Talk:Disappearing blonde gene

message: "The second part of the hoax is the claim that blonde populations would eventually disappear. This is based on a misunderstanding of recessive genes. To show (or "express") the effect of a recessive gene, such as the phenotype for blondeness, a person must inherit the gene from both parents."
Unless this article has a highly scientific purpose and aims to discuss the gene pattern for blond hair, it should be clarified that blond(e) populations do disappear; not because the relevant gene patterns will be extinct (which is of course wrong), but because the fraction of suppressed occurances is constantly increasing. And, yes, this has to do with recessive inheritance. Whether or not the relevant gene combinations survive is absolutely pointless if they lose their chance to appear, and isn't the appearance what this article is really about??
Daniel3880 --85.181.24.47 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely true, which is why I changed the opening sentence of the article a bit. Additionally, the simple claim that blond people cannot go extinct is false, since any groups of living creatures can become extinct. It's just that the proposed extinction is very nearly impossible to occur through simple breeding, which was the basis of the hoax article.BuboTitan (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''gene pattern disappearance'' isn't ''everyday life disappearance'' 

message: I removed some vandalism added by the user Wallacegubrath.  At least I consider it vandalism, however I suspect he might disagree.  In any case, he careless added the following paragraph to the bottom of the page which clearly contradicts the entire article:
 However, interracial mixing and marriage will cause mongrelization of the European race. Mixing two different elements that have nothing in common creates a dilution and degradation of both. So therefore, Blonde Europeans will die out.
This is NOT a Hoax as stated up above, but a true danger of 20,000 years of selective European breeding and their offspring throughout the world in America, Canada and Australia.
--Mystyc1 08:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead! - DavidWBrooks 11:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Someone insists on posting a link to an article about blue-eye blacks. If this is going to be done, it should be done correctly; don't simply jam it into "External Links" with a long title. Instead, explain how it may be relavant to the article, and for heaven's sake, READ THE ARTICLE to which the link goes; it clearly states nothing about "Nordic" genes.  I tend to think the link adds no information to the article, but what the hey, it's about a hoax anyway. rewinn 02:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. I was trying to accomodate the person who kept posting that link, but upon reflection, a better approach would be to refer the matter to recessive genes.  rewinn 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analogizing to blue-eyes

message: People should remember that the "hoax" is that the WHO reported that blonds will be extinct by 2200. There is no hoax that blonds are going extinct in general, unless someone has another reference to add. I edited the intro to reflect this better.
Certainly the percentage of blonds (as well as redheads) are going down as a portion of the world's population. It's unlikely they will actually go extinct, since genes don't disappear but lie dormant. But it is theoretically possible (genocide, nuclear war, virus, whatever). Any species, race, ethnic group, or even genotype can go extinct. No one is immune.BuboTitan (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional fix: since there was no report, the hoax was a story about it. (If the actual (er... fake) report were posted somewhere, then the report would be a hoax.) - Altenmann >t 18:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The WHO report is the hoax 

message: The page used to read that the WHO said that the disappearing blonde story was a hoax. However, when one clicks the link provided the WHO acutally says: WHO has no knowledge of how these news reports originated but would like to stress that we have no opinion on the future existence of blondes. Which means that the WHO did not tell this story off a a hoax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.76.251 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The WHO has said nothing. 

message: Societies like Germany have a birth rate of 1,39 per woman, so the population shrinks 50% within two generations. It is not rocket science, that blond and red hair will die out pretty soon. Northern European societies have failed and they get replaced. If you like it or not. That is not a hoax...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.49.94 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty clear that blondes are less & less of the worlds pop., but this article is about a specific hoax, not about the shrinking % of blonds - indeed, nowherein the article is claimed that blondes will always remain a visible population. the birth-rate thing interesting but beyong the artcles scope-moreover, its not wikis aim to predict future based on trends. but as an exception i might add that the amish, a german people in america are above average is fertility rates, sowho knows,they may carry on the legscy of blodehair.--69.121.51.151 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth rates 

message: Shouldn't the title of this article be "Disappearing blond gene"? Wikipedia's entry on Blond notes that spelling blonde with an "e" is generally reserved for the description of a woman or women, while the general adjective is generally spelled without the "e". Indeed the adjective used throughout the text of this article is spelled blond, so why is it spelled differently in the title? Florescent (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked throuh the article history and references and I see no reason for the current title spelling besides the fact that the original article was called Blonde gene. Since the two references of the initial stub were "Blondes 'to die out in 200 years'" and "Cavegirls were first blondes to have fun", I guess the title had to mean "a gene that makes blondes", rather than "a gene that makes blond hair". I would admit that the article being about a hoax, "blonde gene" has more April Fool Day spirit. Anyway, I support renaming. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title: "Blonde" vs "Blond" 

message: Maybe someone can find a reference with the math of the disappearing blond gene.
Assume that currently the world has 7.1 billion people, and that 150 million are blond. Then, 1 in 47.3 persons is blond (2.1%).
All blond people carry two blond genes. Assume also that 400 million people carry only one blond gene, and therefore are not blonde. With these assumptions the world currently has 150×2 + 400 = 700 million blond genes, out of 14.2 billion hair genes. This means there is one blond gene for every 20.3 hair genes (4.9%). If everybody in the world intermarries, the probability of being a blond will be one in 20.32 = 411.5 people (4.9%2 = 0.24%). Therefore, in the future we can expect the blond population to be decimated but not extinct. HaŋaRoa (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math 

message: The claim that this is a hoax misses the point. Noone, to my knowledge, is claiming that the blonde gene is somehow 'more recessive' than other recessive genes. What they are pointing out is, that of all the hair types, blondes are far and away the most likely to be targeted, by violence and other life-altering crimes, which leave the victim less likely or unable to reproduce. Additionally, it has been well-documented in recent years that many historically blonde areas in Europe and North America now have negative birth rates. This is not a hoax, this is a stone cold fact that simply hasn't been spelled out yet in a cohesive argument that is considered politically correct enough for mainstream sites to publish. This is not about recessive genes, this is about the deliberate and widespread slaughter and disenfranchisement of people based on their appearance.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.45.179 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't look at the 'political correctness' of sources, but their "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing the Point Entirely 

message: The article talks about a hoax, or rather a media-spread misinterpretation of a report, but in what contexts do these ideas fit, and is there a general idea or fear of losing the blonde gene rather than just a fright caused by the article? Is race one of the overall categorical contexts of this article, and not just media hype or genetics? Then say so. Does the idea of losing the blonde gene fit into racialistic theories about blondes? Then say so in the article. -Inowen (nlfte) 09:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to more general articles