of knowing that the default will ever happen - it is the whim of a powerless person to imagine that, for once, he has power over the man who has spit in his beard. The critical court scene has Portia,(a woman who can only show her intelligence when she is pretending to be a man) in the guise of a lawyer giving the famous "Quality of Mercy" speech, telling the audience that we shouldn't show people mercy because we believe that they deserve it but because the ability to be merciful is a gift given to us from God and thus we are merciful people. Nevertheless, the most famous speech from this whole play is the "If you cut us, do we not bleed?" speech. Its power traverses the ages as Shylock says "I'm not an evil Jew trying to kill a Christian. I'm just a man who has been hurt and abused over and over and then casually used by this man when the circumstances suited him so, effectively, I've also been robbed by him and now...after all of this maltreatment that I have suffered from this man... yes, I want my revenge on him just like any other man would because I am just like any other man. If Shylock is the villain, why is his speech so compelling, so moving, so human? Why is the "hero" about as appealling as a sock full of cold sick? This is a play about religious intolerance, delivered to an audience that had lived the Tudor-era nightmare of having to switch faith depending on whose royal head wore the crown. After Shylock's court defeat he is forced to change his religion and support his daughter's marriage to the Christian she had eloped with, stealing money and jewels from him in the process.

This was not an era in which the Jew could ever have won over the Christian. Nevertheless, by the end of the play the very smug Antonio has got off scott-free, as does the daughter who stole from him for no other reason than that she married a Christian. Shylock is left grieving the breakup of his family and his forced separation from his faith - something the audience would really have understood - and the local gentlemen stand around mocking his misery. It doesn't feel like a victory over a villain. It feels like persecution.

Neither of these writers were fools. They weren't able to write these men as heroes. However, they do become compelling antiheroes. Despite the criminality, Fagin shows rhoes vulnerable street children much more kindness than the"charity" of polite society. Even though Shylock is a Jew and a money lender, he is also a simple man, a widower trying to raise his daughter in a society that uses him at the same time as it resents him. Lackadaisical teachings lead some people to believe these characters are villains but, more often, it is people who have never studied either text but have sort-of heard of them who refer to them as the villains and this is often repeated - to the point where people jump to the conclusion that the texts must be antisemitic without ever reading them to find out.

Sorry, after all of this.....I'm fairly sure that neither of them is described as having red hair - small point!!!!

ackadaisical teaching l

 Buggered (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources for the medieval beliefs?

I find the description of the "medieval beliefs" a bit odd, and I cannot find the source for them (maybe I just overlooked them?) Especially the "witchcraft" part seemed odd to me, since it's both unspecified and more of an early modern than a medieval belief, isn't it? 84.63.61.66 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Etymology?

The wiki should explain where the name for the hair colour comes from. Actual ginger (plant) has grey skin with a yellow inside. The flower petals are also yellow. And Ginger ale is more of a mud-to-olive drab/green. Cancun771 (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The OED says "A reddish-yellow or orange-brown colour, resembling that of dried and powdered ginger." --Macrakis (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2023

Under the section title: Medieval antisemitism

mid-paragraph: The antisemitic association persisted into modern times in Soviet Russia. correction: antisemetic not antisemitic. Ddaringer (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The correct spelling is "antisemitic", isn't it? -- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

The statement that Sarmaritans recieve their name from having red hair is false, the name is derived from a term meaning archer, and the source for this misinformation is almost 300 years old! Please to remove the statement. Robishungry (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The word is spelled Sarmatian – this may help anyone looking for sources for the claim. Maproom (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

We seem to have a conflict of sources here. The statement in this article is supported by the source "A Supplement to the English Universal History", written in 1760 by Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten and various other authors. In the Sarmatian article, the meaning of the name is indeed "armed with throwing darts and arrows", and it cites a 2005 source by Tokhtasyev Sergey. Unfortunately, the Sarmatian source is in Russian, so I cannot verify if it actually supports the statement, but for the sake of argument I'll presume it does.

I haven't found any reason to declare either source unreliable by WP:RS, so looking at WP:V and WP:CONFLICTING, I think we have to include both. WP:CONFLICTING does suggest that we prefer newer sources, so I would advise changing the line from

The ancient Budini and Sarmatians are also reported by some classical Greek authors to be blue-eyed and red-haired, with the latter even owing their name to it.

to

The ancient Budini and Sarmatians are also reported by some classical Greek authors to be blue-eyed and red-haired, and the latter was once believed to owe their name to it, although this has been debunked.

And including the Russian source, of course. Liu1126 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

As a further note, I think we need a Russian speaking editor here, just in case the Russian source doesn't actually support the statement. I'll look around for any other English sources in the meantime. Liu1126 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Although my final version was a bit different from the version I suggested here. Liu1126 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

"1–2% of the world population" - citation needed. As far as I'm aware, no reliable source states this. Bunny (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

tag added. Charliehdb (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. Looking back through the page history it appears that this was originally sourced (poorly) some while back to a National Geographic article in September 2007. This was the same article that spawned the "redheads going extinct" fallacy, so I don't think any reliance should be placed on it. The 1-2% figure has hung around the article since then, without any further sourcing. So long past time for it to go. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2024

Article Title: Red hair

Current issue: The text "Shah Ismayil of Persia" should be updated. Additionally, Shah Ismayil's portrait is not placed appropriately and lacks descriptive text.

Text Correction:

Change "Shah Ismayil of Persia" to "Shah Ismayil of Iran" or "Shah Ismayil of the Safavid dynasty."

Portrait Relocation:

Move Shah Ismayil's portrait to the Asian section of the article.

Additional Text About Red Hair:

Add the following sentence to explain how Shah Ismayil ended up being a redhead: "Shah Ismayil I was known for his red hair, which he probably inherited through a mix of Azerbaijani and Kurdish ancestry." Zeta Tensai (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

1. The term "Persia" is commonly used in Western literature to refer to Iran. However, the country's official name has always been "Iran." Therefore, it is more accurate to refer to Shah Ismayil as "Shah Ismayil of Iran" or "Shah Ismayil of the Safavid Dynasty," which provides clarity regarding the specific period and dynasty.

2. Iran is geographically located in Asia, so it makes sense to place Shah Ismayil I's portrait in the Asian section of the article.

3. Regarding the source about Shah Ismayil's hair color, the portrait is a primary source, and his hair color is red (orange) there.

4. Concerning to Ismayil 1's turkic (turkmen) ethnicity many reputable sources exist:

Fovi, N. The Making and Diasporization of Iranian Sexual, Religious, and Political Asylum Seekers. The Brown Journal of World Affairs. vol.30, iss.2.

Quoted:

"...The declaration of Shi'i Islam as the state's religion that predates the Republic itself was a strategic move by the ruling Safavids (r. 1501-1722) to distinguish themselves from the neighboring Sunni Ottomans, with whom they shared both Turkic and Islamic identities, as well as a rejection of Arab identification..."

including other sources, such as "The Safavid World" by Rudi Matthee et al., "Iran Under the Safavids" by Roger Savory, and most extenive and importantly "The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 6: The Timurid and Safavid Periods" edited by Peter Jackson and Laurence Lockhart" 109.239.26.172 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)