Talk:Red hair

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Right, it was just on the requested list and it looked like an odd request. So I just created the page. Your entry is far more concise than mine :)

Red hair ("not just a hair color") is actually an interesting genetic phenomenon. See http://www.derm.med.ed.ac.uk/teaching/redhairgen.htm for more on this.

Broken link, see http://www.derm.med.ed.ac.uk/06_teaching/redhairgen.htm for the article Brinkost 07:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We should have an article on melanocortin-1 receptor too.

And see this: http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gm=7!gid7=616

-- The Anome 13:20 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is estimated that between 2% and 5% of the United States population have red hair.

Is this a joke:)? Shouldn't it be 0.2% and 0.5% ?

No, see [1]. -- The Anome 20:11, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Most common eye colors for redheads

Removed from the article:

Green - the most common
Brown - the second most common
Blue - the third most common
Hazel - the fourth most common

"Green - the most common" eye colour for redheads? Surely not. Cite please? -- The Anome 18:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(In response to a request for justification of my comment) My "surely not" is based on personal observation of numerous blue-eyed redheads and few green-eyed redheads. What is the article's comment based on? -- The Anome 20:01, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't find many stats, but here's one data set I could see tabulated: [2] based on data collected by R. D. Snee in 1974.

Rank ordering is, from most common: 1. Brown, 2. Blue, 3. Hazel = Green.

The sample group was a statistics class with N approx 500, and I don't know from what population this was taken, or how representative the sample was. However, it does agree with my anecdotal evidence that Blue > Green. Oddly, though, Brown is top, somewhat contrary to one of the other papers I have found on hair/eye color inheritance (see the article). -- The Anome 20:33, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is interesting. Just from my own observations, I would say that blue is the most common eye color for redheads, followed by brown. I can't recall ever meeting a person with red hair and green eyes.Laurencooper 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a child, the occasional idiot would ask my why I didn't have green eyes. It got old really fast. Tweeq 14:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

heh! By the way, you might want to look at the change i made to your change. I think the word "some" is a better way of saying that. You don't have green eyes? You sure? Picture? Heh, just kidding :D --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ive got green eyes, but my hair was never red enough to be picked on about it. but its not truly blonde either. i have small freckles on my arms, none on my face, dark body hair, but red whiskers. wierd? ive been told its 'strawberry blonde' but that sounds a bit poofy. it starts dark, and get gradually lighter the longer it gets. im in hair colour limbo.

Another question about the statistics

Is that 2-5% figure in the article for the population of the United States as a whole, or only for the population of Caucasians in the United States? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 17:23, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Can a citation be offered? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 17:23, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

What about a cite for Korea and Japan?? lysdexia 00:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Josh "Creed" Kelly?

Josh "Creed" Kelly is mentioned in the portion of the article about "redophiles," but I've been unable to find anything about him. Is this just some guy who likes redheads?

Anti Red-Heads

I am red-headed, so naturally I am completely against it. But in the UK at least there is great prejudice against red-heads and many people are racist to red-heads. Should there be a part in the article about the phobia of red-heads?

Sounds like a good idea.

No wonder some British people call the Irish "the Red People." HaHa -- Brits are racist towards everyone, it's a known fact...if you aren't blonde/brown headed, blue or green eyes, slightly tall, and sorta thin then you're 'just not NORMAL' -- muahahaha -- i'm glad that i'm a dumbass American (with sort-of red hear, blondish red, but with a very red beard) -- good luck with those racist-brits! --152.163.100.203 08:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"A further 40% of Scots carry the so-called "ginger gene"."

What does htat mean? - 19:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It means that 40% of Scots have ginger DNA, meaning they are likely to have ginger children or relatives etc.

I removed the colloqialism, replacing it with a reference to having the MCIR variant gene.

Main Picture

The main photo on the page should be replaced! That woman is clearly not naturally red-headed, it is dyed!

Possibly the redophile section should be moved to a seperate article?

This redhead article seems a bit odd- We have a photo of a woman with dyed hair and an article about paraphelia. We get Elsie Tanner and the blondes get Marilyn Monroe. Is it really necessary to mention pubic hair and nipple color in the main article? I really think we redheads can do better.

Hello, just wondering - I think it is absolutely ridiculous to say that there are redheads in Japan - so out the window it goes. The only redheads here are artificial - of course!

Edededed 04:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They may not be fiery redheads, but the gene has spread all over the world and there are indeed people in Japan, and many other Asian nations, which have a red tint to their hair. One of my best friends has a cousin from India who has green flecks in her eyes and dark brown hair with a red tinge. It's all about knowing your history and those Vikings and later the Anglo British sure did get around. - Beckie S

The Welsh, on the contrary, have a Roman ancestry combined with a Babylonian-related Semitic ancestry

Is this just speculation?

A (relatively) recent study (cited below) analyzed the Y-Chromosome sequences of various British populations and found that the Welsh tended to have an excess of Paleolithic (i.e. markers indigenous to Britain in comparison to the Scots and English. There was no evidence of a significant Neolithic component to the gene pool of Welsh males, which is what would be expected should they have a Roman or Semitic derivation.

A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles Current Biology, Volume 13, Issue 11, 27 May 2003, Pages 979-984 Cristian Capelli , Nicola Redhead , Julia K. Abernethy , Fiona Gratrix , James F. Wilson , Torolf Moen , Tor Hervig , Martin Richards , Michael P. H. Stumpf , Peter A. Underhill et al.

How very strange!

I found this article very strange. AFAIK, most people here in Russia admire the beauty of long red hair and most girls who dye their hair, dye it in red colour, so it's somewhat strange to read that "Redheads are stereotyped as ugly" - just the other way round. The only thing maybe is that people joke, saying that "red-haired are all wh*res, blondes are all stupid and brunettes are evil ones". But that's not serious, people love red-haired girls. --Anthony Ivanoff 05:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"However, generally red hair was frowned upon until the early 20th century."

I wish someone (who can write better than I can) would fix that sentence in the social implications section. or delete it. CDA 16:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this sentence. And couldn't think of a better way to phrase it, and I don't know of any references to refer to about the social aspects of red hair. CDA 21:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMAGES

I deleted 2 more images and I'd like to explain each of the images.

Elsie Tanner: we need a higher quality image of Elsie Tanner if you find one. Does she have any promo images available?
Maureen O'Hara: someone uploaded an image but it was practicly black and white and didn't show any color in her hair at all. So I uploaded an albumn cover that shows her red hair but I don't think I understand fair use enough. I think maybe its fair use to use that image on the Maureen O'Hara page but not a trivia page. So I took it down.
Vanessa (half faced woman at top): she seems fine to me even though her hair is dyed. the image is public domain. so I vote she stays. EDIT: I looked up that image at its source and it says nothing about it being dyed. It used to be labeled "dyed red hair" under the image at wikipedia. That must have been false information. I have emailed the photographer maybe she will respond...
Pin up: that image is not public domain and was uploaded with no information and it will soon be deleted anyway. Its a beautiful image. Maybe someone could get permission to use it.
Alfons Mucha print: this image is in the public domain and all its paperwork is in order. so I vote it stays.

(unsigned, but by User:CDA)

File:Redhairgirlbluescarf.jpg

Redhairgirlbluescarf.jpg

Regardless of it not saying that it's dyed in the original description, it seems pretty apparent that it is a natural brunette. The color is too dark for natural red. Not to mention that the model's name and features make it extremely unlikely to be natural red. DreamGuy 00:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think dye jobs are probably not as good as true color ones, unless it's to illustrate a section on talking about how some use dyes that way. How about this one... redhairgirlbluescarf.jpg ? It's also stock.xchng photo with no usage restrictions. Am I just dense or it it more natural reddish hair? Of course you'd think we ought to be able to find a real nautral flaming redhead photo somewhere. I put a call out for some on the same website, I'll see if anyone responds.

DreamGuy 22:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have red hair, would anyone object to a picture of me? I'm pretty sure I could find one that shows the color well enough. I'm hesitant to just add a picture since I don't want to overstep any sort of bounds similar to writing an article about oneself. Dismas 23:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it's suitable for the article, you can always add it to the facebook. :-) JRM · Talk 23:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redheadedbella.jpg

Redheadedbella.jpg

Article photos here have to have a certain level of professionalism. You might be able to get that for us, but don't assume any old pic will do and get upset if others don't find it acceptable. DreamGuy 00:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would take the opposite approach. Find a picture of yourself that you like. One that shows off your hair, and add it to the page. If it is a good picture or red hair, it will be fine. I don't know what rule DreamGuyis refering to, but the bar as to waht is an acceptable picture is pretty low. Michael L. Kaufman 01:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

And here's another one (Redheadedbella.jpg) with what at least appears to be more natural color (not sure if it is), also with no restrictions on use. DreamGuy 00:14, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of supporting censorship, I think we should avoid this picture on this article, because of the amount of skin there. No, you can't see anything, but it's a little suggestive, and there is no need for it in this article. It is however, very nice. Also, I happen to think the two images currently in use illustrate the article very nicely, and that we don't need any more, unless they are pictures of red hair on an animal. --Phroziac ^(talk) 15:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like an idiot after saying that. I just realized those are knees, not a boob. I like the pic, but i think the one already there is FINE. Who cares if it's dyed or not? And lets not just throw a bunch of pictures of chicks with red hair in there like before.. --Phroziac ^(talk) 20:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not natural! Plus, the Redheadedbella is way cuter. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 20:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if someone replaces the picture with this one, then it'll be an argument over if her hair color is natural or not. *UGH*. Cuter, yes. More encyclopedic, no. Less encyclopedic, no. My position is fairly neutral, they're both nice pics. --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now they are both in the article. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 21:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and pushed the older picture down into the history section. I think it should just be removed since there doesn't really look like there is any room for the older picture. Also, I like the image description. Obviously a girl is human, and it doesn't insert the POV of it being dyed or not... ;) --Phroziac ^(talk) 21:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I removed it myself. --Phroziac ^(talk) 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Tanner has no promo images but there is a better screenshot of her now at her article. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"typical" hair

Ok guys, stop the silly revert war. I considered putting human back in, but I'd rather stay far away from this. I put the word human in that image description because 1) some people have images turned off, but may want to see the image, and knowing what's in it may help, 2) some people might be on really slow connections/wikipedia might be running slow, and they might want to know what's in it before it loads. --Phroziac ^(talk) 20:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Photos of Babes with Red Hair

PLEASE! (ohmygod! Just realised Im'm a redophile ... and what I ask myself is wrong with that?) A sincere if not terribly serious post from Fergananim 25.8.05

Deletion 26th Aug 2005

Am deleting this paragraph section...

However, some say that the belief is a popular misconception; and that the Celts were a small dark race like the modern Welsh, and it was actually the Neolithic/Bronze Age people whom the Celts displaced who were tall, fair skinned and had red hair. However, Roman accounts state clearly that the Celts were blonde-haired, blue-eyed, and red-haired, green-eyed people.

The last sentence (of above) appears to be factually incorrect, since:-

"The word celt was given to people who led a certain kind of tribal life in Northern Europe. Oddly enough, the name was never used for the inhabitants of the island of Britain" . Sir Roy Strong, The Spirit of Britain, Pimlico 2000. Page 9.

Also, the other part of the paragraph reflects some archological thinking, but is likely to be confusing to readers who just want facts. (Anon IP) 25.8.05 18:23

Moved pictures

I moved the pictures so they wouldn't be stacked up. CDA 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasure it must be for the girl's honor to be posted next to a gorilla. ;) --None-of-the-Above 17:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's an Orangutan! :-) bogdan | ^Talk 17:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's right. They can be librarians and such. Ook! --None-of-the-Above 18:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anaesthesia

The genetics of red hair is now being uncovered, together with connections between red hair and melanoma and other skin disorders, and red hair and problems with anaesthesia. The anaesthesia issue seems pretty interesting, could we get more information on this here or on the Anaesthesia page? I came here looking for more info after seeing this: Amazon.com: Playboy Redheads (Hardcover). Check out the Look Inside! There's a page of text claiming that redheads take 20% more anaesthetic to go under. This might be an interesting place to start a bit of research.

Actual article here: NewScientist.com ...and it's Scientific!
And another: Health24.com

New statistics

These new statistics are very interesting, but is there a source on them? -Branddobbe 18:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recessive vs incomplete dominance

I notice that the article refers to red hair only as recessive, but my understanding is that red hair displays incomplete dominance; that is, it is expressed when only one red hair allele is present, but it "blends" with the hair colour of the other hair colour allele present. This explains the extreme variation between "real" red hair and strawberry blondes, auburns, and so on. I'm updating the page accordingly, but would welcome further input. -- Guybrush 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy Source

Can someone explain to me what is so useful about the Playboy Redheads book? Thanks. JHMM13 09:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So many animals photographs...

I was reading this article, and something immediately hit me: the number of pictures of animals in it. For an article that mostly concerns red as a human hair-colour, the fact that pictures of redhaired human beings are outnumbered by those of other animals 3-to-1 is a bit off-putting. I could see this being taken as the manifestation of a prejudice against red-heads (although, I'm not saying that it is): on the pages for blonde and brunette, there are only examples of humans with blonde and brown hair respectively, no animals. The photographs are nice, (although the placing of an orangutan right beneath a red girl is a bit insensitive, to my eyes) but I don't think that they add much to the encyclopædia, on this page, at least. 23:16, 11 December 2005 Iinag

I agree. What is the feeling on removing them? Michael L. Kaufman 04:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to remove the first one here (the chikmp) previously as irrelevant, only to have the editor who added it throw a fit and add lots more. Glad to see sanity finally prevailed. DreamGuy 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the picture

I replaced the picture of Bella with one of a natural redhead. It seemed to make more sense that if we are only going to have one person with red hair, it should be natural red hair. Michael L. Kaufman 04:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the pic should be natural, which is why we originally got the one that you removed. What makes you think it isn;t natural? DreamGuy 17:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again with the picture changing. But I have to say that the "principle Steve" is what I consider the perfect example of a human redhead. And it is well-lit in a way that shows the color in his hair and skin acurately, unlike the many poorly lit photos that have gone before and including the new image of what looks like a girl in a Scottish folk costume. I hope the Steve picture stays.--cda 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have got no problem with Principal steve. For asthetic reasons, I would rather put the attractive scottish girl first, but that is just my personal opinion. CDA, what don't you like about the picture of the Scottish girl?

As to why I don't think Bella is a natural redhead: 1) She has brown roots. 2) She has brown eyelashes. 3) It is a shade of red that is generally from a bottle. 4) If you go to her web site, you can find a number of pictures of her with brown hair. IE: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=70737 and http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=70739 and http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=126197. Michael L. Kaufman 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully at the Scottish girl her entire face and most of her hair is in shadow. Where there is light it is so blown out that all I see is white - not the true color of her hair. It's a bad photo. Principal Steve is well-lit so you can really see the variations in his skin tone and hair color. It is a much better photograph scientifically speaking. Which is the point isn't it? This article is about the science of red hair. About what it really looks like. Not about whether someone is pretty or not. The way the Bella picture is lit she could be blonde. Many blonde people photograph red-haired in bad light. And it's all soft focus. Just doesn't work for me. Should be in the red hair fetish page if that still exists. --cda 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caption for the red headed man

The captions "A man with red hair" is useless because it doesn't add any information to the picture. Its obviously a picture of a man with red hair. It is just a caption for the sake of having a caption. WHat value do you think it adds? Michael L. Kaufman 22:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Caption for the red headed man

But if you look at the history with the red headed female previously it did say "a girl with red hair" so I thought that the correct way to say it was a male with red hair for this picture. Then how come you didn't criticize the other female redhead? You only criticize this picture. That's not fair at all. Besides what's wrong with adding a little more information? Can't hurt by adding more facts. Please help clear it up for me b/c I don't understand what the problem is. (Oahc 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I think they are both useless. I didn't comment on the woman's caption because I am trying to get that picture off the page. The Steve picture is fine (is the permissions are correct), but I think a useless caption is useless. DO you really think that saying a picure of a man is a picture of a man is useful? Michael L. Kaufman 03:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rights on the man with red hair

I see that the photo of the man recently put on this article claims to be released under license, but the image was taken from a school website where that information is not available. If this photo is going to stay on Wikipedia we need to be sure that the COPYRIGHT OWNER has knowingly and explicitly released it under license, and that it's not just some kid grabbing it and claiming that other people can use it without authorization. DreamGuy 01:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Picture

Dreamguy, Why do you keep putting a picture of a girl with brown hair on the red hair page? Repeated from earlier: As to why I don't think Bella is a natural redhead: 1) She has brown roots. 2) She has brown eyelashes. 3) It is a shade of red that is generally from a bottle. 4) If you go to her web site, you can find a number of pictures of her with brown hair. IE: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=70737 and http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=70739 and http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=126197. Michael L. Kaufman 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Michael L. Kaufman 03:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redhead Ancestry

I changed "Celtic ancrestry" to "Northern European." Scotland and Ireland are famous for their redheads and are listed as Celtic countries, but history tells us (as well as the Celts themselves through their art and those who encountered them in battle) that Celts were in fact originally blonde people. Science tells us that blonde is a recessive gene that is cancelled out by all other hair colors. There are NO redheads in Celtic mythology or celebrities. Redhair cancelled out the blonde in the Celtic countries by a group of people who came from a particular population from Norway Scandanavia who later became famously known as the Vikings. Vikings were in fact historically documented as being red haired, not the Celts. Later when the Vikings settles the British Isle, the redhair dominated the blonde, but the freckles remained dominant. Thus freckled redheads. Whom are in fact of Viking ancestry. Though it's not uncommon to see redheads closer to the original gene, no freckles, blue eyes and red hair often of Scandanavian descent.

I am reverting. Ireland and Scotland are far more red-haired than Norway, as reflected in the previous version of the article. If you have a source that proves that the Vikings introduced the MC1R gene to Europe, please post it.

Further, the Irish and Scottish are not particularly gentically "Celtic," so your unsourced historical review is not necessary here.--Jbull 02:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]