Talk:Red hair/Archive 6

Correction of False Information 25 May 2016
I requested this sentence "Scotland has the highest proportion of redheads in the world with 13% of the population has red hair and approximately 40% carries the recessive redhead gene" to be changed a couple of years ago because the information was incorrect. The article cited in fact that both Scotland and Ireland had 10% of the population. Neither of the current references prove anything about the "13% redheads" Scotland supposedly contains. The first is back to a BBC article which pulled it's information from the previous incorrect BBC article, and the second is about a study that WILL happen, it has not referenced any actual results, simply stating that Scotland is "thought to have" 13%; which I hypothesize is because this misinformation has spread around the internet yet has no scientific backing! It's exactly what Wikipedia is against.

This scientific article places Ireland at 11.5% Red Hair

Another scientific study by Dr Jim Wilson from Britain's DNA has placed Scotland's Red Heads at 6% of the population:

On top of this, Scotland is not an independent country, it is part of another country. Can we please correct this 13% fallacy to bed. Wikipedia is supposed to be factual, can we please keep it that way.

Can we please remove this statement:

"Scotland has the highest proportion of redheads in the world with 13% of the population has red hair and approximately 40% carries the recessive redhead gene.[10][11] In Ireland, as many as 10% of the population have red, auburn, or strawberry blond hair."

Can we correct the statement to read:

"Ireland is the country with the highest percentage of Red Heads in the world at 11.5%, with 34% carrying the gene. Parts of the United Kingdom such as Scotland also have very high percentages with around 6%. Edinburgh is the place where the highest percentage of people carry the Red Head gene at 40%; although this does not necessarily mean more people will be born with Red Hair."

This statement is correct and factual and despite previous assertions, no scientific basis was offered for the claim of 13% of Scotland's population having red hair, and therefore it is only right that this is corrected.

S.Staines (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC) S. Staines


 * I'm marking this as Not done. It appears that you will be  is about 2 days, at which time, you will be able to make the edit. Furthermore, the request here is slightly unclear, not formulated in a "Change X to Y" format that makes this difficult to act on. Cheers, and feel free to boldly make the edits in a couple days. No need to reopen this. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 21:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your changes for the following reasons;
 * I cannot find any mention of Irish red hair being 11.5% of the sample on your source here. Could you please indicate where in the paper this figure is obtained?
 * Your claim that the existing figures are incorrect is backed up by nothing but your own assessment. There is nothing to suggest that the figures cited by the BBC are inaccurate, or any less accurate than the study you cite.  If we are to contain a criticism of them, and how they were obtained, please provide a reliable source that does this.  Wikipedia doesn't use sources to provide the platform for them to be criticised, the criticism must be from elsewhere.
 * Different studies may reach different figures. Unless there is reason to discard previous studies (see point above), their findings do not immediately become "false".  But we may reflect the uncertainty by explaining that different studies have reached different conclusions.
 * Whether Scotland is a country or not, in your opinion, is irrelevant. Sources have used it as a geographical region to break down the figures, so that is what the article reflects.
 * Interestingly, the source of the story you cite in the Telegraph, (www.britainsdna.com) actually repeats the Scottish 13% figure on their own website. And if you look at the press-release the story is sourced from, you'll see that it also indicates that Scotland has a higher percentage than Ireland.
 * Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi (Talk) I'll answer your questions by the points you have made:

A1: The 11.5% is found in Table 1 of the study.

A2: Yes there is clear cause to suggest the figures by the BBC are not representative of the general population, 133 people in a study from the 70s is not representative of Scotland's population which is why Dr. Jim Wilson's scientific / genetic study of over 2,300 has been used. In all conscience you cannot dispute the difference between these two samples. indeed the only reason the 13% figure has become so prevalent is because journalists were checking Wikipedia instead of asking for peer reviewed scientific research.

A3: You will notice in my edit, I do indeed refer to Scotland as an entity within the research so I don't understand your point. In the talk page I made a point but I even said to disregard it.

A4: You are confusing two things here, the report said Scotland has a higher percentage of the population which carries the gene. This does not relate proportionally to people actually born with red hair. In addition, the press release you linked me to, in point 6 it clearly says that 6% of Scots have Red Hair! That is your own source so as someone who edits on Wikipedia how can you continue to let inapplicable information be distributed? Whether or not you dispute the Irish figure, are you honestly doubting the only comprehensive genetic study of hair colour ever done in Britain, over a study decades ago that wasn't specifically about hair colour and only had a sample of 133? In fact the DNA website itself is wrong, if you go back far enough here you will see it was copied directly from Wikipedia!!! I trust their press release, because that has info on the actual study done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Staines (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Table 1 (page 100) shows three countries, Poland, Ireland, and Greece. It numbers Ireland at 10 red-headed out of a total of 339 which is almost 3 percent. Just above the table on the same page is this statement: "For both the Irish and Greek set, hair colour was classified into 7 categories: blond (5.9%), light-brown (34%), dark-brown (45.2%), auburn (5.7%), blond-red (1.3%), red (2.2%), and black (5.7%). For the Polish dataset, this data was collected as previously reported [35] and hair colour was classified into 7 categories: blond (13.7%), darkblond (44.2%), brown (22.6%), auburn (1%), blond-red (3.9%), red (3.8%), and black (10.8%)". So the source states twice that redheads make up less than 3 percent of their sample. I didn't see where the source states that any of these countries possess the highest rate of red-headed people in the world. So the statement "Ireland is the country with the highest percentage of Red Heads in the world at 11.5%" is unsupported and contradicted by the cited source.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Please see my answers below:

1) Table 1 is not on page 100, it's on page three or so.

2) You are mixing up the results there: those percentages you quote are the averages of the Irish and Greek sets combined, because they contained the same 7 classifications of hair. If you scroll down slightly from where you pulled that sentence you will see the table with the unique Irish figures which the 11.5% is based on.

3) For the purposes of counting "red heads" Auburn and Blond-Red are included, just as they were in the Scottish study. Therefore 23 + 6 + 10 = 39 from a sample of 339 = 11.5%

The statement that Ireland has 11.5% of population with Red Hair as commonly defined is correct and is supported by the citation. S.Staines (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your cite still does not support what you are putting in the article. What you are doing is totalling up selected figures in one table, to construct a percentage that the source itself never mentions, and then comparing it with other figures from elsewhere to determine that "Ireland is the country with the highest percentage of Red Heads in the world at 11.5%".
 * Your cited source never makes this assertion or anything like it, and you therefore can't extrapolate from this study to determine it yourself.  You simply do not know whether it is valid to compare the figures between studies (they may have used different criteria/methodology), you do not know if it is valid to total up your figures to reach the 11.5%, you do not know how the sample population were selected, and you do not know if this can be shown to be a valid way of calculating relative percentages of hair colour by population.
 * The study is about predicting hair colour through DNA samples (as much as I can understand from it). It was not designed to measure how many redheads there are in Ireland.  So you are constructing your own conclusions out of someone else's data.  The very fact that you have to explain where this figure is, and how you calculated it, is indicative of original research.  The fact that you then compare it to other sources to reach your own conclusion is indicative of original synthesis.  You can't do either of these things on Wikipedia.
 * Put simply; you cannot claim something on this article that no source actually says. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please answer me one question then. How can you say all of that, and then reinstate the information about Scotland having 13%? Do you not see that the 13% is from a study which does exactly what you are criticizing me for, have you even seen the 13% study? You couldn't have because you'd be writing the above passage to yourself. More audaciously, your reference from the BBC is simply claiming that an upcoming study aims to count red heads, the reference I put up for Scotland was the VERY RESULTS of that study! You can't publish the hypothesis of a study and ignore the results because they don't suit your argument.

So again, the Irish and Scottish figures are two separate issues. You do not reinstate an incorrect figure for the Scottish prevalence just because you don't agree with the Irish figure. You don't delete all of the references for the Scottish figure of 6% because you disagree with the formulation of the Irish figure. In addition the Scottish figure of 6% almost ties in with the very first of these studies completed in 1901 where Grey & Tocher took a sample of over half a million Scottish schoolchildren in which they reported red hair at 5.3%. So lets be mature enough to deal with them separately. I will reinstate the Scottish references but I will change the Irish reference to yours. S.Staines (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I re-instated the 13% figure on the basis of all information on Wikipedia; it is sourced to a reliable source. Like everything on Wikipedia, we must trust reliable sources to accurately give us the facts.
 * It wasn't obvious to me that the results from "BritainsDNA" were in fact those referred to in the BBC article as "ScotlandsDNA". However, I see from here that one is a division of the other.  With this in mind I'm happy for you to update the BBC cite with the results of that study.  I'd use the Telegraph report; there is a preference for secondary sources over primary, and the location of the PDF at UCL doesn't inspire confidence on it staying put.
 * For clarity, it may be worth explaining that the study began with the 13% estimate [BBC cite], but final results revealed...
 * My concerns over using the Irish HIrisPlex research, however, remain. Perhaps it demonstrates the percentage of the population as a whole, perhaps it doesn't.  We can't say, and nor does the study itself.
 * That does leave us without a 'most red-headed' claim. But without an up-to-date source making this claim, maybe it's best left this way.
 * Thanks for your constructive input. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, yeah all of that sounds fairly agreeable to me. I understand your concerns over the Irish study, that's why I'm happy to put in the previous reference you cited. What has irked me about this whole thing was that years ago I actually flagged this and an administrator corrected it for me. Basically someone had claimed Scotland had the highest but the cited source said nothing of the sort. After that another user changed it back and I just left it, but it got to the point where it has made the rounds on the internet and become accepted "fact" without any back up.

So I'll change it so that we are both in agreement, but I'm sure you took a look yourself there's very little out there on it it seems! Thanks again, let me know if you're happy with it tomorrow. S.Staines (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't happy with the introduction, and prominence, of the 76 year old study. Particularly when it appears to be at odds with the new study.  I'm also unable to see much about it from the cited source.  It appears to be restricted to males.  This probably doesn't matter, but again it's not necessarily safe to extrapolate that to the whole population.  Do you know how this figure was reached?  Obviously it would be well prior to DNA research.  Why should we place a preference on its dated results over more recent? The highest figure from Wales also seemed to be a notable omission.
 * It's a pity that the reports on the latest research do not give a clear figure for Ireland, only the percentages carrying the DNA. Do you know where that might be?  Why are results not published?
 * This last point actually is indicative of why the validity of some of BritainsDNA's work is questioned by scientists in the field of genetics. There's a good reason why the University College London stores the PDF referenced under "guff_documents", and point out that none of their research has gone through peer review.   It was BritainsDNA claim that red heads were going to die out due to climate change that was thoroughly debunked as rubbish by scientists.
 * So we should much prefer an academic source over this company selling DNA kits. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I left it in because that's the reference you used for Ireland the last time you corrected my edit. You said you weren't happy with my reference and so I compromised and used yours. Nothing I wrote down was incorrect or un-referenced. I don't appreciate the complete re-write when I implemented everything you asked for. Also your re-write places an emphasis on the 13% again without making reference to the correct figure - the sentence "the sample found lower occurrence" is very unclear. I don't even think the 13% figure should be included at all because it was a incorrect estimate, Wikipedia should not be mentioning incorrect estimates as they just perpetuate the dissemination of falsehoods across the internet. Why did you remove the largest ever study of hair in Scotland of over 500,000 people? Fair enough it was a long time ago but it concurs with today's figures, and it's not like one needs much modern equipment to count red heads in schools, so we have no reason to doubt it. I agree the Welsh figure should be included, and the Edinburgh gene figure for interest. S.Staines (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best solution would be to have something along the lines of;
 * "Over the years there have been a number of studies measuring the percentage of redheads within the UK and Ireland. Exact figures, and methods, vary, but they all are in agreement that the highest percentages in the world are within these isles."
 * And then a chronological run through the different studies. That way we don't have to be seen to favour the results of one over any other.
 * The reason I'm mentioning the 13% figure at all is because, as you said, it is very prevalent within the media. If it is omitted someone is sure to put it back in in good faith.  Far better to mention it, with an explanation that it was always just an estimate. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I never made a claim of one being more favourable or not, it was alphabetical if anything. What about this for a compromise: alphabetically (as to be honest, people want to know it by country within the British Isles) England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales? I've also found another source for the 10% Irish but will note that more research needs to be done. But I do have to adjust some of that from yesterday, while keeping everything you are saying. Agree on leaving in the 13%, I thought I had explained that quite clearly previously. I'll adjust anyway while leaving in both of our information. S.Staines (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Escape Orbit;I have implemented all of the changes you have requested, including a separate section for each country of the British Isles, organised alphabetically starting from England. With your opening statement. The figures for Wales and Edinburgh, the 13% figure explanation. I trust this is all in order now! Thanks, it is certainly a better article now than when we started! S.Staines (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done a few tweaks. Observing what is "interesting" is editorialising, especially if you are combining sources to synthesis additional observations about the Saxons.  It's not for Wikipedia to suggest what research is needed, or not.  Wikipedia also doesn't determine what is a misconception, or guess as to why it may me.  Sources do that.  The 13% figure was an estimate, the study is a more accurate figure based on some kind of facts.  Description of research as "large scale" is an opinion, and unnecessary if we have an exact sample head-count.  The source used does state any Welsh figure being "commonly believed", it merely gives its own estimate. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi I've done a couple myself just to make it clear. The way it was previous was as if both of these studies were being given equal treatment. When in fact the 13% study never claimed to be counting red heads in the first place; it is reasonable to say "comparatively large scale study" ie when comparing just the two, one of them is on a far larger scale. Agreed on your point about "interestingly", I will find the proper reference for that in good time as I believe it is a theory out there. Agreed on your point regarding Irish research, I just thought you wanted that in as you were uncomfortable with a 70 year old study. Agree on Welsh point. Hopefully that's it now S.Staines (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are extrapolating from the sources, and combining sources to suggest things in none. How can we say that BritainsDNA research is "comparatively large" when no indication is given what study it is being compared to?  Whether it is large, in itself, or not is an opinion.  And even if you did explain which study it was being compared to, you'd then be in the position of construction your own facts, and suggesting that one study is therefore better than the other.  Which is again an opinion.   Just state the sample size and let the reader decide how big it makes it.  We also don't need to repeat that the 13% figure is an estimate, or "just an estimate".  It's introduced as an estimate. Going over it again is superfluous.  Indeed, we have a number of figures in this section that are estimates.  We don't repeat/emphasise on them all that they are "just estimates".
 * We can also let the reader decide whether 5.3% in 1907 is consistent with 6% in 2013, Wikipedia doesn't decide that the parallels between the two are significant or not. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * How does stating a study is larger than another imply that it is better? It doesn't, you are conflating size with quality. Stating one study is larger than another is fact. The reason for the emphasis is because of it's prevalence as a baseless figure; due to errors perpetuated through this website. There was no suggestion of significance. The article reads like a list. S.Staines (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the relative size of the study doesn't imply anything, then why mention it? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

natural selection does not work like this
IN the Genetics section, this article reads, “In Africa, for example, red hair is selected against because high levels of sun would be harmful to untanned skin.”

This is not how genes are selected. The stochastic nature of natural selection does not ponder consequences outside the womb, like harm to red heads’ skin. But if that harmed skin causes them to produce fewer offspring … and if red hair is a recessive trait to dominant brown hair ... this is how red hair genes are selected against.

Red hair would be selected against for numerous reasons, none overtly related to light sensitivity.

Red hair could be selected against because they produce fewer offspring, for reasons of sexual selection [red heads are unpopular mates]. Or because they have reduced virility or fecundity [less effective or numerous sperm or ova]. Or because they more often die before reaching reproductive age.

Over-simplifications and misstatements like the one above are responsible for a culture that still rejects the notion that humans descended from apes, as if that is even an accurate depiction of human evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:371B:DC30:5FD:AD49:2A2C:65AF (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed the sentence to "In Africa, for example, red hair is selected against because high levels of sun harm untanned skin", which I hope avoids the implication that the selection is somehow forward-looking, working to prevent future harm. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we really be making statements about the number of redheads?
We're using private DNA companies to tell the world about the number of redheads. But "Jonathan Rees, professor of dermatology at the University of Edinburgh and one of a team of scientists to identify the gene responsible for red hair" says "It's fair to say we don't have very detailed information about what the frequency of people with red hair is throughout the world," "I wouldn't say there are no reliable estimates, but the ideal way to do this would of course be like the census, where everybody's examined at various ages and you have robust data. We don't have that sort of data, but many different researchers have carried out smaller studies where the selection has not been entirely random in the way you would like." That's in October 2013.

IMHO we should only be using true scientific studies. BrtainsDNA seems pretty dubious. Professor of evolutionary genetics at University College London Mark Thomas wrote that "On 9 July 2012 Alistair Moffat – co-founder of the ancestry testing company BritainsDNA and Rector of St Andrews University – appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme to make several claims about genetic ancestry that were wildly inaccurate, so that even his business partners, under pressure, eventually accepted that errors had been made." See also the pages here.

Then there's this. And finall, this ". The BritainsDNA red-haired study is potentially an interesting piece of research and the press release includes a useful map showing the distribution of red hair in the British Isles. Yet, asPrivate Eye point out, the study "is not peer-reviewed and is published only on the BritainsDNA website 'to coincide with' (read 'cash in on') last month's Redhead Convention in County Cork." I'm reverting myself to remove the material based on what appears to be very dubious research. Doug Weller  talk 18:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with any of this. If you look at previous discussion, I mentioned much of this myself.  See my first comment of 6 June 2016.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016
Below is a suggested change with context of surrounding current text.

I have red hair. I was born with it and I can't change it. This is factual and obvious.

--start edit--

Prejudice and discrimination against redheads
Since people who are born with red hair cannot alter this condition by changing their behaviour, discrimination against people who have red hair falls into a similar societal and cultural category as racial discrimination. However, since it is less endemic than racial discrimination, it usually treated as playful or trivial by those who do not have red hair, rather than damaging to those who do.

The ongoing sociological and psychological effects of discriminatory treatment of readheaded children and adults by their peers has not been explored.

--end edit

Teleh (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * While I sympathise with the sentiment, do you have a cite for these statements? It reads very like your own opinions, which Wikipedia isn't the place for.  Wikipedia also doesn't usually discuss what hasn't happened. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well thanks for the response, I guess it makes sense from an encylopedia perspective.

On the other hand, quite a large part of the wiki entry contains "beliefs" about traits of people with red hair and have no grounding except for the written history of those who don't have red hair, and see their beliefs as meaningful, containing little objective grounding in the first place. If I "believe" something quite obvious about my own situation which is not documented but which is indeed a fact, the ironic thing is that I'm then forced to create a blog where I state I believe it and then reference it, I suppose? Maybe get a couple of other people with red hair and a few others without to concur, then cite it (which I'd find ridiculous frankly). It's pure stereotype.

My main issue is that the undertitle "Modern-day discrimination" commences with "In his 1885 book..." and then follows on with "In his 1895 memoir" as if discrimination doesn't exist today. It does, and it's probably thought of as not hurting redheads because people calling redheads "rangas" and "gingers" think they're being ironic, but the fact is, we have no influence over the way we were born. That fact is irrefutable and often overlooked I think is worth mention especially as it juxtaposes against skin colour and sexuality which are modern issues and are valid modern dialogues. Omitting birth conditions as relevant to any discrimination conversation is lax, I think.

So I though an obvious and relevant statement in that place would be appropriate. Which is not unheard of on Wikipedia, which is, after all, supposed to be a place devoted to fact over belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.150.113.22 (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article talks of attitudes to read hair throughout time. So it's definition of "modern day" is a historical one and refers to the last 200 years.  The section itself discusses a number of examples within the last ten years. Blogs are equally not reliable sources.  So creating one would not mean it could be used in a cite. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2016
Page contains the phrase "an gene" under first paragraph of the "Modern" heading. 2601:18E:C400:F95B:1C3D:6CD1:6966:5589 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 05:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The 'gingers have no soul' thing
On November 9, 2005, an episode of South Park was aired entitled Ginger Kids, in which Cartman delivers an anti-ginger speech, involving the claim that ginger people have no souls. This particular idea took on a life of its own, being spread, presumably mainly ironically, online, especially after a video of a red-haired teenager responding to anti-ginger bullying that was inspired by that South Park episode, arguing that 'Gingers do have souls', went viral. Perhaps this deserves a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fridge Leprechaun (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017
Reference available here for the line: Red hair appears most commonly in people with two copies of a recessive allele on chromosome 16 which produces an altered version of the MC1R protein. Redblueshoes (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! Avic ennasis @ 18:30, 16 Tevet 5777 / 18:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Red hair in the Caucasus (and Turkey (and the Middle East))
The article currently says that red hair is not found in the Caucasus, but "auburn" hair is. This isn't actually the case. There are plenty of red heads in the North Caucasus-- typically in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan (Avars, Dargins, Laks, some Lezgins, not as much with the Turkic speaking peoples), and Ossetia; among Circassians not so much, but there are some Georgian regions with numbers of redheads too. A number of famous Caucasus personalities had red hair -- Imam Shamil (an Avar), and now in (sigh) ISIS we have Omar the "Chechen" (he's actually half-Georgian, half-Kist but close enough) []. For the sake of pointing out that not all Caucasus redheads are Islamist fanatics, one can note that every now and then they crop up in the news for other reasons, like some Chechen girl Hava wanting to be a great scholar of English literature ([]). As I'm sure someone will do, if you search half of the relevant ethnic groups + "red hair" in Google all sorts of results pop up. Yes, all of this is OR. Except for one piece that isn't about hair color and is thus dubious as an actual source (it's about history), I don't have any source to post here. But it is notable that there are actually plenty of redheads in the Caucasus, and they aren't of Celtic/Germanic/Slavic/Finnic ethnic groups.

A side note: there are also proper redheads in the Middle East although there aren't tons. There are quite a few in Turkey-- like the lead singer of Athena (band). As for Iran, I personally know Iranian red heads (yes, red, not auburn), but I guess that doesn't count for a source. Every now and then a ginger Palestinian or Syrian crops up. And then while we're on ISIS commanders, we also have a ginger Iraqi for one, Izzat Ibrahim Al-Douri, who is infamous for his red hair []. Why there are so many redheaded ISIS commanders (we have the actually Georgian "Chechen", the Iraqi, and also one half Irish Australian dude and maybe others) is beyond me, but the point stands-- natural redheads aren't absent from those regions. And no they don't all use henna. If some expert on the topic could dig up a source so this isn't all my OR (as I really don't actually research hair color), that would be beyond awesome. --Yalens (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding a reference or link to burgundy hair
When i read that hair could be burgundy and so i set to find evidence that this could be the case; I found it (the colour is close enough for me). I don't think this is very necessary but i think it would be nice to have been shown proof immediately. YoungVenus (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Pyrrha
You people can add a reference to Pyrrha as well in the mythology part of the page, the daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora, and mythical progenitor of greeks. She was supposed to have red hair as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman gr (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Edit information while using Safari / iPad
Howdy, wondering how to see who edited this page when the edit button says the article is locked to prevent abuse etc. Not sure if it's a Safari thing or a locked-edit thing.

The reason I'd like to see the history, is, that a couple of years ago I added a paragraph which compared red-headedness to racism and it was rejected / wiped. However now there's a large section discussing real-world discrimination.

I want to see how that discussion evolved. Teleh (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Page histories are viewed by clicking the "history" tab, not the "edit" tab, and they should be visible to anyone regardless of their permissions. Archived discussions are linked in the Archives box towards the top of this page. If you're on the mobile site and can't find what you need, look for a link (usually at the bottom of the page) that says "desktop" (or something to that effect—I don't have my phone handy), which should take you to the regular site.
 * I think the discussion you're looking was is this one. Your proposed addition was declined because of inadequate sourcing. See WP:Identifying reliable sources for the relevant guideline. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   14:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the page...again..
I have already stated many reasons as to why I changed the top two photos on the Red Hair page. Kydo986 reverted to the original photos. I appreciate him addressing one of the reasons as not enough to place a change, but I stated multiple acceptable reasons for my changes. He contested one. I have no need to state them again as you can scroll up and see my original post. I will revert back to my changes in 24 hours if no one steps up to provide arguements that address each of my stated reasons. Zim799 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do not issue WP:NOTDEADLINEs for edit-warring to replace the existing encyclopedic photos with your own photos. First, you have a WP:COI, second Wikipedia is not your personal album or blog and cannot be used by you to promote your pictures, and, third, you have no WP:CONSENSUS to add your pictures to this article. Your pictures are not as good as the existing ones, which are more natural and the poses and facial expressions are not exaggerated as in your images.
 * The male in your picture has a weird stance and a distracting facial smirk with one eye closed – which looks like a failed atempt to look cool, while the girl picture has an embarrassed-looking, non-neutral facial expression, and faces the camera at an awkward angle. So both your pictures are framed incorrectly and they also fail WP:NPOV. Based on your longterm and relentless edit-warring to add these pictures to this article, I know you are not going to agree with my criticism but until others agree with you and you obtain WP:CONSENSUS to add your pictures to this article, you should not revert back. You have longterm edit-warred four times now to add these WP:COI images to this article. If you do it a fifth time, you will be reported at WP:ANI for longterm edit-warring. I hope this helps. Dr.   K.  21:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Red hair among Multiracial Individuals
Since the Columbian Exchange began, the incidence of red hair among people of Sub-Saharan African descent has increased. Recent efforts to document non-pathologically originated red hair among multiracial-identified individuals, including those of partial Black and Asian heritage, have further countered widespread understandings of red hair's racial exclusivity. As an example, renowned African American Black liberation activist Malcolm X was known for his trademark reddish hair color often attributed to his partial Scottish ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.156.239 (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Red hair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904045510/http://www.antrocom.net/upload/sub/antrocom/060210/08-Antrocom.pdf to http://www.antrocom.net/upload/sub/antrocom/060210/08-Antrocom.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/data/get_data.php?hgnc_id=4842
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fconnected%2F2002%2F10%2F04%2Fecfhair04.xml&sSheet=%2Fconnected%2F2002%2F10%2F04%2Fixconn.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.ox.ac.uk/blueprint/2000-01/3105/11.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fa20081120a1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161025204922/http://chicagoist.com/2016/06/05/rain_cant_dampen_second_annual_redh.php to http://chicagoist.com/2016/06/05/rain_cant_dampen_second_annual_redh.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the top two photos
Hi Upon reviewing the red hair wiki page, I have determined that the photos at the top, "Woman with red hair" and "Man with red hair" are of low quality, out dated, and are in need for an update. Contrary to what the user who keeps taking down my edits argues, the subjects of the two photos that I am trying to use to replace the current ones are not friends of mine. Just some red headed models that I shot for.

The photos I am trying to use are higher resolution than the current photos. They are well-lit photos, and are pleasing to the eye.

The current photos are cold, harsh to look at, and are low resolution. The "Man with red hair" photo is taken with his head in an abnormal angle for a proper portrait photo. They are sharpened too much.

"Woman with red hair" was uploaded in 2006, and "Man with red hair" was uploaded in 2008. There is no accounting for when the photos were physically taken, all we know is the upload date so the photos could very well be even older than those dates. That would put "Woman with red hair" at 11 years old, and "Man with red hair" at 9 years old at the very least. My photos will give the page new life. Gingers are under-appreciated and people will want to read more about them if we have updated photographs


 * Firstly, please sign your talks. Secondly, I agree that the pictres (especially the one of the man) are not the best. However the pictures on this page are listed as a topic of one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars, so maybe it would be wise to proceed with caution. Could you post the photos or links to them on the talk page and if you get consensus, change the photos on the main page later? Right now we can't say what the new photos would look like so it's impossible to say whether the change would be appropriate. 130.231.103.58 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found your suggestions for new photos in the article history. While they are beautiful photos, I feel that they don't fit too well as the top two photos of an article. The main reasons are: 1. Due to the lighting effects neither models hair actually appears all that red. 2. The expression on the male face is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Maybe you have some other photos of redhaired people with more neutral lighting and expressions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.231.103.58 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

People with red hair are not white and are descended from Neanderthals
According to Varg Vikernes that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.111.202.6 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not accurate and Varg Vikernes is a Norwegian musician; he is not an expert on anything, least of all genetics. Although it is thought that some Neanderthals did have red hair, it was caused by a different mutation to the MC1R gene, not the same one that causes red hair in modern humans. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He's also a fascist and a convicted murderer and arsonist, so I wouldn't believe a word he says about anything. Wanker. Famous  dog   (c) 14:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not know that. I just looked up his Wikipedia page and the first thing it said was that he was a musician... all the more reason why he is definitely not a reliable source. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, also, do you know anyone who can block this user? He has been engaging in disruptive editing at Talk:Blond for months now. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence that stated that Dickens and Shakespeare portrayed Jews with red hair. Fagin has red hair but no Jewish character in Shakespeare (I know of no other than Shylock) has red hair according to Shakespeare. Shylock on the stage often had red hair and that is probably because of the Jewish association but it is not in the text. The reference Shakespeare and the Mediterranean: the selected proceedings of the International Shakespeare Association World Congress, Valencia, 2001, Theatres and Performances, (University of Delaware Press, 2004), page 40 makes no mention of Jews or red hair in literature! See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272690398_Shakespeare_and_the_Mediterranean_The_Selected_Proceedings_of_the_International_Shakespeare_Association_World_Congress_Valencia_2001. In any case, just two characters (one incorrect) from just two writers (albeit central ones) is not worthy of a mention. Saul "benqish" Davis 11:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary censorship?
There are asterisks in the beginning of where each word should have been "associated" (i.e., it's appearing as ***ociated). I can't imagine a good cause for censoring in that way. Could we perhaps make that edit? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.

Catlady1987 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I think this was someone with good, but misguided, intentions, and poorly executed. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Map of occurrence
There is a good map of red hair occurrence here:

It should be included if possible; the blond page has such a map. Fig (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed Writers from Shakespeare to Dickens would identify Jewish characters by giving them red hair.
I have removed the sentence that stated that Dickens and Shakespeare portrayed Jews with red hair. Fagin has red hair but no Jewish character in Shakespeare (I know of no other than Shylock) has red hair according to Shakespeare. Shylock on the stage often had red hair and that is probably because of the Jewish association but it is not in the text. The reference Shakespeare and the Mediterranean: the selected proceedings of the International Shakespeare Association World Congress, Valencia, 2001, Theatres and Performances, (University of Delaware Press, 2004), page 40 makes no mention of Jews or red hair in literature! See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272690398_Shakespeare_and_the_Mediterranean_The_Selected_Proceedings_of_the_International_Shakespeare_Association_World_Congress_Valencia_2001. In any case, just two characters (one incorrect) from just two writers (albeit central ones) is not worthy of a mention. Saul "benqish" Davis 11:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again removed the reference to Shakespeare's Shylock having red hair, it's not in The Merchant of Venice! To restore it you need to provide a reference, some research!! To write "Writers from Shakespeare to Dickens" is totally incorrect, only Dickens gave a Jewish character red hair, Shakespeare did not and no other write did. Also this is the section on Medieval antisemitism. What is Dickens doing here!? Saul "benqish" Davis 16:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The content you are removing is sourced. The link you reference above appears to be the keynote paper, not the The Selected Proceedings of the cited source.  There may be no reference within the play to Shylock's hair, but that doesn't mean that is not how he was portrayed in Shakespeare's productions.  As discussed here.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Britain's DNA
I've again removed content sourced to "Britain's DNA". This source as already been discussed on these talk pages and it should be noted;


 * BritainsDNA's research is not held in high regard by actual genetic scientists.
 * There's a very good reason why the University College London stores the PDF referenced in a folder titled "guff_documents". I think they would be distressed that the contents of this folder was being used a source on Wikipedia.
 * Newspaper stories that use the BritainsDNA "research" as a source should be treated with the same caution.
 * It was BritainsDNA that claimed that red heads were going to die out due to climate change. Something that was ridiculed by geneticists, but none-the-less got lots of media attention.

This Wikipedia article should be using research by geneticists as sources, not a company selling DNA kits of questioned validity. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. Sadly I often find that articles on or sections of articles dealing with genetics have problems, sometimes serious ones. Doug Weller  talk 17:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed reference regarding 5.3% of population having red hair, book was published over 110 years ago, not fairly represented now, a more modern study would suffice
I have reverted Escape Orbits edits regarding the statisic that 5.3% of Scotland population has red hair. The book was published in 1907 and for that reason I feel it has no ground in regards to the 'Modern' header it is put underneath- more recent studies would be more valid. Especially considering the growth of population and immigration within 100+ years. Escape Orbit has reverted this and I think its rather silly to keep going back and forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJNito197 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would not be silly if you had started discussion about your edit, rather than repeating it twice.  Please restore the content, so that we can discuss it and gain a consensus.
 * I appreciate the problems with the age of this study, but it remains the most comprehensive of its kind. And removing it doesn't make the appearance of a newer one any more likely. But I'm open to making the date of it clearer.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I was not the one who reverted it, nor was I the one who left out that the study was made in 1907. I do not see why I should revert it back, the SPECIFIC figure 5.3% is in not way representative of modern day population in Scotland. I have not removed the 6% statisic because at least its round-about accurate, altough I should specify 'around' like the statistic regarding Ireland above has done (considering it was from the same study as you inferred earlier). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJNito197 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You were indeed the one who removed it, and then reverted that removal twice more.
 * first removal by [[User:JJNito197|JJNito197]
 * second removal by [[User:JJNito197|JJNito197]
 * third removal by [[User:JJNito197|JJNito197]
 * When your edits are challenged, it's best to start discussion about what you are doing. Don't just keep doing them.
 * If I (again) restore the content, with appropriate date, do we have consensus? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant remove. I originally removed that out of date statistic and someone reverted it. I think this factoid is rudimentary in the grand scheme of things considering it is more than a century old, maybe you should change the header to 'modern/historic' for a more accurate representation and then proceed to add it in the suitable section. Or you could just leave it to 'around 6%' which isn't wrong and more accurate in the modern day setting, considering the header is 'Modern'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJNito197 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article actually did previously state the year of the study. [this edit in 2017 removed it]. The reason it's there at all is because there is a fair amount of misinformation, speculation and differing figures out there.  See previous discussion in the archives of this page.  So we were searching for any credible study or any sort, even if just to illustrate that there is no "official" figure and no-one knows for certain.
 * There's no confusion about it being headed "Modern", because it is followed by "Historical" which starts with something from 478 BC. Another section in "Modern" discusses what the Victorians thought of those in the Volga Region of Russia.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand this. If you state the year of the study, that is less incredulous to the fact- as the way it was stated seemed that it was common knowledge that 5.3% of the population of Scotland was redheaded... Only in 1907 not in modern times. If you restore with the year of the study, 1907, I have no further qualms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJNito197 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The correct percentage then would be around 5%... As you said it is not reflective of "modern" Scotland with immigration etc. it is not the case that immigration from countries with far less red-heads than Scotland could conceivably have increased the percentage of same, and the study was extremely comprehensive compared to more recent studies. --S.Staines


 * See the sources that are provided, all of them say around 6% so this is what we take away from the source. You are reverting back to the 1907 position based on a study of 500,000 people when Scotland at the time had around 4 and a half million people, so 4 million unsurveyed. The studies show around 10% for Ireland and around 6% for Scotland- it is not pinpoint. To prove my point about bias, you also changed the Irish percentage from 'around 10%' to 'AT 10%' even though they are from the same studies. See previous talk pages on percentage figures. You also take haste with Edinburgh being the red-head capital of the world, as you keep removing it, after I changed to carriers you also felt this wasnt adequate as you removed it again, instead putting it next to Ireland(?). This fact that south east Scotland / Edinburgh has the most red hair gene carriers deserves to be mentioned, and I will not change my position until new source shows otherwise. Ireland also cannot be called a 'capital' in any logical way however Edinburgh Is a capital. See the sources (I can provide more if 2 isn't enough). I am defending the Scottish postion on this matter, with facts from source. I will include the fact that North England and Wales has the same amount of red hair gene carriers than Ireland on average if you continue to find fault with facts and source. This being a accurate ascertainment. Provide a source that proves otherwise and I'll change my postion on any of the above edits. You also stated regarding the study of 500,000 people that it was including the world, which it wasn't, it was based on 500,000 Scots. See source. You have a conflict of interest (COI) notice on your talkpage. This tells us my bias accusation isn't unfounded. This is all I have to say on the matter. --JJNito197

Edit Page
Hi, do you know how can I edit this page without being an administrator? I’d like to add some info about red hair that I wrote on the Spanish page because it’s important to understand the topic better. Mamba Negra 237 (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What would you like to include? I can add to the page if you'd like. Meatsgains (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, THANKS... FIRSTLY, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADAPT THIS INTRODUCTION: Redhead is the condition of having orangish hair, due to the production of very little eumelanin, dark brown or black-light blond, resulting in light blond hair, and pheomelanin, red or maroon-light pinkish, giving rise to the characteristic orangish color of hair. The different shades of red hair vary according to the amount and concentration of the two types of melanin, from lighter to darker: pinkish red hair, strawberry blonde, ginger, copper, titian and light reddish brown (auburn). The red hair color hides when there is presence of a greater amount of eumelanin. The presence of redheads is occasional in caucasoides or mixed populations with them, and is generally associated with a clearer pigmentation, presence of freckles, although not always, and a greater propensity for melanomas and other skin disorders; and it is related to the green, hazel and yellow (amber) color of eyes, due to the presence of pheomelanin, being yellow in the case of the eyes, which is also called lipochrome. Possession of reddish hair seems to be transmitted as a monomeric recessive character to any other hair color, because it’s necessary the presence of two genes: ​​the mutated version of the KITLG gene, which causes less pigmentation of eumelanin, responsible for blonde hair, and the MC1R gene or melanocortin-1 receptor, which allows the body to produce both types of melanin in hair, eyes and skin. The probability of being a redhead is markedly low (0.64% in the world), due to being necessary to have the gene responsible for blond hair (16%) and the MC1R gene (4%).

ALSO, YOU CAN INCLUDE THE ORIGIN OF THE RED HAIR: The appearance of red hair is due, like that of the blonde, to adaptation to the environment by mutations, allowing the migration of European peoples to Northern Europe. In chronological order, the appearance of lighter colors of hair, eyes and skin is as follows: when they established around the Mediterranean Sea the first European humans were light-medium skinned, black or dark brown hair and brown eyes, subsequently and in a sense Southeast-northwest, these were migrating to the north of the current countries of southern Europe and the first medium and light brown hair tones and light brown eyes were appearing and the skin was lightening, then the groups of humans arrived to the center and northeast of Europe and the mutation of the KITLG gene caused the appearance of the first blondes, blue and gray eyes and light skin, and finally they reached the north and northwest of the European continent and the mutation in the MC1R gene appeared, which produced a kind of "repigmentation" on blond humans, but this time from another type of lighter melanin, pheomelanin, which does not tan and whose purpose is the adaptation of humans to the northernmost areas and with less sunlight on the planet to produce vitamin D more easily, being less necessary the exposure to solar radiation, and thus avoiding dying of rickets or other deficiency diseases, appearing the first redheads, green and yellow eyes, and very clear skin.

FINALLY, IT’S INTERESTING TO ADD THIS CURIOSITY: There is a characteristic group of people who have very light skin and, however, have dark brown or black hair, occurring mainly in Ireland, but also in the rest of European countries or among Caucasian population, also known as the ‘black irish’. These people are the part of brunettes (5% of them in the world; in countries like Scotland they account for 40% of them) that have the MC1R gene, and therefore, produce pheomelanin; however, they are not redheads, because they produce, as well, moderate amounts of eumelanin (the same as someone with dark blond or light brown hair), and that when mixed with pheomelanin, results in dark hair. In addition, it is common for these people to have green eyes, because it is usually related. Mamba Negra 237 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it's unlikely that anyone will add this unless you provide reliable sources. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What Adrian said. Plus, this seems to cover a lot of what the article already says.  What makes your version better? And the last paragraph has little to do with redhair. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 11:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed - please provide reliable sources for support. Meatsgains (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter, Escape Orbit, Meatsgains, I cannot give you specific page links because this is part of my research of the topic that I did searching several web sites, and many sections are common sense for me. But, you should add it because it clarifies many things in a simple way about the origin and cause of red hair. Anyway, hope you consider the effort and thank you for your time. Pd: Escape Orbit, firstly, I explained the cause of red hair more easily (dismantling the old theory about that by having the MC1R gene, they eliminated the production of eumelanin, producing instead pheomelanin), also I added the lightest version of red hair, the percentage in the world, the genes involved, it’s correlation with green/hazel/yellow eyes, and the origin of the red hair and why. Finally, the last paragraph doesn’t talk specifically about redheads but I think it’s important to say it because it strengthens the theory about that people can have the MC1R gene and express it phenotypically (the production of pheomelanin) and have brown/black hair, instead of red hair, and that some people with dark hair would be blonds if they had light hair, and other brunette people would be redheads, explaining that they are not that different. Mamba Negra 237 (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we cannot change the page to reflect your research without cites to the sources. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Using the word “Ginger”
Hello. I am a redhead and want to bring light to the use of the word “Ginger” towards redheads. It’s actually very offensive and derogatory. I would like to speak up when I see it being normalized, as in the opening lines of this Wikipedia article. Calling a redhead a Ginger is hurtful, if it’s hard for you to understand, think about other ways society calls people names based on the way they look (skin color, for example and the N word). It’s not okay and I respectfully request that it be removed in this article (“Redheads, also known as Ginger”). It is my hope that overtime, people will realize what negative effects it has and stop using it. When people say it to me in conversation, I respectfully bring to their attention this point and hope to do the same here. Thank you. SarahOsen (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the term "Ginger" is normalised because it's been used for hundreds of years to describe redheads, and it is not universally considered offensive or derogatory. Besides that, Wikipedia is not censored, so the fact you find it offensive is not really relevant. I'm sorry you feel this way.  Be ginger and proud.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Images RfC
Should the following images be restored this article File:Uyghur-redhead.jpg, File:YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg. They were removed with the explanation that is provided below. --Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An explanation was clearly given in the edit summary: "removing two pictures to clean up clutter". The four images were a mess, so I sacrificed two of them (one of which I had added to the article about a month ago). Since all images depict red haired Asian people, it's not a question of whether they are relevant. Two were merely sacrificed because four was too many. | This is what that part of the article looked like with the 4 related images. The images were stretching out of bounds, knocking other images (such as that of the Melanesian people) out of their relevant locations, as well. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hunan201p, you were wrong to remove East Asian looking Uyghur girl with red hair and in edit summary you misleadingly "failed to verify". You didn't provide evidence. What do you mean by failed to verify ? The image existed for 7 years (the image existed since 2008 in wikipedia, a total of 12 years and there's a description that says. Description from the image you removed says " Uyghur girl in Kashgar, in China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. The striped clothing material is that traditionally worn by Uighur women, never by men".It is gathered at the shoulders in the style of dress favoured by Uighur women."


 * Hunan201p removed Uyghur girl with red hair
 * which had been edited since 7 years ago by user Khestwol )
 * which had been edited since 7 years ago by user Khestwol )


 * She isn't a Mongol but a Turkic girl with red hair. If you removed the Uyghur girl with red hair I don't get why didn't remove the image of Hulagu Khan (edited by Hunan201p on1 3:30, 7 April 2020) He obviously looks like black hair east Asian looking with white skin, there's no historical description of him having red hair during his life time and I don't see any red hair, more like black hair with lighter shades. It's obviously dirupstively cherrypicking.Queenplz (talk)
 * someone restored this image a day or two ago. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It's even more strange that he removed Ögedei Khan, if he's claiming Genghis Khan's sons and grandsons have red hair, then why did he remove Ögedei Khan, which seems to have a brownish (or brown-red ?) type of hair. The image of Hulagu khan looks to me more like light black hair. Kezo2005 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems someone already removed this image. I don't know when. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong source / comment
The article says:


 * Judas Iscariot is also represented with red hair in Spanish culture[126][127]

But the second given source, even if it is a book about Spain, says:


 * the red hair of Judas seems to be agreed upon by all the painters and sculptors of Europe

So, «Spanish culture» should be changed by «European culture», once the page is non protected.

--77.75.179.1 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
The country with highest percentage of red hair is actually Scotland, with 13% of the population and 40% having the red hair gene. The data on this page is inaccurate. Brudmcmillan (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What source are you citing? – Thjarkur (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The human hair colour article says this with these as sources  Beiraoit (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Red hair from nutrient deficiency.
The red hair is caused by a lack of copper in diet. Not protein. This is well known.--2A00:1028:9192:C0DE:D5D9:DF10:DF2:A44D (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. But if "well known" you'll have a reliable source for this claim? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Percentage of People with Red Hair
This article says the 1-2% of the human population have red hair, while Human hair color says it is 1-2% of the west Eurasian population. The latter has 3 references later on. I don't which (if any) give the percentage figures. There is a contradiction that needs resolving.

Karl (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. I have absolutely no (hard) data; but my estimate would be far less than 1% for non-European types. (And that's 80-85% of the world).
 * Using (a generous) 2.0% of 1.8 billion (“European”) and 0.1% of 6.0 billion (“non-European”) means 0.54% of the world are red. MBG02 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021
"ginger" is a racist term like the derogatory veraion of blonde, or the n word or anyother myriad of hateful and demeaning names white people apply to people without blonde or brown hair and blue or brown eyes. its disgusting that this is acceptable, and uneditable. try having a "redhead" contribute to this section. auburn or red head, its like calling us carrot tops 2601:14F:8300:208C:5C75:E163:BB6:9C1F (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Melmann 19:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021 (2)
the term ginger is equivilent to the term ranga, both are derogatory 2601:14F:8300:208C:5C75:E163:BB6:9C1F (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Melmann 19:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

When since people can have purplish-red hair?
The "from a deep burgundy" part implies that people can have dark purplish-red hair, is there any proof for that? I don't remember people having that hair color besides vermilion to orangy tones. IndieTheFurry (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021
In the "Pain tolerance and injury" section, please add the following as the final sentence in the second paragraph that starts with "Researchers have found that...":

However, a later study of 468 healthy adult patients found no significant difference in recovery times, pain scores or quality of recovery in those with red compared with dark hair in either men or women.

Brad A Balmford (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done J850NK (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Tbechar

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021
72.68.0.226 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Despites just red hair and ginger hair, don't some people also call it orange hair?
 * No edit requested, closing this request. If you'd like to add that it is sometimes called orange hair please find sourcing for this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there really red hair in the portrait of Odegei ?
I honestly don't see anything red hair on Odegei portrait still I didn't remove it. But color of the hair clearly dark brown, not even light brown. Far from being red.

This is clearly 100% dark hair with shades of brown. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg/800px-YuanEmperorAlbumOgedeiPortrait.jpg But than again this is just my opinion. Vamlos (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion - Red Hair Capital of the World
Reference to red head capital of the world for Edinburgh is simply a reference to the amount of red hair gene carriers. It does not directly relate to the number of people who have red hair. If it did then almost 1 in 2 people in Edinburgh would have red hair which is complete rubbish. It’s a tabloid headline. No problem to mention highest level of gene carriers - which is accurate, but highest number of red haired people is not and therefore neither is the title of “red haired capital of the world”.

The very first line of the referenced article for Edinburgh being the “red head capital” states: “EDINBURGH is the world capital for the red-hair gene” Let’s stick to what is said and not what we would like it to say.

S.Staines (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It also just says 'world capital for ginger hair' twice, the source is properly summerized. The parallel language you're adding about Ireland, on the other hand, is unsourced. Also see WP:BRD and kindly revert yourself until your edits find some sort of consensus on the talk page. Your WP:OR is noted, but we can't subtitute our personal beliefs about what is 'complete rubbish' for the sources. MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s completely logical that the place with the highest per-capita incidence of red hair would be the “red hair” capital of the world, ie Ireland. To not use the phrase because a newspaper incorrectly correlated being a gene carrier with actual incidence of red hair is illogical.


 * No problem to say Edinburgh is the gene carrying capital though, as that’s what it actually is. Can remove the claim re Ireland if it reaches consensus.S.Staines (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, We don't use our 'logic' to override what the sources say, that is WP:OR. MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we really going to go through this again? What new sources do you have that changes things? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, no problem to say Edinburgh is highest proportion of gene carriers in the world; which is what it is.S.Staines (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And what about the other stuff you are adding? Please stop your edit warring and get consensus for your changes before adding them.
 * Yes, there is a 'redhead day' in the Netherlands, and it is already in the article, and sourced. And neither that source, or the one you added, says "The Netherlands and Belgium also have a high incidence of red hair", or anything like it.
 * The source you added from the Belfast Telegraph says nothing about Ireland being "red head capital", and in fact doesn't even say Ireland proportionally has more redheads than Scotland or the North of England. It also uses the company  "Irelands- DNA" as a source which, as has already been discussed here is a commercial company selling DNA tests and are not a good source for this kind of research.
 * Personally, I'd be happy if the reference to "capital" was removed entirely. It's a vague headline grabber, and have it replaced with something more accurate.  The term "red head carriers" also isn't clear, and could be improved.
 * -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Carrot head" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Carrot head. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Example picture probably doesn't show a redhead
The first picture shows a woman who clearly has red dyed hair. You can even see the roots. Since the article is about the phenotype in homo sapiens, it's extremely misleading and should either be removed entirely or labeled accordingly. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlking24 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Offensive
Why are you allowing offensive names to be described as though they are alternative names to describe red heads? Bloodnut and carrot top... seriously!?

60.234.87.141 (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Removed not because its "offensive" but because it doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead section. Meatsgains (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Fenotyp dawnich Slowian
This is the source given for red hair in Slavs from the medieval period:

https://www.academia.edu/42097102/Fenotyp_dawnych_S%C5%82owian_VI_X_w_

Page 210:

English:

From official English abstract:

- Hunan201p (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Slavs
Dolukhanov doesn't say anywhere that early Slavs were ruddy haired. It says they were neither light nor dark haired. The only instance of the word "ruddy" in your link refers to skin color (the color of their faces).

Barford likewise fails to verify. Neither one of these sources can compare to Stanaszek (2001) which, as shown in the talk page discussion above this one, is a detailed analysis of multiple historical accounts of early Slavs. If you can find a source that says early Slavs were red or ruddy haired, please post it here with quotes before adding it to the article. - Hunan201p (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hunan201p, Procopius wrote "while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or very blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are slightly ruddy in color, also Jordanes wrote "their skin and hair are neither very dark nor light, but are ruddy of face". Also, the image you see clearly shows this. These were the earliest desciptions of Early Slavs, later desiptions showed varition between hair and skin tone. --E-960 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The content you are posting isn't showing up anywhere in the sources you posted. You need verifiable quotes that are the sources you post. Stanaszek of course covered Procopius and Jordanes in his 2001 paper, as well ss other ancient sources, and did not reach the same conclusions you are coming to. None of tbese authors says that the Slavs were ruddy haired, only some say that their hair was slightly ruddy.
 * Also, we are not allowed to mske judgmentd about what an ancient historian "meant" based on our own anaoysis of a picture on Wikimedia. That's called original research.
 * You need reliable secondary sources to support your claim that most ancient authors described the Early Slavs as ruddy haired. So far the only source meeting that criteria is Stanaszek, and he says they were only slightly ruddy haired. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * These are secondary sources, which cite primary sources to illustrte how Early Slavs looked like, The apperance changed overtime when Slavs came in contact with Iranian, Germanic and Illyrian peoles. --E-960 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown where in your citations it says any of this. Stanaszek says nothing about Iranians or Germans. None of the quotes describe early Slavs as ruddy haired. Stanaszek describes them, based on multiple sources inckuding Procopius and Jordannes, as being dark blond, slightly ruddy hair:
 * - Hunan201p (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I inluded the quotes form Procopius and Jordanes, please read what it exactly says. I'll adjust the text to reference Procupius and Jordanes and not make a summary, which may come across like OR. Stanaszek is just one historian, and he cleary has his POV, since even the image from the Gosple Book shows the Slavs as ruddy and not pale as Stanaszek claims. --E-960 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your quotes do not say anywhere that the Early Slavs were ruddy haired. The use of the word "ruddy", in this instance, refers only to skin color. The quotes from Jordannes and Procopius aren't anywhere in your sources, so it appears you're actually falsifying works. You are not allowed to declare which sources are biased and which aren't based on your own analysis of a random picture. You're treading thin ice with this kind of behavior.
 * Below is the exact reference from Stanaszek on Procopius, page 208,:
 * As you can see, and consistent with your own quotes, it does not say anywhere that the Slavs are ruddy haired, but that their hair is primarily dark blond with a reddish tinge. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As you can see, and consistent with your own quotes, it does not say anywhere that the Slavs are ruddy haired, but that their hair is primarily dark blond with a reddish tinge. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm seeing this quote from PROCOPIUS: "For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or blonde, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type, but they are all slightly ruddy in color." "Ruddy" being a referene to both hair and skin tone, which BTW, just happens to match the image of a Slav form the Gospel Book, Remeber, Stanaszek is just one historian, and he has his views and reaserch, but is not be all end all on this matter. --E-960 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As if it needs repeating, you are not allowed to personally declare which sources are valid and which aren't based on your interpretation of an image of one Slav from an unrelated author, combined with your mis-interpretation of the Procopius quote. At present, you are declaring yourself the be-all-end-all on this matter, based on your own interpretation of a combo of direct historical quotes, ancient paintings, and unverified sources, in direct violation of WP:OR and WP:SECONDARY. Stanszek has summarized the work of more than 5 ancient historians, not just Procopius and Jordannes. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not mis-representing anything, this is was Procopius and Jordanes wrote you have the EXACT quotes, and I've adjusted the text to be more speficic. If you want to incldue Stanaszek's summary view, you can do that in the next sentance (however you need to say According to Stanaszek...). So, don't start to accuse other editors of"misrepresenting" sources when I give you the exact text. --E-960 (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * By combining quotes from Procopius and Jordannes to suggest that Slavs are ruddy haired, you have synthesized two sources to say something that neither does:
 * What you have is a quote from Procopius saying that their overall complexion, including possibly hair, is slightly ruddy, and a quote from Jordannes that says only their face is ruddy. That's a far cry from "early Slavs were ruddy haired". What you should do is use Stanaszek's summary which made the commonsense observation that their hair was slightly ruddy, and not your own synthesis of two different sources to reach a conclusion that neither suggested. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hunan201p, but, they don't say they are blond either, so Stanszek's statement is not some be all end all analysis on this. In any case, I included Stanszek in a seperete sentance. --E-960 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hunan201p, but, they don't say they are blond either, so Stanszek's statement is not some be all end all analysis on this. In any case, I included Stanszek in a seperete sentance. --E-960 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)