Talk:Blond/Archive 4

picture of isabella I
this same picture is in the "auburn hair" article and says she was a natural auburn. i think it is confusing ... and this one looks wrong as i think she really did have auburn hair in the picture. 75.37.162.113 (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Billy Idol
Surely it is nonsense to say that Billy Idol is 'best' known for his blond hair? I suspect he is best known for his singing, although he may certainly also be known for having blond hair. --86.15.17.142 (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

cro magnons
this article clearly implies they have been all victorian era monogamists wtf?79.216.151.252 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Racial Occurrence
No mention of variation by race? Occurrence in African or Asian groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information about the specific color "blond"
As the material I removed has been re-added twice now, albeit with no explanation, I just wanted to ask here and see if anyone has any substantive disagreement with me about whether it belongs here. I removed the infobox and categories about the specific color "blond" (visible here) because the article seems to be discussing not that specific color, but instead the general phenomenon of light-colored hair. The color "blond" is a single specific shade, as seen in the infobox; it doesn't make sense to me to have the infobox saying "Blond means this specific color, 247-236-183 on the RGB scale" in an article that says "Blond means a very wide range of shades of hair color." An article about the specific color "blond" would tend to look more like Flax (color), describing a single, specific hue. There are many other color articles, such as Lime (color), that do discuss a range of hues, but it's still specific colors that are being discussed ("lime" is this, "lime green" is this, "electric lime" is this, etc., as opposed to "lime means lots of different colors"). Is there any disagreement here, or anything about my opinion I can clarify? Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The Ogre (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying so. A third user has since tried to undo my edit -- all three of the users who have done so have had extremely brief (and one might say unproductive) contrib histories and none has provided any reason for disagreeing with the changes, so I hope it's acceptable to assume it's just a weird streak of vandalism or something. Theoldsparkle (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos
It seems odd that in an article about blond hair, three of the six pictures show people where their blond hair is atypical in their region/ethnic group, and only two where blond hair is the norm. Also, two of the three 'normal' blonds are paintings - and the sole photo is of a child - and as we all know, often children are blond but become darker haired with age. Could we have some more European or European-origin adult blond/blondes please? 86.133.211.42 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it were mostly pictures of 'blackhaired blondes'. Pictures of real ones are easily to be found via this proposed article: .VKing (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And now there's a picture of "A natural blond Riffian Berber man" in the article. Well, in the first place this as well looks very much a blonded (= dyed blond) man; under the more or less light curls, there evidently is much darker hair; this is mostly a sign of dying, as the hair grows near to the head, as a result of which the new grown part of it is not dyed lighter (yet), but natural more dark or black.
 * It seems very much, that this man is a sprout of a Moroccan and a Northern-Europide (blond) parent. (During the last three or four decennia there has been very much 'traveling' between the mentioned Northern-African country and Northern-European ones like Holland, as many relatively young Moroccan men went to work in those countries and in most cases stayed there, whereas a small percentage went back, in some cases taking their (blond) Northern-European wife (and sometimes sprouts) with them to their country of origin). VKing (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No matter where the sources are, the blonde types must be shown with photos.Undead Herle King (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Vking, thats an interesting theory you have, but completely unrealistic. If you do some basic background reading you will find that already the ancient romans noted that the rif berber population was predominantly blonde and blue-eyed. In some instances these traits have survived to this day, of which presumably the partly sun-bleached berber boy is one example.
 * Some random examples. In a book from 1911 "because I found among the Riff Berbers in Northern Morocco a large number of Jews ... They hold on to their religion, although physically they are decidedly of the Berber race, having blonde hair and blue eyes"
 * "It is certain that there was a fair-haired element in libya long before Rome conquered Carthage or the vandals had passed into the ken of history, for Callimachus (cf. vol. I. p. 285) testifies to the existence of blond Berbers in the third century B.C We may hold then, with Sergi and others, that the blond elements in the Berbers is not a survival from invasions of Vandals or Goths or from Roman colonists, but that they rather owe their fair complexions and light-coloured eyes to the circumstance that they were cradled in a cool mountainous region, and not along the low-lying border of the Mediteranean like their dark-coloured relations whose language and customs they share."
 * "In the north (Rif) there are relatively large numbers of blonde... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppy diplomat (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Blurry self-portrait
has repeatedly reinstated what appears to be his blurry self-portrait on to this article. As I think the last thing this article needs is more low-quality images, I've reverted it three times but can no longer remove it. Can we get some consensus on the use of this photo? bloodofox: (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * is a vandal, he has been warned several times on his talk page by several editors, for obvious vandalism to articles. He should be blocked. Some edits done by to other articles are: this edit ; this edit ; this edit . He is a serial vandal who must be blocked quickly.

Only 2%
Only 2% of the world-population have blond hairs. However, blondism seems to die out among these people.-- 94.219.198.90 (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardy–Weinberg principle is a good article explaining the relationships among dominant and recessive alleles. Practically, recessive and dominant don't have to be counted, but sexual selection may be a main factor that affects the allele frequencies of blondes and red-heads. Because of dying people's hair, it is detrimental to the alleles as more and more people are dying their hair blonde, a male mates with a fake blonde or redhead, and the persistence of children not having those allele increase.

It's all gotta do with what males find attractive. Men of other races discourage themselves to mate with those carrying the blonde allele because they see it as miscegenation which they frown upon, preferring to mix with their own race. Such this causes a selection agiant blondes and redheads. If there was substantial racial mixing, then the allele frequency for blondes and readhaeds would not die out, as these alleles can be expressed as homozygous reccessive on any race. There is no other genetic factor that stops this at all times. --75.159.2.59 (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

List of famous people
Should there not be a list of famous historical people that were blond? Either here in this article or as a separate article? For example Odysseus, Alexander the Great, Emperor Nero, Christopher Columbus, Isaac Newton etc. Possibly also even including Leonardo da Vinci--Sloppy diplomat (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a really huge list, impossible to maintain. A better approach would be a category, so you can go tag people as blonds. rewinn (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have strong expectations that such a list, or a category, would be deleted. See WP:CATEGORY and Overcategorization, and the deleted Category:Famous Redheads and List of redheads. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be like list of historical figures with Autism, because we can't prove if they really were blonde or just brunette. I heard Nazis were affraid of Da Vinci for having a dark complexion that would contradict their theory.. --75.159.2.59 (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

blondes
Almost all the people in the last section of the article used to present blonde people are not even truly blond, they are people with brown hair who dye. The simple truth is in the fact that their eye brows are from dark brown or black to light brown. The other proof is where you see the finnish girl who has blonde hair, blond eye brows, and blonde eye lashes. My best friend from school for 14 years was an actual blond (both his parents are 100% blond too) and his hairs from his head, eye brows, eye lash, and even arm hair is all blonde. Only people with dyed hair have different color eye lash or eye brow, or arm hair than head hair. I think this article seems to exaggerate the number of blond people and it claims that something like there is 0% of black hair people in scandinavia. That is a joke, there are more black hair white people in scandinavia than blondes. Normal hair colors here are brown, light brown hair. About 1/5th of whites here have natural blond hair into adult hood. the rest brown or black hair. I think lithiuania has most blondes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.154.174 (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to say so, but this is complete nonsense. While it is true that many people have darker hair in Scandinavian countries (especially once they are 30 or 40 years or older - unless they are grey haired), many young people (I'd say: most of them) are blond - of course, it depends on the definition of "blond". By no means, "blond" is a uniform colour.

Moreover, it is simply NOT TRUE that darker eyebrows and/or eye lashes indicate a non-blonde person. Not true. Personally, I was blond in my adolescent and young adult years (now I am grey, not completely, but to a high degree), but I have always (except as a very young child) had dark eye lashes and eye brows; then again, I have blue eyes. - Not every natural blond person has the same colour when it comes to his/her lashes and eyebrows - many have a darker colour there. And then again, some people are clearly dark haired but have very light lashes and eye brows! Many of them are blue-eyed.- Regarding black hair colour, one has to be careful. Most people called "black haired" are NOT black haired, but at best have a very dark brown hair colour, this is also true for most everybody in Spain, for instance. The predominant colour is dark brown, not black. The only (if at all) people with "black" hair colour are Asians (let's say Japanes, Chinese etc.), maybe most Indians, and also Indios in Latin America; even black people in Africa often have a hair colour which is better described as "very dark brown", but not "black". To assume that there are so many black haired people in Sweden, is idiotic. There is (apart from some foreigners) almost no one (same for Germany, for instance or other European countries) who could be called "black haired". Just watch the difference in hair colour between a Chinese and your "black haired Swede", lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.215.2 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the dark haired swede has wet hair, it's black :P. Dark-brown hair happens when the hair is dry--75.159.2.59 (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is almost no truth to this entire rant you went on, and it would all be original research anyway. I and my three daughters are all natural blondes, and we all have brown-to-black eyelashes and eyebrows of varying shades of brown.  Your statement lacks any merit whatsoever.214.3.138.234 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Steve


 * This is certainly not true. My hair is dark brown, but my eyebrows are ash blond. When my hair grows, it turns red-brown. My beard and mustaches are dark brown with individual hairs and patches of hair ash blond. My father has almost black hair, but his eyebrows are ash blond, his mustaches are ash blond too, and his beard is red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.185.100.155 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed why gingers have blonde bodyhair. Why the Turkish Brunette has a red beard? This happens, i think it's polygenic. --75.159.2.59 (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blonde hair evolved because it is more attractive?
There is much scientific research that blonde hair evolved because it was more attractive. We should incorporate such information into this article. Here is a journal article from the Institute of Psychology on this topic:

Attractiveness of blonde women in evolutionary perspective: studies with two Polish samples.

EasternAryan (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another interesting article on blonde hair and helping. In this study, people were more likely to help a blonde!

Hitchhiking women's hair color.

EasternAryan (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a point of view WP:NPOV? —Sandahl  (♀)  05:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that is what scientific research is showing. EasternAryan (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt this. Sounds like POV to me, especially because they only surveyed Polish people (and Eastern Europeans tend to be more fair than other segments of the population).

And why is that Afghan woman pictured? her hair looks like none of the descriptions for blondes, also she is clearly a brunette. --Maladroitmortal (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go to Japan, blond ppl are treated with almost awe there.99.152.112.169 (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Recessive genes can become more prevalent than dominant genes, having more blondes and brunettes is possible. That's through genetic drift and sexual selection, but sexual selection is based mostly on how rare it is. Say if the majority of the women were blonde, men will find brunettes attractive since has to do with the principle with distinction or looking unique. Poly-dactyl (6 fingers) is a dominant trait, but not prevalent, same with Dwarfism which is dominant but rare. At the current time, to increase the allele frequency of blondes, there would be genetic drift, or selective pressures to favor blondes over brunettes. Know that dominant genes are easier to get rid of than recessive genes because they're always expressed while recessive genes tend to remain hidden.

Hardy-Weinberg principle, learn it. --75.159.2.59 (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is just a wild hypotheses, which became popular via the gossip media. Most of the science world disagrees with this single study completely.

According to this logic, blonds would be all over the planet and not just in the dark north. It's obviously a selection due to the sunlight deficiency.
 * Actually no. Blond hair is a recessive gene, so even if blond ppl were sought after for breeding, the genes of their darker haired mates would still be more prevalent in their offspring, thus blondes would not dominate the world. You also must consider the fact that until the last 50 years or so, most ppl did not routinely travel to all parts of the globe (and if they did, it usually wasn't to breed with ppl)--another reason blondes aren't found all over the world.99.152.112.169 (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because a gene is genetically dominant does not mean that natural selection cannot favour the recessive gene.

70.65.161.174 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thus, it should be made clear, that this view is not the consensus of the majority and even opposed strongly. Pomelo, 24 June 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.226.1.7 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Extreme extrapolation is involved in these studies; what they document is that in controlled experiments, men in a particular cultural context act in supportive-of-blond-women way. The evolutionary thesis involves consistent, reproduction-related actions across tens of thousands of years. Feel free to cite and discuss the actual conclusions (re: Polish men in psychological tests), although it might not be a notable aspect of this topic.--Carwil (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gender
Seeing as blondism occurs in both genders is there any good reason for this article to be almost entirely about women? I would understand that within a subsection that was about contemporary culture, but not for the page in full. There is almost nothing on blond men, and that's a bit of arrogance. Ilmanuplaut (talk • 11:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Same, that's the same case with fair skin, other than racism, it was about women. I heard that for men, Mediterranean features were ideal like tan rough skin to show he's strong under the sun and stuff like that. --75.159.2.59 (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be the case anymore. --Ilmanuplaut (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why no one will ever take Wikipedia seriously as a research tool. Someone spends an entire section talking about blondes and sexism against women then the entire list of "famous people" with blonde hair is nothing but women. "Blonde" is a color that happens to include hair. Keep the sexism rants to the Sexism page. Dkaplan73 (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Blondism in South America
If blondism is indeed indigenous to Peru (as the oh-so-reliable Daily Mail claims) I would be glad to have it mentioned here, but not while the Chachapoyas culture article (this revision) contradicts it from the primary sources. For someone to read the claim in this article, then go to the other article and see that this one is lying, I think, creates a bad experience.

I have found two books that credit conquistador Pedro Pizarro with the claim of blond-haired Peruvians and quote him. This would seem rather convincing, except that they are not quoting Pedro Pizarro directly. They are both quoting from the book subtitled The Vikings in Mexico and Peru by Nazi race scientist Jacques de Mahieu. No thanks. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind you removing that material. The times that I reverted you, I was more focused on reverting one or two other people, as seen in this edit before you reverted me about an hour ago. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Brown eyes?
On the page of "blond", why is brown eyes is not on the list of eye colors in the "blond hair" article?--Jasonfitz (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it common for blonde-haired-people to be brown eyes?

Edit request on 16 May 2012
Blondism is frequent in eastern europe, particularly in the slavic countries, with parts of Russia having the highest incidence.

69.115.239.91 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide more detail on the specific edit your requesting, and provide strong sourcing for it? Monty  845  05:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

For males
Is there males that are blonde hair brown eyes? Jasonfitz (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2012‎ (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding your question. Are you asking can males have blond hair and brown eyes? If so, yes of course they can. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair hair???
Do people actually use the term "fair hair" I've never heard it before. I've heard "fair skin" but never 'fair' in reference to hair. Is it just me? I'm from Oakland/San Francisco and I'm pretty sure we don't use that term... Is it prominent in other parts of the English-speaking world? 115.95.252.115 (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read the article more carefully, this is already answered. The native "Old English" or "Anglo-Saxon" word for blond hair was faeger, pronounced /FAY-er/ - in other words, it would have been the normal word for 'blond' in the English of about 1000 years ago.  After the French conquered England in 1066, and for about 200 years, the English language was driven underground and was not even taught in schools.  In recent centuries the word "fair" has gradually lost ground as the predominant term in favor of "blond(e)", which is taken from French.  The meaning of "fair" has also expanded over generations to be used for 'pale complexion', (but even this is becoming rare), as well as 'lovely' (any complexion) and 'just, reasonable'.  In more conservative parts of the English speaking world, which I reckon in relation to San Francisco would be ALL of it, one might still sometimes occasionally hear references to "fair hair".  Btw the proper name Fairfax comes from "faeger feahs", meaning "blond hair" in Old English. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, fæger means I. lovely, beautiful, pleasant, agreeable, attractive II. f. beauty. hwīt-loc, -loccede (white locks) means fair-haired, blonde. --Anwulf Wes þu hal! (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The term is in common use in southern England, and has regularly been applied to me all my life, as a polite alternative to 'blonde.' Leegee23 (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair means light. It's being used as a synonym for goodness is the same as using "white" as symbology for goodness. That useage of "fair" is from "white" racism against "non-whites." And, the funny part of this is... This article is incorrect, and full of racist propaganda. Blond hair is from the Slavic tribe called Pols, it is not European, or "white." Look up on what Hitler did to Pols in WWII for the facts. And, look up on the true distribution of natural blond hair from before WWII for the facts about where it comes from (Slavs). We natural blonds are factually on the "not white" side of the racist war "whites" are still waging to this day. But, we're not supposed to know that... As they try to push "white guilt" on us when we're factually not "white," factually never did genocide or slavery, factually did not come to the United States until after slavery was outlawed, and factually never participated in racist plots of the United States government (such as puting the Japanese in camps in WWII). They also enjoy sending victims of other non-"white" races after us instead of themselves, by using us as their poster children despite our lack of involvement in their racist acts, so that they affectively have their victims lashing out at other of their victims instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

List of famous people with blonde hair
Is such a list really necessary? It adds little to the piece, and sets precedent. Why not add a list of famous people with, say, ginger hair or black to their respective articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.39.221 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the list as unencyclopedic. That's not the first time it's appeared and has been removed. Similar lists were also added to the Brown hair and Black hair articles by the same editor, and removed by another editor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flyer22, we don't need a list of 'famous' people. The section about the hair colour in popular culture should do the trick.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have had to remove it again. Right now, I'm about to give the editor a warning. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Should "fair hair" redirect here?
I'd always used "fair hair" to mean blond, red, auburn, and light-brown hair, basically anything that's not dark brown or black. Is this something unique to me or my area, or does "fair hair" have a broader meaning than "blond"? —Quintucket (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It means light-coloured hair. Personally I wouldn't use it as a term for red or auburn hair, and if you look at old anthropology textbooks such as Carleton Coon's work from the 1930s they tend to differentiate between these colours (though strawberry blond could be classified as fair).Pondle (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"blonde is for women, blond is for men", except for the pictures in this article?
So I don't want to go and make changes to this page, but after including a section that states that blonde is for women, and blond for men, shouldn't the pictures including women say "a blonde..." ?? 116.102.19.7 (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing, and no one seems to have answered it. I'm going to change it. Carlo (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted, and here's why: "Blonde" is used to describe the fact that it is a girl or woman who has blond hair. Stating "A girl with very light blonde hair" is redundant because the person is already identified as female by the word "girl."


 * Further, the Blond section doesn't say that girls and women always have to be referred to as "blondes" when they have blond hair. There are some instances where using the word "blonde" is rejected, either because it's considered unnecessary or sexist. The section already mentions the sexist bit. At a later date, I'll add something about "blonde" not always having to be used. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Blond is a French word. It is blonde for females, and blond for males... In French. In English, it's blond for either, because English does not practice adding an e at the end to feminize a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As the article explains, blond/blonde is one of the few English words that does have gender. Both US and UK dictionaries agree on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.134 (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As this IP seems to be you (but simply a different IP range), I'll reiterate what I stated in that edit summary, the term "blonde" is used to describe the person -- that the person is female -- not the hair color. Well, actually it's used to get across both points. But it's not correct to use as simply a reference to the fact that a girl or woman has blond hair. I addressed that above, but stating it the way that I did in that edit summary appears to be simpler. I did, however, alter the image caption so that it points out the image is of a girl. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * From the Collins Dictionary of American English
 * "blonde: adjective, fem form of blond"
 * usage examples:


 * Her natural blonde hair was pulled tightly back from her face, which was set in a troubled scowl.
 * Lustbader, Eric Floating City (1994)


 * And with her classic, blonde bouffant hairdo, she cuts a striking figure as she gives her version of common sense.
 * Washington Times (2002)


 * The petals also were used to deepen the color of blonde hair.
 * Chicago Sun-Times (2003) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.131 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * News articles and magazines get a lot of things wrong; that much is addressed at the WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability pages. But the Chicago Sun-Times source you cite does not use the words "girl," "woman," "she" or "her" along with "blonde." I reiterate that such uses are redundant when "blonde" is used; this is because stating "blonde" let's us know that the person is female. As reliable sources, including ones in this article, state, "blonde" is used as an adjective with reference to girls/women. The usage you cite -- using "blonde" to simply refer to the fact that a girl or woman has blond hair, or using it in the redundant manner I described -- may not be considered incorrect by all scholars, but it is considered incorrect by enough of them.


 * As for the bot that keeps signing your user name, that is because you should always sign your user name when commenting/replying on a talk page so that readers will know who made the comment. I indented your response (see WP:INDENT) and returned the bot's signature of your user name for you above, but you need to do it yourself from now on. At the end of your comments, you should simply type four tildes (~), like this: . Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Blond vs brunette rivalry"
It seems to me as if the examples listed in the "rivalry" section are just about blondes and brunettes who happen to be competing with each other with their hair color not being important. That content should be revised or removed.Kbog (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel, please discuss the article on the talk page
Please state how the new section regarding adult entertainment is not encyclopedic. I believe it is encyclopedic because it is notable, verifiable, of general interest (but maybe not of interest to you), and is presented in a NPOV.

Let me break it down for you and ask that you keep any objections specific, unemotional, and linked to the following parts of the entry so I can understand your concerns:


 * Irving Klaw and Bettie Page discussion. Both Klaw and Page are already the subject of a Wikipedia article.  This new entry simply highlights the blonde vs. brunette aspect of their work.  Again, it is notable, verifiable, of general interest (but maybe not of interest to you), and is presented in a NPOV.


 * Catfight discussion. Already a Wikipedia article, I'm simply presenting the blonde vs. brunette aspect. I would remind you that the topic of blonde and brunette women fighting on TV, in the movies, mud wrestling in nightclubs - while it may be objectionable to you - has been covered in the media and has been addressed in scholarly works (see Reineke and Douglas).  I'm sorry that you find it objectionable.


 * DWW excerpt. I have no connection with the company and am simply quoting their web page. You can follow the link and see for yourself.

You left an earlier entry on the talk page that was emotional and largely unspecific, although you did mentioned that the concept of blondes vs. brunettes is limited to the USA and maybe parts of Mexico. I don’t know about the Mexican interests in “blondes vs. brunettes”, but if you read the entire section called “Blonde vs. brunette rivalry”, you will see that your allegation is completely false. Countries that have blonde vs. brunette contests and interests include: Austria, Australia, France, Netherlands, Russia, UK, and the U.S. as well as the (Psychological Associations of) Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden which are represented by the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology (used as a reference source). I’m sure there are more countries, Mexico maybe, but my research time is limited and I’m not proficient in foreign languages.
 * List of movies. This is directly from the Internet Movie Database and “Rotten Tomatoes” web site.  Each entry is about blondes.  How can you possibly object to a list of movies about blondes in an article about blondes?

Recommendation: organize your thoughts and lay out specific reasons why you find the new section inappropriate. Please cite Wikipedia standards (i.e., notable, verifiable, NPOV, etc) in the context of the above discussion. I will gladly modify/delete any entry that is not encyclopedic but please be specific in your objections so I know what to fix.

And for heaven’s sakes, please stop vandalizing the article simply because you don’t like something.Vortex4id (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, there is a facebook page / entry about blonde vs. brunette hockey games in Canada, so that's another country to add to the list. I did not add to the article because I thought athletic events were sufficiently covered. Vortex4id (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalizing the article? Where did uyou ever get consensus to inflict this crapola on everyone else? It appears you have engaged in your culture war unilaterally hoping not to encounter any resistance, but you should not be surprised to encounter resistance, because resistance is EXACTLY what I can promise you are going to get. This "adult entertainment" stuff is PURE CRAPOLA and its SOLE PURPOSE is to TWIST NATURAL HUMAN INSTINCTS until they are EXACTLY WHAT YOU, SIR (or ma'am) HAVE BECOME WITH YOUR LIFE but it may surprise you to learn that MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE TO BE FORCED TO SEE THESE IMAGES AND THEIR CHILDREN FORCED TO SEE THEM and for this reason while it may be legal in your sad corner of the world, THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST IT IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD AND YOU ARE PUTTING WIKIPEDIA IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW IN MANY JURISDICTIONS. SO I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO FIGHT THE LIKES OF YOU BECAUSE AS A HUMAN BEING, YOUR ANTI_FAMILY CAMPAIGN MAKES MY BLOOD CURDLE AND MY FLESH CRAWL Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)  I WILL FIGHT THIS ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE I FIRMLY BELIEVE IT IS EVIL SO STOP PROMOTING YOUR DISGUSTING SICKNESSES HERE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While Vortex4id's additions are hardly helpful, they don't warrant Til Eulenspiegel's insults and screaming. Til Eulenspiegel, that is not the way to argue against this sort of stuff, or anything for that matter. Arguments such as "promoting anti-family stuff" or "promoting your disgusting sickness" are, to say the least, ridiculous. Surtsicna (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These people are constantly trying to get their "adult entertainment" as prominently as possible, complete with visuals, advertisements, and promotional links, on articles that have nothing to do with adult entertainment, in their attempt to spread and recruit their objectionable lifestyle - and most importantly for them, this is calculated in a way for them to place their so-called "adult entertainment" where it will be most likely to be considered by infants. As a parent myself, I most certainly do find this objectionable; they call it "objectionable" for a reason and surely I can and will continue to object without having to feel ashamed on behalf of somebody ELSE's shameful behaviour.  I have done nothing wrong but stand up for what is right, and I'm not the least ashamed for it. It is the OTHER poster who should be ashamed, for trying to turn wikipedia into yet another sexual 3 ring circus.  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything was fine here for YEARS, until suddenly just now this editor shows up with this disruptive material like it's always been his god-given right and anyone who removes it is a vandal. The longer you allow this disruptive garbage where it doesn't belong, the longer you will surely continue to get reactions from many others who are grossed out by it, and some of them will make my reaction seem quite mild. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Til Eulenspiegel should speak more calmly, but is otherwise correct as to this article. Dear Vortex4id, this is Blond or possibly Blonde not Porn. There is hardly an article in wikipedia that could not have a Porn section, thanks to the marvelous variety of ways in which we humans enjoy sexuality! but few are the articles that would be improved by it. Specifically, if Vortex4id wishes to write an article on Blond Porn it might be pretty interesting but please don't try to slip one in here. We are asking nicely at this time. Indeed, the entire Blondes vs. Brunettes section is probably best spun off into its own article since, on the evidence, it is mostly a U.S. phenomenon. rewinn (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly removing images of black people
See what I stated at my talk page about this. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Blonde vs. Brunette Rivalry & The Importance of a Worldview
EF80 added a tag about a non-global point of view that is very much on the mark. I will try to gather information about the blonde vs. brunette rivalry outside of North America and add to the section and hope others do the same. Thanks for pointing this out! Vortex4id (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to combine this discussion section with the above discussion section about this part of the article, Vortex4id. I take it that you don't know what to state in response to Kbog's concern? Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are corect. I'm not sure what Kbog's concern is given the vague and imprecise wording of the post.  I'm lost at responding to a comment that starts by stating "It seems to me as if ..." I have no idea what that even means.  I don't know what part of the section Kbog is referring to.  Is it the "examples" in the Tucker Cummings article?  I don't know.  Any help, and please be specific, would be appreciated. Vortex4id (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to burst your bubble but I really doubt any "blonde vs. brunette rivalry" is a very significant one hardly anywhere on the globe, maybe in a couple of isolated places! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC) I think probably the places where it is most significant, outside the US, would be in parts of Mexico. Not that big a deal in many other places.  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Move To Own Article: A Proposal
This "Rivalry" stuff currently takes up way too much of the article, especially considering that it is not a very significant part of being blond. The section should be moved to its own article if it really is significant, or cut way back. However, I'll wait for comment. rewinn (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I’m mostly in agreement with you and would like to offer some thoughts over the next couple of weeks on the scope of the article “Blonde.” But before I create another explosion, may I review some Wikipedia guidelines?
 * Assume good faith
 * Avoid personal attacks
 * “… as a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.”
 * (Previously, I wondered why Wikipedia stressed these rules. I think I have it figured out now.)Vortex4id (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't whine. You stirred a pot of sh!!t and now you're complaining that people are picking on you. If you are editing in good faith, as I assume, then you will cut out the passive-aggressive stuff about guidelines and just concentrate on the article. Keep in mind that this article is blond (or maybe blonde) not Blond Porn; it was your insistence on dragging in completely irrelevant material (there is nothing inherently blond about catfight; Irving Klaw is not a famous blond, and Betty Page wasn't even a blonde at all ...!) that set things off. rewinn (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Page may not have been blonde, but the gal getting spanked was. Guess that pic won't see the light of day in this article.Vortex4id (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. The person being spanked was not a notable blonde and being spanked is not a notable activity of being blonde. Perhaps you are confusing wikipedia with pornopedia rewinn (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of "pornopedia" but you seem to be familiar with it.


 * That smart-aleck remark said, since you provided the link, I looked at it. Lots of frontal nudity and sexual activity.  None of which I have ever placed on Wikipedia.  Last week, I provided an edit that showed two women wearing dresses with short hemlines and another that showed a woman's bare back.  Pornographic?


 * I also discussed Klaw's use of blondes. Admittedly, Klaw was deemed a pornographer by the Kefauver Commission ... in 1957.  That was when network TV could not show a husband and wife getting in the same bed with each other.  I hope you would agree with me that we've moved beyond the Kefauver standard of what constitutes pornography.


 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not going back to the edit, but this is the "talk" page, we should be able to talk.


 * I understand that I owe the community an explanation of how I am going to restore balance back to the article by moving most of my work elsewhere. Thanks Vortex4id (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your characterization is not accurate, as anyone can tell who knows how to diff can tell. For example, both of the photos you inserted are of pornography by today's standards and certainly not merely a "bare back"; you listed several obscure porn videos of no relevance to the article; you supplied gems of irrelevancy such as "The popularity of watching women fight each other has increased significantly in recent years."
 * However the subject of this sub-thread is not your edits at all, but rather, the excessively large focus on blonde/brunette rivalry. Please try to stick to the subject. rewinn (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No-one having objected, I have moved the Blonde vs. Brunette stuff to Blonde vs. brunette rivalry. This article is now more reasonably proportioned rewinn (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite being the (99%) author, I'm not convinced that it stands up well as a separate article, so I am, or was, writing an article titled "Comparison of Blondes and Brunettes." The "rivalry" piece intended to fit inside.  I will still work on that (will take about another 30 days), but since you made the move, the new article looks good. Maybe I'll wait to see how well the current article is received.Vortex4id (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Malnourished and Sunlight
i think it is important to mention malnourishment and sunlight exposure brings out a blondish hair color, many of the regions/countries posted on this articles appear to fit that category, so i read the sources under those countries that appear to fit that category, and it turned out to be true that the sources are not accurate. People have also posted blogs as sources??? but why isn't there a section that mentions that, the article seems to present many format and spelling mistakes as well. Only sources or information that was inaccurate were removed, rest im still in the process of checking sources and rewording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursingxmajor (talk • contribs) 03:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Nursingxmajor (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Americas, South Americas
this section has many statistics, but only one source (source number 48), and discovered the source is unavailableNursingxmajor (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

the link works if you go down the page and click on the link, but does not mention the statistics posted Nursingxmajor (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Blonds in Asia
I'm skeptical of some of the sources in Blond section but they are not available to check online. It's just hard to believe that "North Asia's population has an estimate of 1-19% with light hair"....that is so vague, it's the difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 5. It seems like this article, for reasons that are unclear to me, is the subject of some vandalism or POV subtext. It seems odd in an article about hair color which doesn't seem like a political issue. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See the #%10 of tajiks blonde?Are tajiks(%10) and Kabyle Berbers(%10) really as blonde as the french(%10)? section above if you haven't already. In short, Nursingxmajor should be reverted on that Asia content and likely other things with regard to this article.


 * For others, see this section that relates to a similar matter with regard to this article and other Wikipedia hair color articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Recorded incursions into the Indian subcontinent at the hands of Europeans actually pre-dates the Roman era. See the campaigns of Alexander II of Macedon toward the end of his life and the establishment of Greco-Indian relations, including the syncretic kingdom of Bactria.

Hello
Dear SQGibbo, I'm sorry for what happening But Please you And The others Add more Sources in The Article. --محبة الكتب100 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First thing is you need to stop editing this article while you are blocked, it is against Wikipedia policy. Once you are unblocked then we will be happy to address whatever concerns you might have regarding this article. Unfortunately it has been difficult to figure out what your specific complaints are. Saying that we need more sources is not really helpful, you need to specify which claims you feel are not properly sourced. To add to this you are also adding your own edits with some rather dubious wording that is not making the article any better. But once you get unblocked then we can deal with these other issues in due order. SQGibbon (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * why you give me a block? You did not follow my words,

All The Edits of The Article is dubious But My edits that you have added is of the same article I said There are no source for the presence of blond hair in Asia (except Central Asia because of is near Russia) Example This need to Sources "Blond hair can be found in Asia, including Central Asia, West Asia, South Asia, and East Asia"

--محبة الكتب100 (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you give me a block i Don't Vandalized thing in wikipedia. Please Don't Block me Again, order will not turn to other accounts. When will you accept my edits because part of the article is unreasonable × _ × There are no source for existence of blondism in East Asia and West Asia and Why did not indicate/write in the article to History of the Greek kingdoms in Asia. --Samer100 (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC).

%10 of tajiks blonde?Are tajiks(%10) and Kabyle Berbers(%10) really as blonde as the french(%10)?
are tajiks and Kabyle Berbers really as blonde as the french?I think it is obviously mistaken and need to re-examination.Also Portugal's percentage showed as higher than France(Is it possible I guess it                 isn't.)    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.11.18 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Asia section indeed definetely needs an overhaul. West Asia has blondes, Central Asia has blondes and even South Asia has some natural blondes. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.142.220 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I checked the Asia section's sources and were 100% unreliable towards what was presented, you can tell based on the grammar it was hacked maybe because all the other sources say different information, but i will be creating a Asia section including all parts of Asia. I am a Anthropologist and follow DNA patterns. Nursingxmajor (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The statistics of northern Africa question me, based on my teachings, i am sure there is a high chance they are incorrect, but im in the process of checking the sources and wont change it until then. Nursingxmajor (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the section you removed. What do you mean that the sources are "100% unreliable"? Based on your personal opinion? With regard to sourcing, we go by the WP:Verifiability policy. It does not matter if you don't like the sources. What matters is that the sources pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline and are reported accurately. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically the sources listed were not saying the same thing that was posted in the article, not because i didn't like them. I will fix/create that section with updated sources and take into account what was previously presented including the sources, but there's multiple links and options for the same sources/books that are easier to access. Nursingxmajor (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I also read the reliable source link that you have just posted many times before. I also read those sources and been looking and reviewing this page for weeks, not in one sitting. I have also been reviewing Oceania, but didn't remove the sources because they were indeed indicating the same information. I am also reviewing north Africa, but did not remove nothing because i didn't check the sources yet, and i always compare and contrast the reliable source manual and other manuals from Wikipedia before removing anything, especially sources. Nursingxmajor (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC) I was saying "unreliable" towards the sentences presented, not the actual sources, but will take into account the same sources as needed, but based on the multiple sources i will give, different information was presented. Majority of the sources say the opposite or drastic difference in information. I didn't think it would be accurate to present to the public in that manner. I already knew weeks ago if it was accurate or not, but didn't do anything until i checked my sources and the ones presented. I was in this field for a very long time until recently, most of this i already know, but wont put anything down without sources, when i find the exact sources i used years ago and link them, because it takes time and longer then one day.Nursingxmajor (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We've got to be on the lookup for sweeping edits like this (with the edit summary summary: "im gathering sources and adding a Asia section, checked sources and do not refer to what was presented in this article, a lot of grammar mistakes, and false information"). I checked the sources and, despite Nursingxmajor's wall of text here, they clearly support the basic facts presented in the section he removed. The Encyclopaedia Iranica supports the 70,000 number and the 'one third blondism' bits. The Around the Roof of the World ref supports the 10 percent Tajiks blondism bit. The Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people ref supports the present of blondism amongst Bronze Age samples found in Siberia (although I'd also add that these samples were regarded as being of people of Europeon origin). Furthermore, as far as I can see, these three sources appear to be reliable sources. So unless Nursingxmajor brings some reliable sources to the table which either contradict or specifically argue against the data presented in these sources, the removal of the section should be reverted and his edits should be scrutinized.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Nursingxmajor passed this info to me, that 10% for tajiks came from the Soviet Union being in that region during the time of war,  they were included in the 10%, the source is also very old which makes sense on how they came up with 10%. By now they have all left and the percent is more like 0.2%. There are still some people from the soviet union in Kazakstan (25%) compared to the rest, which was added, which should be there instead of the actual 0.2% of the surrounding countries.

The guy's sources were also comparing a specfic country rather than the entire Asia the phrase "comparatively high" was mentioned by him, when its really referring to that country not Asia, if that phrase wasn't added almost everyone would agree then why is that info even added for Asia, comparing to entire Asia the numbers will totally fail and source is more blog like created by one author and that's the type of sources you will always find with that info. Most people want to see their country mentioned some how which is what i suspect here, im from Turkey and were considered Asian too, but that needs to be set aside from the facts, which you learn to do when you actually have background studies in these types of topics.

Each country obviously has a region similar to those, might as well mention them all, if not only add the meat and potatoes, and those people and places fit perfectly in the environment causing light hair due to the fact that region is among the most impoverished. Were looking into her and his sources and comparing them and giving our info to the editor, Anthropologists can connect the dots very easily, theres no point of constantly reverting stuff because its very easy with no protection. Berber info is still being looked at.Columbiax (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)