Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against people with red hair


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a consensus that sourcing exists for an article about the general subject of bias/prejudice/discrimination against red-haired persons. The most appropriate title for the article and questions of whether the subject is a real phenomenon are issues that can be addressed outside of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination against people with red hair

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I could not find any scientific paper that states discrimination against red haired people actually exists. Most of the article is a synthesis of the material that consists of singular instances of offenses against red haired people or content that is referenced to opinion pieces, which are considered to be unreliable by the Wikipedia community. The very few academic sources cited in the article don't relate to the alleged discrimination against red haired people. Some of them are used for non-discrimination related topics as the biological causes of red hair. Another academic study from 1940s in the article states that red haired people are more likely to be criminals, however, this does not necessarily mean there is a discrimination against red haired people; representing this as a discrimination is an original research. Besides, I believe, the article uses a very strong and biased language, and contains factual errors, some of which I have pointed out at the talk page. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: I've revised my suggestion to moving the article instead of deleting it for reason stated below in the discussion. Sorry, forgot to update my first post earlier.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

P.P.S: (important) I kindly ask the closer of this discussion to evaluate the strength of claims based on related Wikipedia policies. Because in some cases, a user referenced opinion pieces by a news organization as a reliable source and the discussion sometimes headed towards off-topic discourses with sarcastic answers involved. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

P.P.P.S: I have extended the source analysis to show that why the sources do not support that alleged discrimination exists.--John the Janitor (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first sentence, I searched JSTOR and at least the title Ugly Duckling to Swan: Labeling Theory and the Stigmatization of Red Hair at least looks like something. Red hair and crime has been discussed (this article is somewhat laughable, like this one as well). Although not discrimination per se, the red hair colour is the least preferred. I only looked through two pages of search hits. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The first article discusses the social stigma and labeling against red haired people; it does not conclude that red haired people are systematically discriminated based on their hair color. Also, the article does not even use a single instance of the word "discrimination". The study concludes, However, it does not conclude that they are systematically discriminated, and even adds that blonde people are also stereotyped based on their hair color,  So, should we also conclude that there is a systematic "discrimination" against blonde people? Even so, the researchers state they interviewed only white people; this is not enough to make an assumption for the general population. Other sources you've shared, again, do not directly say that red haired people are discriminated. However, reviewing the sources you've presented, I think, the best thing to do would be having an article like Social stigma against hair color. Concluding that discrimination exists from these sources is an original research, I think. Because none of the sources directly classify their findings as a discrimination.--John the Janitor (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not something does or does not exist is not a question for AfD. We keep articles if the subject of the article is WP:N even if what it is about is false, fabricated, or fictitious. For instance, we have an article on Female hysteria even though it's not a real thing. Based on a preponderance of RS, however, it is notable. Chetsford (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with legitimacy of your view point, however, I had already changed my position from deleting to moving it before you wrote this. I've explained the reasons below. Sorry for not clarifying my position.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I disagree with the above comments stating that this is WP:OR. Appears to be well referenced. If opponents and supporters want to elaborate on the references through a grid, I am willing to listen further. Also willing to consider a merger to another appropriate article on discrimination of people due to bodily attributes. So far though, I believe this article is viable as it is. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's well referenced. The number of sources cited is high but that doesn't mean they are good quality sources. Most of the current references are opinion pieces. There are academic works cited but none of them directly state that the alleged discrimination actually exists. If conclude that "discrimination" exists without a high quality scholarly work directly telling us, I believe, it's an original research. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to attempt to add a grid in due time as you've suggested. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Source analysis
It is still work in process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John the Janitor (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This has been downgraded to a level-4 header, since it is part of the AfD. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀 Locomotive207 - talk  🌀  03:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment we have articles on Red hair, which could be a useful merge-target if it's decided there is not sufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article on discrimination. We also have an article on Discrimination_based_on_hair_texture, so it's easy enough to imagine a sister article, Discrimination_based_on_hair_color, which could deal with both discrimination against red-headed people, and also dumb-blonde stereotyping, etc. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably the best outcome is to merge any well supported content into Social stigma and hair color or similar article. I'm a natural redhead and I don't think that systematic discrimination against red hair exists. JTJ shows that the sources don't support this either. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form. I haven't looked in detail into other sources, but at least the Symbolic Interaction article is convincing with regards to stereotyping of red-haired people and how it affects their development akin to discrimination. No objection to renaming and re-scoping this article to Social stigma against hair color, which should then also contain some discussion on e.g. Blonde stereotype as it relates to social stigma. feminist (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The nomination and source analysis are seriously misguided. It can be entirely appropriate to include material in this article even if the source does not use the word "discrimination". Prejudice, bias, less likely sexual attraction and stereotyping may be (and are likely to be) aspects of discrimination. Articles may include opinions of relevant writers and non-scientific publications. Poorly written material should lead to improvement by editing, not article deletion. Editing of the article and commentary on its talk page should continue. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Two of the Delete / Merge !votes present non-policy based arguments: (a) I'm a natural redhead and I don't think that systematic discrimination against red hair exists. - this is WP:OR; (b) the claim the WP:RS don't cite scientific studies - this has never been a requirement of WP:N and is not accurate in any case. Further, we don't delete articles merely because the underlying premise of the topic is not true (e.g. Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, etc.), we delete articles if they are not notable. Whether or not there is discrimination against people with red hair, the topic is notable as evidenced by the fact it is discussed in WP:RS, which treats it as a distinct and compact subject. For example:
 * "Ugly Duckling to Swan: Labeling Theory and the Stigmatization of Red Hair" in Symbolic Interaction (journal)
 * "The science behind anti-redhead prejudice" in The Week
 * "Is there a bias against redheads in football?" in Orlando Sentinel
 * "Gingerism is real" in The Guardian
 * "An Examination of Stereotypes About Hair Color in Psychology Today
 * "Should ginger-bashing be considered a hate crime?" in New Statesman
 * "Redheads 'easy targets for bullies', claims researcher in BBC News
 * etc., etc. The third "delete" argument is that terms like "bias" and "prejudice" - as used in the RS - aren't close enough synonyms to "discrimination" to justify the existence of an article named thusly. There is no policy basis for such a ridiculous argument which is inconsistent with our WP:CRITERIA in any case. Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding third argument, we usually use the most common name preferred by reliable sources. As only a part of the opinion pieces name it discrimination and none of the high quality academic sources call it discrimination, it is highly questionable that 'discrimination' is the right name.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First, welcome to Wikipedia. It's great to see you've delved so fully into AfD 45 days after joining us. Second, you keep referencing opinion pieces of which I can only find four among the dozens of references in this article. All of these are clearly used to support a named claim, and not present something in WP's own voice. Chetsford (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please describe and show the RS sources that call it discrimination on the grid above. This elaboration would help us to determine how many reliable sources really support the discrimination view. Thank you.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I won't do that because your premise that the word "discrimination" must be invoked (rather than synonyms like "bias" or "prejudice") is faulty, as has been explained to you. Chetsford (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * However, according to WP:CRITERIA you've shared with me earlier, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." How could we be sure that 'discrimination' is the common name, if you refuse to elaborate it?--John the Janitor (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's indeed a mystery. Chetsford (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really disappointed to hear that I believed that our discussion could bear fruit to a better article. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep/Move If the research doesn't support that discrimination exists, then simply state that in the article. The validity of discrimination and the notability of the topic are different issues. Orb4peace (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you've missed it but I had revised changed my suggestion to changing the article's name. Do you you agree on that an article like Social stigma against hair color would be better and more accurate? Nevertheless, I disagree with your point that . Notability does require references to be reliable sources; opinion pieces are not reliable sources for an exceptional claim like a systematic discrimination against a group of people. Currently, I believe, this article is a red flag, as it implies that the alleged discrimination exist without enough evidence, and not only in content but also in name.--John the Janitor (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you generally, and think it should be renamed to avoid lending weight to an unsupported hypothesis. Maybe something like Societal views of red hair? Orb4peace (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, could you please cross your old view in bold please (or change it to "move"), as it could cause confusion. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the content of the article clearly isn't about the narrow subject of social stigma, but about the broader subject of discrimination, which also encompasses social stigma. Whether or not actual discrimination exists is irrelevant for purposes of WP:N in the same way we don't delete articles like female hysteria or Morgellons merely because they're about non-existent things. It's widely covered in RS and, therefore, crests the threshold of N. Any more nuanced discussion belongs on the Talk page of the article. Chetsford (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've explained that opinion pieces are not reliable sources for an exceptional claim. If you think there are in fact reliable sources that call it that way as you claim, you should explain it in the grid above. Besides, there even are a-lot of non-academic sources cited in the article that don't call this discrimination. Current article name gives a false balance to the subject. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "I've explained that opinion pieces are not reliable sources for an exceptional claim." You keep talking about opinion pieces being used to support exceptional claims but you have yet to actually point out any instances of that occurring. By my count, there are four opinion pieces among the 54 references in this article and they all seem to be used to cite the opinion of the authors rather than making any factual claims. I haven't looked at it closely, however, so look forward to you correcting me if I have missed something. Chetsford (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that you can share the four opinion pieces that you've determined. This way, I wouldn't accidentally check the references which were already checked by you. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'll let you know if you do. Just go ahead and post all the opinion pieces you think are being used to support exceptional claim
 * I am sorry to say this but I think your attitude here is not constructive. I only asked you to share with me the sources you've determined. We are not rivals here who try to prove that each other's opinion is faulty. Instead, we should help each other to critically analyze each other's opinion. If you share the sources you've determined, it will help us to create a better article, and eventually a better encyclopedia. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I realize you're new to WP, but AfD is not a hostage negotiation. You've nominated this article for deletion on the premise that it's extensively sourced to opinion pieces being used to support exceptional claims. I've asked you to provide evidence of this and you've responded demanding various demonstrations from me first. The onus is yours to demonstrate whether this meets the criteria for deletion, not mine. It's a little unconventional to issue ransom demands in an AfD. Chetsford (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I only asked you to share the sources you have determined, so, I wouldn't need to check them again. I can't really understand how you can compare it to a "hostage negotiation". Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence to support your statement that opinion pieces are being used to source exceptional claims in this article? Third request. Chetsford (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, you say above that the article is covered by RS, and put a link to this article, which is an opinion piece. Here is another opinion piece cited in the article. Article uses them to give a false balance such as this one . Best regards. --John the Janitor (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to emphasize that the opinion piece not only claims that alleged discrimination exists but also determines that its causes are "imperialism, religious bigotry and war".--John the Janitor (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, I changed it in the article to read "according to Ally Fogg, writing in The Guardian" which is a normal use of an opinion piece per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Anything else or was that basically it? (P.S. You're welcome to make those changes yourself. See WP:DINC.) Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mentioning it in the article as "according to" is not enough to claim that a discrimination against red-haired people exists because of "war", "religious bigotry", and "imperialism". It is still an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. It is currently a red flag that gives false balance.--John the Janitor (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with the presentation of one of the 54 sources in this article, I'd suggest you open a discussion on the Talk page. Deletion is not for routine article cleanup. Chetsford (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am really disappointed that you regard this instance of false balance as a singular content issue rather than an evidence showing a general trend of false balance towards a particular view point on the subject, which I elaborated on with other evidence in the reference grid above. I have also multiple times stated that I have changed my position from deleting the article to moving it to a more appropriate name, which is a possible AfD outcome. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep adequately sourced
 * I think care should be taken to distinguish between "discrimination" and "systemic discrimination" (one kind of discrimination). Much has been argued re systemic discrimination, but that's not in the title of the article, and it only appears once in the article (in the U.K.) section.  signed, Willondon (talk)  14:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not supported by reliable sources in both cases. Would you consider moving the article instead of keeping it? If you still disagree, can you please elaborate on which reliable sources state that discrimination exists?--John the Janitor (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also extended the source analysis; you can check it, if you are interested.--John the Janitor (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.