Talk:Blond

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please see my above post for an explanation of the following edits.

Please change:

Geneticist David Reich said that the hundreds of millions of copies of this SNP, the classic European blond hair mutation, entered continental Europe by way of a massive population migration from the Eurasian steppe, by a people who had substantial Ancient North Eurasian ancestry.^{[1][a 1]}

Ancient North Eurasian admixture is present in mesolithic fossils from Northern Europe, and is linked to the prediction of blond hair in stone-age Scandinavians by ancient DNA analysis.^[2]

Gavin Evans analyzed several years of research on the origin of European blond hair, and concluded that the widespread presence of blond hair in Europe is largely due to the territorial expansions of the "all-conquering" Western Steppe Herders; who carried the genes for blond hair.^{[3][a 2]}

A review article published in 2020 analyzes fossil data from a wide variety of published sources. The authors affirm the previous statements, noting that Ancient North Eurasian-derived populations carried the derived blond hair allele to Europe, and that the "massive spread" of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists likely caused the "rapid selective sweep in European populations toward light skin and hair."^[4]

to this:

The precise genetic origin and spread of blond hair into its present-day distribution is a topic of debate amongst population geneticists.

Geneticist David Reich said that the hundreds of millions of copies of this SNP, the classic European blond hair mutation, entered continental Europe by way of a massive population migration from the Eurasian steppe, by a people who had substantial Ancient North Eurasian ancestry.^{[1][a 3]} Ancient North Eurasian admixture is present in mesolithic fossils from Northern Europe, and is linked to the prediction of blond hair in stone-age Scandinavians by ancient DNA analysis.^[2] Gavin Evans analyzed several years of research on the origin of European blond hair, and concluded that the widespread presence of blond hair in Europe is largely due to the territorial expansions of the "all-conquering" Western Steppe Herders; who carried the genes for blond hair.^{[3][a 4]} A review article published in 2020 analyzes fossil data from a wide variety of published sources. The authors affirm the previous statements, noting that Ancient North Eurasian-derived populations carried the derived blond hair allele to Europe, and that the "massive spread" of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists likely caused the "rapid selective sweep in European populations toward light skin and hair."^[4]

In contrast, geneticist Isof Lazaridis in his 2022 paper showed that blond hair did not spread into Europe with steppe pastoralists carrying Ancient North Eurasian ancestry. Regarding the genetic history of light hair, eyes, and skin, the authors state that "aspects of this phenotype were distributed in the past among diverse ancestral populations and did not coincide in any single population except as isolated individuals, and certainly not in any of the proposed homelands of the Indo-European language family. The study analyzed thousands of newly sequenced ancient samples and identified genetic mutations for blond hair in individuals belonging to the neolithic Linear Pottery Culture of North and Central Europe, the Neolithic of Anatolia (Turkey) at Barcın, Chalcolithic Southeastern Europe (Romania at Bodrogkeresztur), Chalcolithic of the Levant (Israel), and a Minoan from Lasithi. These populations did not carry Ancient North Eurasian ancestry. Furthermore, Lazaridis noted that blond hair was virtually absent amongst the earliest steppe pastoralist groups such as the Yamnaya and Afanasievo cultures, but nominally higher in later steppe groups possessing Early European Farmer ancestry such as the Bell Beaker Culture. Lazaridis concluded that the prevalence of blond hair across ancient samples was "in reverse relationship to steppe ancestry, and thus inconsistent with the theory that steppe groups were spreading this set of phenotypes."^[5]

A 2019 study examining the neolithic Globular Amphora Culture found that all tested individuals carried the mutated allele rs12821256 of the KITLG gene encoding for blond hair.^[6] Notably, these Early European Farmers did not possess ancestry from Indo-European steppe pastoralists, and therefore lacked ancestry from Ancient North Eurasians.^[7]

Noleb (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that you need to address the length of that quote. It is likely a copyright violation at that length.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

But likely a good edit, other than that.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done without the quote. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Noleb wrote: "A 2019 study examining the neolithic Globular Amphora Culture found that all tested individuals carried the mutated allele rs12821256 of the KITLG gene encoding for blond hair.[36] Notably, these Early European Farmers did not possess ancestry from Indo-European steppe pastoralists, and therefore lacked ancestry from Ancient North Eurasians.[37]"

Some original research - synthesis has taken place here. Reference 37 and 36 are two completely different papers, using two different samples. The first referencce, Vai (2021) uses a sample from Kierzkowo, Poland. While the second reference, Schroeder (2019) uses a sample from Koszyce, Poland.

Neither reference says anything about the origin of blond hair, or of Ancient North Eurasians. It appears that Noleb has taken the pigmentation SNP data from Vai (2021), supplementary document 4 (in the excel file), and then combined that with the absence of Steppe ancestry from Schroder (2019). Yet these are two completely different samples and papers.

Noleb does this to make a point that is stated by neither paper. Which means they've breached the guidelines WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL to push their POV against the hypothesis that thers12821256_G allele is from the Ancient North Eurasians.

See the Schroeder paper, including the Supplementary Materials files. The relevant Documents are 01 and 05. There's nothing about anything like what Noleb has tried to add to the article. Red Book Librarian (talk)

This section on genetics is definitely garbage. There is not a the mutation for blond hair. The exact genetic sequences involved are unknown. I have blond hair well into adulthood as do immediate family members and yet I personally lack "the mutation for blond hair". Not one of them and it's likely the same across the family.

https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs12821256

Here you can see that the mutation claimed to be the blond mutation is not. It simply is one possible mutation with a strong signal in mice and associated with blond hair at higher mutation rates in certain populations. The section just goes straight into origin skipping the genetics and it seems almost like a prank. Some kind of Aryan reference? "rapid selective sweep in European populations toward light skin and hair." this may also be based on nonsense. There's an SNP on one of the SLC genes that's associated with lighter features but it only accounts for a proportion of the potential effect and is not really well tested at all especially as it's so ubiquitous in Europe. The SLC mutations when tested in one or two very dark populations makes them something like 15% to 30% if I remember but that doesn't tell you the historic effect or effect in Europeans where it is surely the case that shade is highly poly genetic. It's also tested mainly in zebrafish so again, misleading. The mutation is not standard across the rest of the world, it's a relatively recent one with very high frequency in Europe which raises an eyebrow. It's really only there recently and is almost a marker of being European. This means other lighter skinned people such as in East Asia lack it. I suspect again that some kind of racial pseudoscience prank is afoot here with a white skin mutation claimed as also a European mutation but it's more complex than that. It's as the least a series of gross simplifications treating identified SNPs with highest apparent contribution as though the one switch for it all which is not the case. Is it possible to just put the mischief aside and for someone with a good background in genetics to clean up this section a bit so as to actually go into the genetics properly or at least correct the English so it's not making it out like it *the* blond hair mutation? I would advise extreme caution on genetics especially human as there is a lot of sensationalism and jumping the gun. When I put in my variants into hirisplex I seem to get a bit darker than I actually am and those mutations are the same as are being discussed here. There's just way too much over reliance on single SNPs when it's rather obvious that there's just general selection for depigmentation and therefore surely a great many variants in a number of permutations in that direction with some possible evidence from what I've personally seen of nearby groups mixing combining strategies for depigmentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.111.175.88 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting a simple grammar edit to this portion of the Blond article under "Medieval Europe" --

'Because of blond hair's relative commonness in northern Europe, folk tales from these regions tend to feature large numbers of blond protagonists. Although these stories may not have been seen by their original tellers as idealizing blond hair, Furthermore, it is noted that there is also a black-haired ideal of female beauty in northern Europe, as shown in plays like Snow White and other forms of entertainment portraying black-haired heroines.'

I believe it should be --

'...folk tales from these regions tend to feature large numbers of blond protagonists, although these stories may not have been seen by their original tellers as idealizing blond hair. Furthermore...' WikiDelChe (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden What is the problem with source from Dio Chrysostom? He clearly says that the epithet golden has nothing to do with Aphrodite's hair. Her hair was described in different colors afterwards, but Homer says nothing about it. Becarefulbro (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

What you added: "Although it's not referring to her hair"

What the source says: "Now adornment of hair seems to become men more than women according to Homer, for when he discourses of the beauty of women, he does not so often seem to have recalled to mind their hair. He praises those amongst the deities who are female, in other ways, he makes Aphrodite "golden", Hera "ox-eyed" and Thetis "silver-footed"; but in the case of Zeus he praises his hair most of all: The ambrosial locks of the king floated waving from his head."

Your interpretation (which is fine) is what you've added to the article, the source does not explicitly support such definitive wording.

In fact, from what I can see the reference for the "golden" epithet included makes no direct mention in connection to hair color either, so I will also remove that for now. TylerBurden (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden, the source does not say directly "golden does not refer to hair," but says indirectly: "he makes Aphrodite "golden", Hera "ox-eyed" and Thetis "silver-footed"; but in the case of Zeus he praises his hair most of all". Anyway, thanks. The section actually requires a lot more text remove. Becarefulbro (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

For accuracy, the primary meaning of the word xanthos was yellow and golden. Except for describing hair, the word was also used to describe various objects with a yellowish colour. It could at times be used with a secondary meaning to refer to shades of yellow, such as reddish brown, auburn etc. however, that was less common and these descriptions are found mostly in different contexts, and not for hair. Piccco (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco, her epithet (golden) is khrysee, not xanthos. Actually xanthos probably referred to brown and light brown hair in most cases, since there are more people with brownish hair than with blondish. Greeks had no other word for brown hair. There is a similar thing in the Irish language, word buí means yellow, but brownish when referring to hair. Becarefulbro (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The secondary source that was originally used in the text (Pitman 2003) makes a clear connection between the epithet 'golden' and blond hair, as it is evident in pages 12-13: With Aphrodite's seal of approval, golden hair had become a tangible sign not only of great beauty [...] For Greeks, golden blondeness was already associated with some powerful imagery. Homer lingered obsessively over his gorgeous Aphrodite raising her fully formed from the foaming sea wearing nothing but her rippling blonde hair. 'Golden' was the master epithet of Aphrodite in all of Homer's work. On the other hand, Dio Chrysostom's Economicum (praise) of hair, which was recently discussed (without even a chapter, page etc.) is a wp:primary source, and particulalry a mock essay, from a much later period, similar to Synesius' even later Eulogy of Baldness (a 5th century commentary on Dio), which is the actual origin of the recenttly discussed quote (Dio's speech [9]). Piccco (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco, Pitman has no evidence and is irrelevant. Ancient source Dio Chrysostom confirms that epithet golden does not refer to hair. Also Bacchylides says "...to speak well of golden, violet-haired Cypris", this indirectly indicates that golden and hair are different things. I think you either need to remove that passage from the article, or add Dio's opinion. Becarefulbro (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not how wikipedia works. We don't go based on our own interpretations of ancient sources, and especially what they indirectly may or may not imply. This is the textbook definition of original research (WP:OR). In wikipedia we use secondary sources where modern authors analyze and evaluate the ancient text. Ancient authors are primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) and, apart from some exceptions, we cannot use raw text taken from an ancient author as a source, let alone when the text is so allusive and was not intended to be a reliable source in the first place. I already told you how Synesius' 5th century Eulogy of Balndness is merely a response to Dio's Praise of Hair, light-hearted mock essays, written more than a millennium after Homer's work. They were not meant to record mythical beliefs, but were merely pieces for entertainment. That's why they remain obscure and their contents are far from treated as mythological canons, like Homer or Hesiod. Piccco (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco, Synesius completely copies the speech of Dio Chrysostom from his work of the 1st century AD. Dio says with full confidence that khrysee (golden) does not refer to her hair, it was apparently well known in antiquity, but may refer to her beauty for example. It's Pitman's job to prove why khrysee refers to hair, not the other way around. Becarefulbro (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If the origin of the quote itself is from Synesius' work (when looking I found it in the Eulogy of Baldness), then it is still Synesius and we can't attribute it to an existing Dio's work, the way you did, because this is source falsification. Secondly, the sentence doesn't say anything controversial; Chrysee is indeed an epithet of Aphrodite. Lastly and most importantly, my previous points still stand; the ancient text itself is a primary source and making our own interpretations based on it constitutes original research. Piccco (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco, Synesius simply quoted Dio's Encomium on hair. Many ancient works have been preserved in the form of quotations from later authors, there is no reason to believe that Synesius distorted original text of Dio. It looks like that epithet was widely known in antiquity as referring to personality of Aphrodite and not to her hair. Pitman does not provide evidence that khrysee refers to hair, how can he be a better source than man who lived in ancient era? Becarefulbro (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you haven't been paying much attention to what I've been saying in my previous responses, and in particular the wikipedia rules that I indicated you. Instead, I see even more assumptions. Everything I had to say is included in my previous responses so I don't think there's a reason to repeat myself. Piccco (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco. how can this be "original research" and "own interpretations of ancient source" if the meaning of Dio's passage is clear without analysis from modern authors? I don't know how to look for such modern sources and whether there are any on this topic at all. Pitman probably didn't know about Dio's passage and just assumed that golden and her hair are related. Apollo was khrusokomas by Homer, literal golden-haired, Aphrodite was just chrysee. Only later poets described her as xanthos, violet-haired, etc, Homer didn't. Becarefulbro (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't make the wikipedia rules. I already told you that the sentence in question says nothing controversial, but merely that Aphrodite's epithet was chrysee. Piccco (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco, It's written in such a way that "golden" refers to hair when we know for sure it's not. That misleads readers. We can add "although according to Dio Chrysostom, this epithet doesn't refer to hair", or we can make a note. Your thoughts? Becarefulbro (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It is possible that golden could refer to hair, since the adjective was used to describe hair in ancient texts. That's why it is there, eventhough we don't explicitly state that. Regarding the second part, I have already adequately responded. Piccco (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco, we have evidence that chrysee was not perceived by ancients as reference to hair, which I think should be mentioned at least as a note. By the way some modern sources claim that even chrusokomas isn't referring to actual hair color, see this, although I disagree. What do you think specifically about creating a note? Becarefulbro (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that chrysee/ chrysokomas isn't referring to a hair color, but that this color was probably perceived by the painter in question as unnatural for a depiction. Among others, it says that the hair of Apollo was thought to have been fair and even when vase painters depicted it as dark (for reasons such as the limited palette of the two-color techniqes) it didn't mean they believed it was. Piccco (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco. Ion of Chios passage is

You are a great man in poetry, O Sophocles; but still Phrynichus did not say well when he called purple cheeks a mark of beauty. For if a painter were to cover the cheeks of this boy with purple paint he would not be beautiful at all. And so it is not well to compare what is beautiful with what is not so.' And on this Sophocles, laughing at the Eretrian, said,—' Then, my friend, I suppose you are not pleased with the line in Simonides which is generally considered among the Greeks to be a beautiful one—

The maid pour'd forth a gentle voice

From out her purple mouth.

And you do not either like the poet who spoke of the golden-haired' Apollo; for if a painter were to represent the hair of the god as actually golden, and not black, the picture would be all the worse. Nor do you approve of the poet who spoke of rosy-fingered. For if any one were to dip his fingers in rosy-coloured paint he would make his hands like those of a purple-dyer, and not of a pretty woman.

That source implies that chrusokomas was just a poetic device, and xanthos and melanos are actual colors. I don't agree with this and think that chrusokomas really described blond hair (for example, Sulla's hair was described as chrusopon), and that passage of Ion means that Greeks mostly preferred to depict gods in art like themselves and did not attach much importance to poetic descriptions. Otherwise, there would be word xanthos instead of melanos (black). But we've strayed from the subject. What about notes? Becarefulbro (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, chrysokomas obviously described blond hair since it literally means 'golden hair' (a hyperbole, since hair couldn't be made of literal gold), but to paint a figure with literal gold (and not black [or blond] paint, as the author adds) was though by the paiter to be unnutural. BUT in any case, this is indeed irrelevant here. I already told you about about the wikpedia rules, please take a look and do not keep asking me to just ignore them. (also, no need to tag me every time). Piccco (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no [or xanthos], this is the author's speculation. Ion could have used xanthos, or both xanthos and black, but he only used black, so the author is probably wrong. But ok, it's irrelevant. I found something else in Dio Chrysostom:

For he did not have to go anywhere for his sexual gratification but, as he humorously put it, he found Aphrodite everywhere, without expense; p261 and the poets libelled the goddess, he maintained, on account of their own want of self-control, when they called her "the all-golden."

And note by the Loeb Editor:

The epithet as applied to Aphrodite referred originally to the golden adornment of her statues (cf. Hesiod, Works and Days, v.519), or the wealth of her shrines, or her beauty; just as in Homer she is χρυσέη Ἀφροδίτη, Diogenes twists the word πολύχρυσος to mean "costing much gold." Becarefulbro (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe this could work. I added all the possible interpretations in a note, next to the sentence. Piccco (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Can I also add this p343 as a second source? Becarefulbro (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this the Economicum of hair? If so, it is primary source and we can't use it like that. The previous source is used because of the author's footnotes. Piccco (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Piccco, the primary source proves that Pitman claim is baseless wishful thinking and is not worth mentioning. Do you have any ideas how to use this source without breaking the rules? Can we just quote it in a note? Becarefulbro (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

How about an image that is facing into the text? It seems quite jarring for the person in this prominently-placed image to be looking outside the page, which draws readers eyes in that direction. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I personally don't really see anything wrong with this. The attention is drawn entirely on the blond hair. The text remains right in front of the reader's eyes. Piccco (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

"Honesty is the best policy", or so I've heard. Pertinent to the request, the reason that images looking outward are not often used on the left side of the page is that they draw the readers eyes away from the text, and visa versa. This effect is enhanced with an image such as this one, which is looking directly outward from the text. As for the hair in the image, the darkness of the beard and much of the hair doesn't portray 'blond' as much as a mix of dark and blond hair. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood what you meant. I've heard this before, although this is more up to personal preferences and not really a rule that is strictly followed. I only commented based on my own experience, since the direction of one's face never caused me any confusion when reading an article. I can't see how one's eyes can be "drawn" out of the article (whatever that means), when the text is right in the middle. That said, my comment isn't necessarily an "oppose" either. Piccco (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I find the last sentence of the introduction to be unprofessional: "Which is obviously seen as misogynistic and untrue, and yet the stereotype is still used for jokes."

"Obviously" is an unnecessary adjective. "Which is obviously seen as misogynistic and untrue" has no source. I is pure opinion/emotion from the writer. "And yet the stereotype is still used for jokes" is unnecessary, as it is already discussed in the hyperlink in the previous sentence, referring to blonde stereotypes.

I suggest the entire last sentence of the intro be deleted. Removing the entire last sentence does not reduce the essence of the introduction; it is a completely redundant sentence in my opinion.

As a final note: I fully agree with the opinion of sentence: yes, I find the blonde stereotype to be misogynistic and untrue, however: It is not a matter of my disagreement with the sentiment of that last sentence, but entirely a matter of me thinking it adds sourceless opinion/emotion, where I think the strength of wikipedia lies in its professionalism. Dannydehz (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole string of edits contained numerous issues with both referencing and WP:NPOV, so a previous version of the article has now been restored. TylerBurden (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I ask you to please explain in detail which NPOV violations my edit commited. If we can agree to leave unedited the last sentence of the intro, "Which is obviously seen as misogynistic and untrue, and yet the stereotype is still used for jokes" we can certainly agree that my edits do not violate any NPOV guidelines Ruler in Peace (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That is you inserting your own opinion into the article, which is textbook violation of NPOV policy. TylerBurden (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Where did I insert my unbacked by sources opinion in the article rather than the current scientific consensus? Antiracism is not "my opinion", it's what's right. Ruler in Peace (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As for your edit summary here : Which is obviously seen as misogynistic and untrue, and yet the stereotype is still used for jokes, I would actually phrase that differently too. Please don't assume that people are acting this way because they're racist ("threatening your racist views" ). Again, please don't edit war. You can get blocked for this and there are other forms of dispute resolution. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but it was okay'd on this talk page, so I think that means other statements in the same vein are also valid. Otherwise it would be hypocritical.

Ok, noted, won't do it again. However I don't think I was edit warring, I was simply defending my edit against unfair accusations, because I did provide sources for all statements that were beyond question. I have now added sources to even those that I considered beyond question and altered them slightly so they seem less editorializing, although I disagree with the use of that term. A strong tone is not incompatible with the formality of an encyclopedia. Ruler in Peace (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You are writing statements in WP:WIKIVOICE, you can add different views to the article but they still need to follow NPOV policies such as WP:DUE weight. Statements in violation of NPOV and also formality you have added include:

• "All of these ideas are of course racist and untrue"
• "Which is obviously seen as misogynistic and untrue, and yet the stereotype is still used for jokes."

Do you see other Wikipedia articles written like this? Probably not, and that is because this is an encyclopedia and not a blog. TylerBurden (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe there is a misunderstanding. I did not add the second statement. That's my point. That statement was okay'd in this very talk page. Look further up in the thread, even you seemed to be ok with it and didn't revert it. So I think the fact that you only revert my edit is hypocritical. I have not engaged in NPOV violations, I do see other articles written like that. You continue to not reason why you wish to remove my edit (which is not limited to those statements). To argue against those two statements, one of which wasn't even added by my edit, and change my entire rv because of that makes no sense. I am not engaging in edit warring because I am perfectly fine with discussing the validity of my edits, which I have already altered to fit with criticism made by Clovermoss. I just revert changes that I think compromise the truthfulness and seriousness of the article, just like you do, because I don't receive any reasoned feedback as to why I should not. I hope this clarifies my position.

Best regards Ruler in Peace (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagreed with the racist tone that the article had in some places, and revised the article to improve accuracy and remove those instances. I am accused of edit warring and of adding statements contrary to the NPOV policy and to the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. In fact, neither statement that is cited in those accusations is in the article any longer, and one of them was not even added by my edit, but rather by a previous one which seemed to have been approved by this talk page. So please, provide a reasoned explanation as to why my edit violates NPOV or formality of tone that doesn't include those statements before reverting it. Thank you. Ruler in Peace (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The onus is on your to gain consensus for your edits . Clearly others disagree with them. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

How can I gain consensus if you are not open to debate at all? Can you explain what you find wrong with my edit? Then we can argue. I am trying to gain consensus, that's why I started this page, but reverting someone's edit without providing any reasons for it is not ok. Ruler in Peace (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please read the talk page and edit history before taking sides? My edit was accused by ONE user of going against NPOV, because they didn't like the tone of two sentences. One of those sentences had been agreed to by that very user. Then when the other sentence was added by my edit they randomly attributed the first one to me and used it to justify (absurdly since they had already agreed that that sentence was ok, it was only not ok when they thought I had put it there and associated it with the other sentence, which, for reasons I am not allowed to mention, they didn't like) reverting my edit.

And instead of just changing those sentences they reverted the entire editx which was much bigger than that, without giving any reasons. I note that my edit has only been objected to by this one user, while many have seen the page and clearly had no complaints. A loud minority should not be allowed to overrule a silent majority. Ruler in Peace (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You should also say that "strawberry blond" is a hybrid of blond and redhead, and that strawberry blond is technically still blond. Also, you should talk about how "blond" has started be become used for both males and females because some people have started to believe that spelling it as "blonde" for females is sexist, and that "blonde" has also been used an inaccurate spelling for males by some people. --2600:4040:A5F2:D300:3CDB:A3CC:1BA8:4302 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The article already describes strawberry blond in the third sentence. We're not going to add the rest of it because you haven't supplied a reliable source to support any of it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, everyone.

Is it okay if Lamno people from Aceh (compare Portuguese Indonesians) were to be included in Prevalence > Asia? It is theorised that they are the descendants of Portuguese traders (compare Acehnese people). Pompom the o (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources supporting their inclusion, I don't see why not. TylerBurden (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Our biography of Marilyn Monroe cites several sources for her not having naturally-blonde hair, but instead to have dyed it that way as she took up modelling etc. Given this, her presence in the 'Modern cultural stereotypes' section makes little sense, at least without informing readers of the fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I've now removed the content on Monroe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "and among some Asian people" to be changed to "and among some Central Asian people". 2A0A:EF40:13B6:7201:609B:D8D8:8CC5:4613 (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "and among some Asian people" to be changed to "and among some Central Asian people", in order to be more specific. 2A0A:EF40:13B6:7201:F97D:DB3B:9A47:2BC6 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's possibly a little too specific, as well as being unsourced. Certainly, central Asia now has the highest concentration of blond individuals, but (assuming our article is correct - I've not checked the sources) the distribution has sometimes been wider, and even now, it isn't exclusively confined to the central region. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "and among some Asian people" to be changed to "and among some West Asian, South Asian, and Central Asian people", in order to be more specific. 2A0A:EF40:1231:A801:F436:5726:340F:C843 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not start multiple threads on the same topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In the article the text reads: "According to the sociologist Christie Davies, only around five percent of adults in Europe and North America are naturally blond.[41] A study conducted in 2003 concluded that only four percent of American adults are naturally blond.[42]." However, upon chasing the sources down to their origin, On Blondes by Joanne Pitman, it does not seem as though Pitman provides a source for her assertions. Moreover, this information clearly contradicts the map detailing geographical prevalence of blondness in Europe, which by my rough estimate shows countries that are at least 60% of Europe's population being at least 20% blond. ~2026-43421 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

In the UK Blonde is used for everyone with blonde hair. The version in the LEAD is only for America. A note should be added. Inayity (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is true; as a British English speaker I certainly use both blonde and blond according to gender and see it used in BrEng. At least according to the OED the distinction is observed by some but not all speakers of both AmEng and BrEng; they say that for those who do not observe the distinction "blonde" is more common in BrEng and "blond" in AmEng. This level of detail about usage is probably not appropriate for the lead; if we're going to discuss it then put something in Blond#Usage.

(I will also note that in this archived talkpage thread there seems to be some dispute about what the standard American English usage actually is; some American style guides suggest "blond" should always be used as an adjective but when used as a noun it should be gendered, while others suggest that the adjective should be also.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Under "Modern cultural stereotypes - Sexuality" there is this paragraph which needs work:

"In 2014, a study found that blond-haired Swedish women were ranked below Chinese women in the female beauty hierarchy. According to the author, the blonde hair of Swedish women reduced their femininity, because it was seen as a Western trait. These women's Swedish husbands were highly attracted to local East Asian women, which further reduced the self-esteem of the blonde Swedish women."

The source linked for this paragraph (source 124) is not the study in question or actually any study at all, it is a book and I couldn't find the study that was mentioned in this book by searching relevant keywords. If the study cannot be found and cited, I think this should be deleted for now. ~2026-15411-71 (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)