Talk:Red hair/Archive 1

message: Removed from the article:
*Green - the most common
*Brown - the second most common
*Blue - the third most common
*Hazel - the fourth most common
"Green - the most common" eye colour for redheads? Surely not. Cite please? -- The Anome 18:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: heh! By the way, you might want to look at the change i made to your change. I think the word "some" is a better way of saying that. You don't have green eyes? You sure? Picture? Heh, just kidding :D --Phroziac (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Most common eye colors for redheads

message: Is that 2-5% figure in the article for the population of the United States as a whole, or only for the population of Caucasians in the United States? —Lowellian (talk) 17:23, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Can a citation be offered? —Lowellian (talk) 17:23, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
What about a cite for Korea and Japan?? lysdexia 00:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another question about the statistics

message: The main photo on the page should be replaced!  That woman is clearly not naturally red-headed, it is dyed!
Possibly the redophile section should be moved to a seperate article?
----
This redhead article seems a bit odd- We have a photo of a woman with dyed hair and an article about paraphelia. We get Elsie Tanner and the blondes get Marilyn Monroe. 
Is it really necessary to mention pubic hair and nipple color in the main article?
I really think we redheads can do better.
Hello, just wondering - I think it is absolutely ridiculous to say that there are redheads in Japan - so out the window it goes.  The only redheads here are artificial - of course!
Edededed 04:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture 

message: I found this article very strange. AFAIK, most people here in Russia admire the beauty of long red hair and most girls who dye their hair, dye it in red colour, so it's somewhat strange to read that "Redheads are stereotyped as ugly" - just the other way round. The only thing maybe is that people joke, saying that "red-haired are all wh*res, blondes are all stupid and brunettes are evil ones". But that's not serious, people love red-haired girls. --Anthony Ivanoff 05:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How very strange! 

message: I wish someone (who can write better than I can) would fix that sentence in the social implications section. or delete it. CDA 16:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "However, generally red hair was frowned upon until the early 20th century." 

message: Ok guys, stop the silly revert war. I considered putting human back in, but I'd rather stay far away from this. I put the word human in that image description because 1) some people have images turned off, but may want to see the image, and knowing what's in it may help, 2) some people might be on really slow connections/wikipedia might be running slow, and they might want to know what's in it before it loads. --Phroziac (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "typical" hair 

message: I moved the pictures so they wouldn't be stacked up.  CDA 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What a pleasure it must be for the girl's honor to be posted next to a gorilla.  --None-of-the-Above 17:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's an Orangutan! :-) bogdan | Talk 17:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, that's right. They can be librarians and such. Ook! --None-of-the-Above 18:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved pictures

message: These new statistics are very interesting, but is there a source on them? -Branddobbe 18:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New statistics

message: I notice that the article refers to red hair only as recessive, but my understanding is that red hair displays incomplete dominance; that is, it is expressed when only one red hair allele is present, but it "blends" with the hair colour of the other hair colour allele present. This explains the extreme variation between "real" red hair and strawberry blondes, auburns, and so on. I'm updating the page accordingly, but would welcome further input. -- Guybrush 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recessive vs incomplete dominance 

message: *Can someone explain to me what is so useful about the Playboy Redheads book? Thanks. JHMM13 09:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playboy Source 

message: I was reading this article, and something immediately hit me: the number of pictures of animals in it. For an article that mostly concerns red as a human hair-colour, the fact that pictures of redhaired human beings are outnumbered by those of other animals 3-to-1 is a bit off-putting. I could see this being taken as the manifestation of a prejudice against red-heads (although, I'm not saying that it is): on the pages for blonde and brunette, there are only examples of humans with blonde and brown hair respectively, no animals. The photographs are nice, (although the placing of an orangutan right beneath a red girl is a bit insensitive, to my eyes) but I don't think that they add much to the encyclopædia, on this page, at least. 23:16, 11 December 2005 Iinag
: I agree. What is the feeling on removing them? Michael L. Kaufman 04:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to remove the first one here (the chikmp) previously as irrelevant, only to have the editor who added it throw a fit and add lots more. Glad to see sanity finally prevailed. DreamGuy 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many animals photographs... 

message: The captions "A man with red hair" is useless because it doesn't add any information to the picture. Its obviously a picture of a man with red hair. It is just a caption for the sake of having a caption. WHat value do you think it adds? Michael L. Kaufman 22:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for the red headed man 

message: But if you look at the history with the red headed female previously it did say "a girl with red hair" so I thought that the correct way to say it was a male with red hair for this picture.  Then how come you didn't criticize the other female redhead? You only criticize this picture.  That's not fair at all.  Besides what's wrong with adding a little more information? Can't hurt by adding more facts. Please help clear it up for me b/c I don't understand what the problem is. (Oahc 22:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are both useless. I didn't comment on the woman's caption because I am trying to get that picture off the page. The Steve picture is fine (is the permissions are correct), but I think a useless caption is useless. DO you really think that saying a picure of a man is a picture of a man is useful? Michael L. Kaufman 03:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Caption for the red headed man 

message: I see that the photo of the man recently put on this article claims to be released under license, but the image was taken from a school website where that information is not available. If this photo is going to stay on Wikipedia we need to be sure that the COPYRIGHT OWNER has knowingly and explicitly released it under license, and that it's not just some kid grabbing it and claiming that other people can use it without authorization. DreamGuy 01:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights on the man with red hair 

message: Dreamguy, Why do you keep putting a picture of a girl with brown hair on the red hair page? Repeated from earlier: As to why I don't think Bella is a natural redhead: 1) She has brown roots. 2) She has brown eyelashes. 3) It is a shade of red that is generally from a bottle. 4) If you go to her web site, you can find a number of pictures of her with brown hair. IE: http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=70737 and http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=70739 and http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=126197.  Michael L. Kaufman 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bella Picture