Talk:Blond

Europe

The Europe section is based almost entirely on 19th and early 20th century sources, including the controversial Carleton Coon. Another source is ladepeche.fr, a regional tabloid. I wanted to delete all of this, but figured I would be flagged for being too WP:BOLD in light of my recent edits. Also, it would leave us with virtually nothing for the Europe section. So I'm sitting this down here until I can find reliable sources for any info on this hair color in Europe. Which shouldn't be too difficult. - Hunan201p (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick, but La Dépêche du Midi is a quite respectable publication. I hope the 'tabloid'-bit refers to format only, because it does not at all qualify as tabloid journalism. No objections to deleting the bit based on Coon, but just deleting the whole section seems a bit drastic, especially considering the presence of more modern sources. Kleuske (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Besides, counting the percentage of blond people in a given population is not the sort of research that is easily made obsolete by more modern findings. Kleuske (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the point in completely destroying the section on Europe, removing a reference to an actual physical anthropologist, and keeping quotes from sociologists who tend not to study physical features and also to keep highly obscure historical references. I would like to complement it with a study carried out by researchers at the L'oreal institute, but the article is semi-protected and my account is new. Madalena NovaLima (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I can think of several reasons not to include the content:

First, there's accuracy. It's extremely improbable that these figures from the early 1900s are meaningful anymore when countries like France have received millions of immigrants from Southern Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia, etc, for decades, collectively outnumbering any immigration from blonder countries like Poland.

Second, none of these archaic reports can be verified and they probably all lacked peer review. No photos were taken, no objective instruments were used to measure hair color or lightness/darkness, etc. It was just one white supremacist, maybe with some kind of Von Luschen type of scale jotting down whatever he perceived.

Third, even the new studies that are not secondary in nature are likely not fully accounting for synthetic hair color alteration, other than self-reporting, which will probably compromise the integrity of the results. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, none of these justifications seem enough to me. If immigration has profoundly altered the demography of Western countries, then a brief mention of old studies is interesting because it highlights precisely these demographic changes. It is an exaggeration to call studies from the beginning of the 20th century "archaic", and in fact no study is "verified" but only compared with other studies. And that goes for both current and old studies. The idea of ​​using only peer-reviewed articles is perhaps even supported by Wikipedia's editing rules, and I should inform myself about that, but a priori it seems to me to be a stupid criterion as it would prevent me from referencing any old article, including articles written by Einstein or Newton or any other scientist whose competence is universally accepted. Also, to say that he is just a "white supremacist" is just your opinion, and an editor cannot allow his own opinion to infiltrate Wikipedia. Carleton Coon, for example, was president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists and a professor at Harvard, and despite the current controversy surrounding his work, it can never be said that he is just a "white supremacist". Madalena NovaLima (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Why there is no mention of blond people in other European Regions?

Only Italy,France,Portuagal are mentioned ,where the blond people popualtion is the lowest. Apspsuperman (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we be using "blond" for women?

How come only the spelling "blond" is used? It's a gender-specific word. I know that "she was blond" is wrong (should be "blonde"); I would think that "she had blond hair" would also be wrong. Is there any good argument for not doing this? Herostratus (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus: My understanding is that it's mostly a tradition thing. [4] If you're interested in proposing any WP:MOS changes in regards to gender-neutral language... good luck. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: I'm sure it is a tradition and a holdover, but it says here that its still ongoing, whether we like it or not. We don't have to follow our sources for othography and sometimes we don't (eg we don't write "December 8th" even if all our sources do), but what the outside world does is usually an important point.

As to to gender-neutral language, I get it, but in this particular case there's no favoritism. I think it may be the only English word where this is true. So, unlike say actor/actress there is 1) no real argument for combining them, and 2) if we do, there's no reason to prefer one spelling over the other.

That is, if we felt we must use only one spelling (in contravention to most of the rest of the world it seems), there's no reason not to favor "blonde". With "blond" for a man we are saying "A male with yellow hair", and by using "blond" for a woman we are saying "A ma... well, not actually a male, but we'll ignore that and promote them to male, as a favor". Not a good look IMO.

But since there's no favoritism here, I see no reason to not do as the world does, to avoid surprising and maybe annoying some percentage of readers, to no benefit. Herostratus (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus Oh, I think I get what the point of your comment here was. Maybe there should be further context about the distinction between blond/blonde. It's one of the few cases of actually gender-specific nouns in English. It's way more common than using she for ships and as you said the distinction between actor/actress. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus So my thoughts on your original question is that there isn't a good reason not to do what you were suggesting. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I also wanted to apologize for bringing up something that wasn't really relevant at all. I've been feeling more pessimistic about the world lately, but there's no need to push that on others. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No no it's fine, you weren't abrasive in the least. Herostratus (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No objections being raised yet, I'll make the change, with the Ngram as a support. Herostratus (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus I am not familiar with this gender issue, it does not exist in my native language. What is the problem exactly and why do we need to change every instance of "blond" to "blonde", do we not then assume everyone is female? I don't want to revert just yet in case there is simply something I am missing, but this looks unnecessary at glance to me, especially since the article name itself uses "blond". TylerBurden (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. English is not a gendered language. Except for animals, objects have no gender. We don't worry about whether to use "le" or "la" when referring to an object. Neutral "the" works for everything. There are a very very few exceptions, and "blonde / blond" is one of them. So, for good or ill, English has "blond man" and "blonde woman". OK so far.

But, what about referring to objects -- is it "blond-colored wood" or "blonde-colored wood? There's no answer, no rule in English, and no common practice. Same for people, when their sex is unknown -- is it "There were a number of blond people in the room", or "...blonde people"? Is it "Blonde elevator operator" or "Blond elevator operator"? I don't know, and neither do you. If there were many such words, we probably would have a rule, and the rule would likely be to use "blond", because -- well, who makes the rules? But there aren't and we don't. So, we're on our own.

So, what to do? Well, one solution would be to randomize, or to alternate "blonde" and "blond". I think that'd be sloppy. It's usual, in the case where there's two ways to write a word, to be consistent within an article. So, this is one solution, but a bad one in my opinion. Or, we could replace all instances of "blonde/blond" with "fair-haired" or something, but this also is no good. Using say "blonx" on the example of "Latinx" would be our coining, not allowed.

So, that would leave us with using either "blonde" or "blond" throughout, in indeterminate situations. Which one? Search me, but unless we want to roll a die, why not "blonde", in this one case where we can avoid using the masculine form? Give woman pride of place for once.

As to the article title, OK let's change that too. Why should we assume or imply that the article is only about men?

You are free to roll it back per WP:BRD of course, no problem. Maybe we should have an WP:RFC on the matter, I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well if neither is wrong and there unfortunately is no way for us to not exclude an entire sex, I think it would be logical to just go with whatever was first chosen similar to what is described in WP:ENGVAR, MOS:ERA MOS:VAR etc. In this case that is blond, which you can see if you go to the oldest portion of the history, and that seems to have been the case for virtually all of the article's existence. So to answer your question of why not, this is more of a sidegrade rather than upgrade, because it replaces one assumption with another equally bad one because of what I can only call a language flaw. I think from a reader standpoint it's weird to click on an article using "blond" only for the rest of the article to use "blonde". Though I suppose another viewpoint in that aspect would be some kind of flawed fairness with one sex represented through title and the other through use in the article itself. OR English adopts the approach of other languages and drops the gendering of this word eliminating this issue. ;)

But thank you for the response, maybe you're right and an RfC or the like could be held, or at least more input gathered. Perhaps someone has a magical solution, but I doubt it. So for now given Wikipedia's favouring of retaining existing variations unless there is very good reason to change (as said above, one assumption replacing another one isn't in my opinion) I will restore the consistent usage of the article title variation. TylerBurden (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Herostratus @TylerBurden: I have re-read the article. The article uses American spelling color. In American English this would be using blond as an adjective for both genders (but separate blond/blonde as a noun). For UK usage there is a distinct masculine and feminine usage for both noun and adjective. This specific grammatical gender issue is not well explained and needs to be expanded in the article.

The article itself uses blonde in some application referring to female persons and goddess. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

In your example sentence "she had blond hair", the word "blond" refers to the hair and not to the woman and thus isn't spelled "blonde". Blonde is only used when referring to a woman: "she is a blonde", "the blonde in the blue dress". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this true? I can see how it would be, but Websters says different, for people (not things). Herostratus (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Every style advice page I check seems to have different guidance. Columbia Journalism Review (quoting Garner's Modern American Usage) says "“blond” is preferred in all senses as an adjective in American English" and quoting the Associated Press Stylebook “Use blond as a noun for males and as an adjective for all applications: She has blond hair. Use blonde as a noun for females.” User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This doesn’t seem to be the case in the US, from what I’ve noticed. “Blonde” is the more common spelling for males as well. “Blond” seems to be used only by older people. 45.49.10.103 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

"Ice Blonde" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ice Blonde has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27 § Ice Blonde until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

“Blonde” is also used for both genders

Maybe it’s a regional or age thing, but I very, very rarely see the “blond” spelling (and even then usually from people much older than me). Maybe some places it has gendered spelling but it absolutely does not where I have lived my whole life (California). 45.49.10.103 (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In this article it said Rome had control over West Germany in the 1st century. That is totally incorrect. Rome never crossed the Rhine !! They were not able to !!

ROME NEVER CROSSED THE RHINE. THIS ARTILCLE IMPLIES THAT. THAT IS INCORRECT BY 100 % 2600:8800:8692:4200:C1A7:821C:7FF7:9DA2 (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The article says "parts of western Germany". Parts of western Germany are west of the Rhine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

W:NPOV issues with regard to the attractiveness of blonde women

@TylerBurden: you blanket reverted me on [20:21 15 February 2024], with the explanation that the article "is not a competition of attractiveness".

Well, in this article, there is a notion that blonde women have been considered especially attractive, particularly during the Middle Ages, but also in modern times.

However, reliable research has critically examined this notion, and found that heterosexual men generally rank blonde women as less attractive than women with darker hair colors, in spite of the purported hype.

V. Swami, et al. hypothesize (p. 430) that British participants would show a preference for blonde women based on research about their over-representation in popular media over the previous four decades. Yet contrary to their expectations, British subjects generally selected dark-haired women as ideal. They cite other research, namely Rich and Cash (1993), to suggest that blonde women might not have been as over-represented in the media as previously believed, and that their results may be explained by the popularity of brunette women in popular media.

A very similar conclusion is reached in Wortham, et al 2018. They note (p. 34) the same research dating back to the 1960s to suggest that blonde women are over-represented in fashion magazines. However they note (p.37) that research on preferences is inconclusive, citing studies to show that brunette women are actually considered more attractive, in general. This includes Swami's research. Wortham et al. found that blonde women were generally regarded as less attractive than brunette women.

On page 49 they discuss their findings. Similar to Swami, et al, they observed that brunette women are actually the majority of fashion models, contrary to research from decades prior that found that blonde women were the majority. They likewise cite Rich and Cash (1993), showing the decline of blonde women in the fashion industry. They suggest that this may explain why brunette women are generally preferred.

Jacobi et al. (1994) examined hair color preferences based around the findings of Rich and Cash (1993). Like the previous authors, they found that there was a general preference for brunettes, and in their conclusion they wrote: "Furthermore, most men do not personally prefer the very thin, blonde, blue-eyed, large-busted image of many female fashion models."

By introducing these sources to the article, I am not creating a 'competition between hair colors', as you suggest. I am creating a balanced representation of the research that has critically examined the topic of blonde women's attractiveness, which is a key focus point of this article. The article in its previous state had a non-neutral point of view, which only championed blonde women, in spite of research to the contrary.

And in Central Asia, which was colonized by Russians, blonde women are considered unattractive and cannot represent a beauty ideal (Fierman, 1991), to the extent that Russian educators struggled to convince local students otherwise (Kriendler, 1993). In East Asia, blonde hair is considered unattractive on women, and blonde immigrant women report that their hair color is denied in the Asian beauty ideal (Lundstrom, 2014).

Clearly, blonde women are considered downright unattractive in other parts of the world, despite the wholesale export of European culture to the rest of the world in the last century. Without these perspectives, the article pumps up blond hair in a way that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. We should deliver the whole body of research to the reader. Red Book Librarian (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty true. I just wanted to say that. Bye. J. G. is a blonde freak (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Blanket reverting of non-disruptive content

TylerBurden's blanket revision of my contributions undid improvements that weren't related to the topic of blonde women's attractiveness in contemporary society.

I removed a great deal of content from this article that does not verify. For example, I removed the claim that Mary Magdalene is portrayed as blonde in medieval Gothic paintings, which was cited to Schiller pp. 155-158.

Yet, as I explained in my edit summary with a URL link, Schiller pages 155-158, Schiller doesn't say anywhere that Mary was blonde.

Please respect the suggestion at WP:MASSR that editors generally should not blanket-revert content that is not disruptive. That in of itself is disruptive and causes the other editor inconvenience. Red Book Librarian (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You are certainly very policy savvy for such a new editor, have you been editing before? The issue we are facing overall is that the article is not called "blond attractiveness" yet large portions are devoted to it. I think this should be more briefly summed up, perhaps in its own section named such or using something similar. Of course a counterpoint of blondes being considered less attractive in other instances can also be added, as long as it is given the balance that it should have per WP:DUE, that seems only natural, but this topic in general shouldn't be this big of a portion on an article meant to be about blond hair color in general. TylerBurden (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: it seems like the issue here is mainly the length of the content. I agree: I have exhaustively described the findings of each study, when they could be merged in to one or two sentences. My proposal is to simply compress this content, which would read like:

"In the 1960s and 1970s, research showed that blonde women were over-represented in Western popular media.[1] However, research in Western countries has found that men in western countries generally find dark-haired women more attractive than those with blonde hair, and blonde women may not be over-represented in modern popular media[2][3][4]"

Let me know if you think this is a good compromise. The same thing would be done to the Asia content. Red Book Librarian (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that seems reasonable if that is the general consensus in WP:RS. As you said, the main issue was the amount of content specifically about attractiveness. A succinct summary avoids giving the topic too much weight on the article. TylerBurden (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden Yeah, that's true, also like everyone always said that we're dumb and like posh... so I guess it was like "they're easier to win their love"... Just my personal opinion. J. G. is a blonde freak (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

"Genetics of Blond Hair" Section is Now Outdated and Lacks Relevant Information

This section contains outdated information. Specifically, the idea that the KITLG allele for blond hair originated in ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) and spread into Europe with WSH (western steppe herders) has been significantly challenged by more recent research papers and sequencing. This section should be updated for the following reasons:

1. Alleles for blond hair have been found in several populations not harboring ANE/WSH ancestry. Individuals of the neolithic Globular Amphora culture are predicted via HIrisPlex-S panel to have blond hair, with all sequenced individuals possessing the G allele of rs12821256 coding for light colored hair, notably found on the KITLG gene (see supplementary table 4)[1]. This culture predates the arrival of ANE-bearing western steppe herders from the east; this Early European Farmer population did not carry steppe related ancestry [2]. Blond hair was again inferred in Anatolian Neolithic/Early European Farmers, notably the Linear Pottery Culture of North and Central Europe (see page 22 of supplementals) [3]. In terms of autosomal ancestry, Linear Pottery is on the same ancestral cline as Globular Amphora. Blond hair was present in the Neolithic of Anatolia (Turkey) at Barcın, Chalcolithic Southeastern Europe (Romania at Bodrogkeresztur), Chalcolithic of the Levant (Israel), and a Minoan from Lasithi [4]. Thus, blonde hair was already present in the European continent before the arrival of steppe groups.

2. The presence of the KITLG pre-allele in a single ANE sample does not necessarily indicate its origin in the ANE population. It is true that the oldest example of KITLG rs12821256 was found in the Afontova Gora ANE individual. However, as already stated, this mutation appears in farmer populations which did not contact ancient north eurasians or steppe pastoralists. Logically, this mutation must have originated in an ancestral population that gave descent to many West Eurasian groups, including European and West Asian neolithic farmers and Ancient North Eurasians in order for members of the Globular Amphora Culture to have the G allele. Therefore, blonde hair

3. There are a number of alleles encoding for light hair coloring, but this section only focuses on a single allele: rs12821256. It is misleading to simplify the genotype behind light colored hair to only one mutation. The aforementioned HIrisPlex-S panel examines several high impact SNPs encoding hair color in addition to rs12821256. Even if steppe pastoralists did carry rs12821256 into Europe and elsewhere, we cannot in good faith say that blond hair as a general phenotype was brought to Europe with steppe pastoralists because without considering all genetic mutations encoding for this trait.

4. Many of the sources provided in this section predate the papers I have cited here or reference outdated information. At the very least, new information should be included to balance out the old. Recently released papers from the past few years have analyzed thousands of new skeletal samples, notably from Isof Lazaridis and David Reich.

I believe it is extremely relevant to include the above information in order to be objective and comprehensive. Noleb (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"Genetics of Blond Hair" Section is Now Outdated and Lacks Relevant Information

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.

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.

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.

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."

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. 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. 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. 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."

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."

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. Notably, these Early European Farmers did not possess ancestry from Indo-European steppe pastoralists, and therefore lacked ancestry from Ancient North Eurasians.

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)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2024

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

@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)

Opening image

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)

Last sentence of the intro is unprofessional

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 [5]: 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" [6]). 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)

Please stop reverting edits without providing reasons

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)