Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 15:38, 19 January 2019 (Signing comment by Kleistinos - "→Aphrodite hair color: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blond article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 1.5 years

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fashion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Genetics

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 600 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Child

The picture of the child at the start of this page should be changed to a picture of an adult with blond hair. Children with blond hair often grow into brown hair so showing a young girl's blonde hair is not fully reflective of blond hair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs) 12:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC) I have changed the picture to one of an adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Also I didn't want to say this but to state blondes are "stereotyped as sexually attractive, but unintelligent" when a picture of a prepubescent girl is directly adjacent has paedophilic undertones that I think should be avoided if at all possible. The new picture has the added element of being of a Polish woman with brown eyes, so this may go against certain Nordicists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No valid reason to change the long-standing higher quality image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Look at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Lucy Merriam. There are people there mentioning problems with the picture, and this is when the picture is seen in isolation. In this article directly beside it says blondes are stereotyped as sexually attractive but unintelligent. This has clear paedophilic undertones in context. Lucy Merriam is also not a well-known person. Alicja Janosz has a Misplaced Pages article. I admit the composition of the new picture is not as good but it does not have paedophilic undertones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: The objections you point to in the link are objections to the image becoming a "Featured Picture," which, in case you were unware, is the highest category of images Misplaced Pages has. The standard for a "Featured" image is extremely high, much higher than the standard for being used as a lead image. Those objections mean nothing here unless you can demonstrate that the photograph you wish to replace the image with is better. I am not a photography expert, but the image of the blonde girl was clearly taken by a professional photographer and it is a very high quality photograph with many technical merits. The image you are championing, on the other hand, appears to have been taken by an amateur on someone's phone.

As for your complaint that the image has "paedophilic undertones in context," there is nothing about the picture itself, in my view, that even remotely implies sexuality. As far as I can tell, it is just a typical portrait photograph. It is common for parents to hang photographs of their own children not totally unlike this one in their homes. As for the view that it has "paedophilic undertones" specifically in this context because the article mentions that blonde women "are stereotyped as sexually attractive but unintelligent," your argument fails on several points:

1. The article states this as a western cultural perception, not as something that is actually true, so interpreting the images of blonde people used in the article in the context of this statement at all is just perpetuating a degrading, culturally-specific stereotype.
2. The article says this about adult, blonde women, not about four-year-old blonde girls. You are taking a stereotype that society only applies to blonde women and applying it to blonde children. If a man wrote an article about blonde hair that included a photograph of a blond man, as well as the statement that blonde women "are stereotyped as sexually attractive but unintelligent," would you accuse him of being a closeted homosexual, since clearly he must be implying that blonde men are sexually attractive? No? Then why are you saying that using an image of a blonde child as the first image in an article about blonde hair must be pedophilia?

As for the notability of the people depicted in the photographs, I fail to see how that is relevant here, since this article is about blond hair, not about the person in the photograph, so the criteria for which image ought to be used should be based on the quality of the image and how well the image reflects the subject of blonde hair, not on how notable the person in the photograph is. (Indeed, your argument about blond hair darkening with age is actually a good argument in my view for why the current main image is a good one, since there are far more blonde children than blonde adults.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I never made an assessment of the compositional quality of the pictures as an argument to change the current picture.. I only commented on the problem of using the one of a child in a sexualised context. I spent 15-20 minutes searching Wikimedia Commons looking for other pictures. The one I changed it to was the best I could find but there likely are better.

The stereotype is sexually attractive, but unintelligent--there also is discussion of prostitutes. Children tend to have lower intelligence, and look at the comment "Although Misplaced Pages is not censored, we should protect subjected people especially "children" from all kind of weird people like paedophiles." Even one of the people supporting the picture made a comment about "sexual awareness is developed in childhood" and "Let's not be ashamed of sexuality if we see it, it is part of human nature". There is a paedophilic undertone. The comparison to a picture of a man has two problems: a) girls become women, men don't become women--apart from transgender women which is another topic--so the comparison between the two does not make sense in physical terms b) the comparison only applies if you think homosexuality is the same as paedophilia and homosexuals need to counteracted as paedophiles need to be counteracted.

You say the article content about blondes in cultural terms is about blonde adults so this is an argument in support of using a picture of an adult as it would be more representative of the subject in discussion.

The notability is important because of the need to protect the individual depicted in the picture. If Lucy Merriam were a well-known person it would be less disconcerting to use the picture as she would be a public figure and accustomed to the attention but she is not well-known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: You seem to be completely missing the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to explain above is that it makes no sense to apply a derogatory stereotype that the article mentions about adult blond women to an image of a blond child that appears at the beginning of it. Yes, prostitution is mentioned in the article, but that has nothing to do with the girl shown in the main image, because it is mentioned in the completely different context of ancient Greek and Roman stereotypes about adult blond women. Likewise, the fact that children's minds are less developed than those of adults is completely irrelevant to our current subject of discussion. While the quotation from the "Featured Image" review page about "sexual awareness developed in childhood" is extremely disturbing, I do not see how it constitutes as anything more than one pervert's depraved opinion. Once again, it is irrelevant to both the image itself and its usage here in this article.

Both of your objections to my analogy about the blond man are completely wrong and irrelevant to the point I was actually trying to make. Yes, blond girls do eventually become blond women, but that does not change the fact that, at the time when they are blond girls, they are not blond women. Your next objection is even more baffling to me. You wrote: "the comparison only applies if you think homosexuality is the same as paedophilia and homosexuals need to counteracted as paedophiles need to be counteracted." No. Not at all. That is not the way in which I was comparing them. In order for an analogy to be valid, the two situations being compared only need to be similar in the specific way in which they are being compared. The purpose of my analogy above was to show how ridiculous it is to apply a culturally-specific stereotype about one group of people mentioned in an article to an image of a member of a different group that appears elsewhere in the same article. I was most definitely not drawing any kind of moral comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia.

You wrote: "You say the article content about blondes in cultural terms is about blonde adults so this is an argument in support of using a picture of an adult as it would be more representative of the subject in discussion." No. That conclusion does not follow at all from what I was saying. I have no idea why you are so fixated on the contemporary western stereotypes about blond women; "blond" is just a hair color. The stereotype you keep fixating on is unsupported by any kind of scientific evidence and is entirely culture-specific. What you are essentially arguing, it seems, is that we should change the main image to agree with the stereotype, which is frankly appalling to me as an actual blond person. The article should talk about the stereotypes, yes, but it should certainly not define the word "blond" in the context of those stereotypes by making the first image in the article reflective of them.

You argued that the fact that Lucy Merriam is not well known means she is unused to attention. In fact, she is an actress and we have quite a lengthy section on the character she played in the article Children of All My Children. She also appeared in the film Marley & Me, which, according to our own article, "set a record for the largest Christmas Day box office ever with $14.75 million in ticket sales." If you search for Lucy Merriam's name in Google, it turns up 416,000 results. I am pretty sure she is more than "accustomed" to attention. The particular image we are discussing was released as a publicity photo and, as the "Featured Image" review page already mentions, Lucy's own mother gave Misplaced Pages explicit permission to use it.

If you have an image of a blond adult that is of higher image quality than the image currently used, you are welcome to replace the current image with that one. However, I do not see any validity in your argument that the current main image somehow has "paedophilic undertones in context" and I do not think the image you chose is of higher quality. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I added information to dispel the myth, so don't accuse me of wanting to perpetuate the stereotype! And it seems that you are implying the picture I introduced was of a "dumb blonde", which is very offensive to Alicja Janosz who I don't know but have no reason to believe is unintelligent. I am trying to change the image to protect the child depicted in the picture and guard against paedophiles, and relatedly avoid the implicit sexualisation of children. The distinction between a man and a woman is chasmic in comparison to the distinction between a girl and a woman, particularly if girls are being sexualised, so I disagree with the analogy. In the context, a picture of an adult would be sexualised too, which is a negative thing but much preferable to the sexualisation of a child. I think the best possible picture to curb the paedophilic undertones while also representing an adult with blond hair would be a man with blond hair who is well-known, such as Dolph Lundgren but there are no good pictures of him on Wikimedia Commons. Lucy Merriam does not have her own Misplaced Pages article, and if you have googled her you will have found her Twitter account, which has less than 60 followers. She had some roles when she was very young but nothing since then. She is not a public figure. The google search results is a misleading metric as it reduces hugely if you quote "Lucy Merriam". And if you look through the results you will see many for "Lucy Merriam" which have no relation to the child depicted in the picture. The picture I used is not my favourite picture in the world or anything of the sort. It is just the best one I could find on Wikimedia Commons. I will look for others. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

My statement about you wanting to change to image to align with the stereotype was specifically in response to your argument that we should use a picture of an adult because the stereotype is about adults. I do not know how to categorize that argument as anything but wanting to perpetuate the stereotype. Once again, you are completely ignoring my whole point, which is that, as far as I can possibly tell, the image of the blond girl is not at all sexual. It is just a picture of a blond girl and I frankly do not see any reason at all why you seem to think that it is sexual. You say that my analogy does not hold up because the girl is being sexualized, but the whole point of my analogy was that she is not being sexualized. It is circular reasoning; you are basically arguing that my argument against your conclusion is wrong because it does not match your conclusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: You said you would be comfortable with an image of a blond adult man as the lead image, so I swapped the photograph of the blond child with the portrait of Pedro II of Brazil from later in the article. Does this settle the issue? He is definitely not a child and it is actually a fine portrait from an artistic standpoint. Actually, in some ways, now that I think about it, the new lead image actually may actually help combat the stereotype, because it is the opposite of the stereotype in basically every way. If we were following the stereotype, one would expect a photograph of a twentieth-century American woman, but the image is instead a portrait painting of a nineteenth-century Brazilian emperor. He still has blond hair, but he is probably the last person a westerner indoctrinated into the dumb blond stereotype would expect to find at the beginning of an article about blond hair. --Katolophyromai (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, I reverted because I do not see why we should swap a high-quality, real-life image with a poorer one (the portrait or similar), and your arguments against NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM's rationale are strong. As many know, I often combat pedophilic POV-pushing on Misplaced Pages. I see no pedophilic or sexualized tone to the child image. I also do not see any valid reason to lead with an image of a man as opposed to a girl or a woman. I suggest we start a WP:RfC on this matter, similar to what is seen at Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6#Request for comment on lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: In terms of image quality, I have to agree with you; the original image of the blond child is higher quality. The Pedro portrait is not poor quality by any means, but I will admit it is rather bland and the fact that it is an oval shape probably does not help. My main reason for the swap was because I was tired of arguing. To me, this whole dispute was starting to seem extraordinarily petty and I figured that swapping the two images would be the best solution if it might result in a compromise we could both agree on. I suppose I will open a RfC as you have suggested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Katolophyromai. There's no need to ping me to articles I'm watching. I prefer not to be pinged in those cases; it's redundant and somewhat annoying to me. I understand why you attempted a compromise. As for "poor," I stated "poorer" because I find the long-standing of higher quality due to its photography and that it is a real-life image. I'm not stating that the image is poor on its own. With an RfC, other images can also be added for editors to choose from, but too many options can overwhelm participants. It would also be helpful to note that the dispute concerns one view that the image of the child is sexualized and presents a pedophilic tone, while the other view does not believe that to be the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for pinging you. I happened to link to your userpage in the section below, which I think automatically pings you, so I apologize for that also. --Katolophyromai (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I have found a suitable picture. It checks all the boxes, as well as additional boxes which I did not discuss.

• It is of an adult
• It is of a good composition--neutral-ish background and high resolution.
• It is very difficult to see it as a sexualised picture
• The subject is well-known
• It also displays a blond beard
• The subject is not looking at the camera so without eye contact the focus is more so on the hair

NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, do not include any more options in the RfC. The more options there are, the more overwhelmed editors are and less likely they are to vote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I have supplanted my original replacement with this new one. But why do you ping me when you criticise others for doing the same? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, I pinged you because you are a new editor and I'm not sure if this article is on your watchlist. You also have not requested to not be pinged for articles you are watching. I have. If you don't want me to ping you to this talk page, I won't. As for this, I also see this. It's best to not trade out any more images either since voting has begun and editors have voted on certain images. For the record, I think that the woman with bleached blond hair was a poor selection. For the lead image, if using a real-life person, the blond person should have natural blond hair. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

If she is a natural blond, it still looks like she over-processed her hair (making her hair lighter). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I am monitoring the discussion. This should be evident as I have replied regularly. Why did you post the second link? I didn't add that and I don't plan on swapping out any other pictures. I don't know if the Polish woman has fake blonde hair--she has very light eyebrows--but this is not important as I am not proposing that picture be used, nor is anyone else. What is wrong with the new picture I have proposed? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I posted the second link to show a removal by Katolophyromai. And, no, it's not evident that you are monitoring the discussion. Yes, you were debating Katolophyromai above, but Katolophyromai was pinging you; so it's not unreasonable to think that perhaps that's what got your attention to keep replying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on the lead image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of these images seems best for the lead? --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Options

I have dug back through the entire history of this article and brought back all the previous lead images since 2007 that have been used for extended periods of time as possible options, in addition to the ones discussed above. Here they all are:

• Option A
  The long-standing lead image, originally added on 14 February 2012 by an IP user without explanation. It has remained the lead image ever since, but has recently been challenged by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, who contends that it has "paedophilic overtones in context."
• Option B
  A long-standing image in the article, which I proposed as the lead image in an attempt to compromise with NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM. If chosen, it would be swapped with the current lead image, so both would remain in the article
• Option C
  The new image NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM has now proposed to replace the current lead image (He originally proposed a different one.)
• Option D
  A previous lead image used for almost a year from January 2007 until April 2008
• Option E
  Another previous lead image added on September 2008 by Bloodofox with the express purpose to avoid using a photograph of a living person. Removed on 12 February 2010 by AnwarSadatFan with the explanation that the article "needs less images"
• Option F
  Another previous lead image. Young Woman with Unicorn, a famous painting by the Italian Renaissance painter Raphael, added by Flyer22 Reborn on 12 July 2010 with the explanation "Better to have a lead picture. This topic heavily relies on visuals." Removed on 15 May 2011 by Alphasinus with the explanation "too many pictures"
• Option G
  Another long-standing image in the article that was moved up as the main image after the Raphael painting was removed. Moved down on 28 July 2011. Still in the article.
• Option H
  Another old lead image. Added to replace Option G in the same edit. Intended to show different shades of blondness. Removed and replaced on 11 January 2012 by an IP user without explanation
• Option I
  The lead image immediately before the current one. Added in the same edit in which Option H was removed. Removed and replaced with current lead image on 14 February 2012 by an IP user without explanation

Other users are welcome to offer additional proposals if they believe they are necessary. For the poll below, I recommend listing one's top three choices in ranked order, so we know which images generally tend to be favored. --Katolophyromai (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

In the Child section above, I just told NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM "do not include any more options in the RfC. The more options there are, the more overwhelmed editors are and less likely they are to vote." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Poll

• First choice: Option F. Second choice: Option A. Third choice: Option B. I chose Option F over Option A because I think it is a better quality image and it skirts the issue that repeatedly came up as I was going through the search history about having a photograph of a living person as the lead image. This could be partly biased, though, just because I happen to be an admirer of Renaissance paintings. Option A is definitely a strong second choice for me. If consensus favors Option A, as I suspect it will, I will probably replace Veneto's Portrait of a Woman with Option F. --Katolophyromai (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why do we have to use any children at all? That seems rather unsavoury, particularly over such a broad subject as this. Incidentally, Option I effectively resolves the issue of using living people, as, although the figure is alive, they are unidentifiable, and that is the spirit of the objection.—SerialNumber54129 11:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• First choice: Option A. Like I stated in the #Child section above, it is the (most recent) long-standing lead image. It is of higher quality when compared to the other real-life images. And when compared to the paintings, I also find it of higher quality. This is because of its photography and that it is a real-life image. If we are going to use a real-life image, which I think many find preferable, it should at least be of good quality or high quality. I disagree with NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM that the child image is sexualized and presents a pedophilic tone; Katolophyromai made strong arguments against that reasoning in the Child section above. Unlike Serial Number 54129, I also don't find the child image unsavory. Why is it "unsavory"? Also, that person has aged since the image was taken. My second choice is Option G because the image is of okay (somewhat okay anyway) quality, the man is facing the camera, and is smiling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

On second thought regarding my second choice, I'm torn between Option G and Option F, but I lean more toward Option F than G. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Well; if you also do find the child image unsavory, then that's rather my position also. —SerialNumber54129 12:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Serial Number 54129, I meant "don't, and tweaked my post above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Option C: It is a picture of a well-known, male adult. High resolution and a neutral background. It also displays a blond beard and the subject is not looking at camera so the viewer's eye is focused on the hair. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC) My second choice is option D. It is similar to C but of a worse composition--distracting background--and the man's hair is scraggly. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think any one of them are fine except option H, which contains a couple kids with brunet hair, and only two with blond hair. The kids with brunet hair in that photo don't even have blondish brunet hair, it's just your average brunet color. That's my input! Everything else looks acceptable. Pericles of Athens 12:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I see, all of the kids except one is blond. But I agree that this image would be a poor lead image. Best to just focus on one person for the lead image, or at least have all the kids be blond. We don't need the lead image to look like a comparison of blond and brown hair. A lead image for the article could be a variation of different kinds of blond hair, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Option A or Option C: These are both strong, well-shot, high-quality photographs that highlight the hair, but illustrate the topic with a person. I don't think we should use a painter's impression of the color being discussed here. I object to the idea that the remedy for implicit sexualization is to make female children invisible.--Carwil (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• First choice Option I. Second choice Option H. Third choice Option A. SlightSmile 20:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• First choice: Option C because the subject is looking away from the camera, and has a beard, so the focus is on the color of hair. Option D is my second choice; Option G is third choice. Option A is my least favorite, as the image seems sexualized to me, especially given its contextual location and the multiple mentions of sexuality in the article.AnaSoc (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Summoned here by bot. First, a big kudos to Katolophyromai for compiling these images and expanding their histories. My !votes are first choice Option C, second choice Option F, third choice either Option G or Option I. C shows the variation in tones comma as well as what blond facial hair looks like. F is idealized, but shows a good artistic representation of blonde hair. G and I show rather standard photos of people with blond hair. I somewhat agree that the current image is creepy, though I wouldn't call it pedophilic. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You see it all the time - someone having the subject in this case a kid waiting for the camera to click. Like - take the picture already. While it's not my style of picture taking I'm not seeing how it's creepy or unsavory. All I see is a kid with better things to do than stand there waiting for some grownup to take a picture. But yes I agree we can do better than the current image. SlightSmile 15:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Slightsmile, I don't know if all of the editors who have an issue with the child image are Americans (from the United States), but Americans have a tendency to sexualize things that needn't or shouldn't be sexualized. And I state that as an American. For example, there was an uproar over the "Elastic Heart" video, which stars Shia LaBeouf and a little girl. I and others didn't see anything sexual when looking at the video, but enough people did (which in turn made others see something sexual by watching the video). But given how the characters are dressed in that video, and that it's an adult male with a little girl, I can see why people's minds jumped to "it's sexual." In the case of the child image that started this dispute, I just don't get it at all. We have other child images in the article. Are we saying that a child image can never be the lead image in this article? Or is it just a problem with this image because the girl is what people would categorize as pretty and she is leaning against the wall in a nonchalant manner staring right at the camera? And how sexist is it to state that we must have a male lead image? Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Flyer22 Reborn that the image of the girl is the best picture, but I (as a Brit, not an American) can see what people are talking about with the sexualisation: it's not overt, but if a significant number of people think that way when they look at it, even if they are wrong to do so, then we should consider changing it. I agree with you that it's depressing to think that we must have a picture of a male, but there's another way to think about it - if someone's gendered assumption about the descriptor 'a blond' is to imagine a (presumably twenty-something, attractive) woman, wouldn't the image of a bearded man challenge that? I think there's something worthwhile in that. Girth Summit (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I see no sexualization. And Misplaced Pages doesn't work on personal opinions or righting the great wrongs. There needs to be rule-based reasons for content-based exclusions. WP:Consensus is also clear about this (that WP:Consensus is about rule-based arguments; it's not merely a headcount). That stated, there is more leeway with images. As for "blond," "blonde" is feminine. But this article is not titled "Blonde" or Dumb blonde (Blonde stereotype). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. First choice is Option C since it is an actual picture (not painting) and the subject is an adult. Meatsgains 00:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Results

Results. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• A: 1 first choice, 1 second choice, 1 third choice, 1 for A or C.

• B: 1 third choice

• C: 4 first choice, 1 for A or C.

• D: 2 second choice

• E:

• F: 1 first choice, 2 second choice

• G: 2 third choice, 1 third choice for G or I

• H: 1 second choice

• I: 1 first choice, 1 third choice for G or I, 1 support

Assigning 3 marks for first choice, 2 for second choice and 1 for third choice results in:

• C: 12, or 15 if you include the A or C choice

• I: 7 (if you count the support as first choice), or 8 if you include the G or I choice

• F: 7

• A: 6, or 9 if you include the A or C choice

• D: 4

• G: 2, or 3 if you include the G or I choice

• H: 2

• B: 1

• E: 0 --— Preceding unsigned comment added by NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk • contribs)

It looks like Option C has the strongest support, judging from NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM's tally above. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The RfC has been listed at WP:Requests for closure. We can simply wait for an uninvolved editor to close the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I know Option C has the votes and it's not actually a bad face. So what is it? Why don't I like that face? SlightSmile 17:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment after the close

Note: File:Lucy Merriam.jpg is still in the Child model and Human hair color articles, and on various Wikipedias. I would hope that NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM doesn't try to remove this WP:Featured image from all of those as well. What happens here does not mean that other articles or other Wikipedias must follow. They need not follow the odd reasoning here for excluding the image as a lead image. Furthermore, the image not being used for the lead of this article does not mean it cannot be used lower in the article. Indeed, since I'm comparing Wikipedias at the moment, I will also add that the image is used as the lead image or lower in the article at different Wikipedias. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning people with blond hair

@PericlesofAthens: I appreciate that you are trying to help by adding information to this article, but a person merely having blond hair does not make them warrant mention in this article. In order for a person to warrant mention in this article, that person must have significantly influenced perceptions of blond hair within his or her respective culture. Just having blond hair is not enough. So, for instance, you recently added mention of Sulla having blond hair. That would be noteworthy information to include in the article Sulla, but, unless Sulla completely revolutionized ancient Roman perceptions of blond hair (which I am pretty sure he did not), there is no good reason why we should talk about him in this article. Quite simply, we cannot possibly try to list every famous historical figure who happened to have blond hair. If we tried to do that, this article would be over a million kilobytes long and completely unreadable. I have left some of the others you added. I left Alexander the Great, for instance, because, while the sentence in the article does not make this clear, I could totally believe that Alexander the Great having blond hair would have made blond hair more popular. (After all, he popularized going clean-shaven.) I also left the mention of Lucius Verus because, while I am not convinced that he widely shaped Roman perceptions of blond hair, the famous story about him sprinkling his hair with gold dust does, I think, tell us something about what the Romans thought about blond hair. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Blondes in Asia

Ethnic Ukrainians are never blonde.

How so?

Well…

You see...

Ukrainian people are not white.

And non-white people can never be blonde.

If you disagree, it means you're a paid troll shilling for Russia.

Here's my signature, proving that I myself am a Ukrainian (and if you revert the changes, you're only proving my point):

--81.90.230.250 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What if you edit this to the article

"Blond hair, blonde hair, or fair hair (diverted from the French words "blond" and "blonde" for someone with a hair color resembling yellow) is a ] caused by very little ] in ]. Though the word has no exact translation in ], it might have developed from the French word "blanc" meaning white, or "blanche" for the feminine version of the word "white". Like the French language, it is spelled without the "e" for "blond" for a male and "blonde" for a female; due to the silent "e" making a word a feminine noun in the French language." for the beginning means nice to me. <3 ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.1.126 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That is way too much etymological information for the first paragraph of the article. The first paragraph is supposed to introduce the reader to what the subject of the article is. It would be WP:UNDUE to make the entire first paragraph a detailed explanation of the etymology of the word, especially since we have a whole section on the etymology later in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Long, straight blond hair, rear view.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Vitamin D?

This partial sentence caught my eye:

"...and is believed to have evolved to enable more efficient synthesis of vitamin D..."

Now, this is why we think northern Europeans lost most of their skin pigmentation - since that is where we synthesize vitamin D.

But not so much in the hair. It's dead, right?

So this needs more clarification if it is to remain - for instance, that the lower levels of skin pigment tended to reduce the levels of hair pigment as a by-product. Or just leave it out.

Huw Powell (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Aphrodite hair color

It is said in the article that Aphrodite hair color is blond. In some of the roman frescoes, Venus/Aphrodite it's depicted as brunette and generally as brown-haired. But this article shows only two images of Aphrodite/Venus as blonde, in which one it seems that it's just gold plaqued hair (Aphrodite was assosiaced with the color red, white and gold). It is backed up by greek and roman sources or it's just popular depiction? Another thing: It is said that "In human culture, blond hair has long been associated with female beauty". I don't think that asians, africans and native americans culture associate blondness with beauty. Simply because it's almost non existent (if non existent at all) in those regions. Except for the indo-iranians in central Asia.

Thank you for your time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleistinos (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class fashion articles
• Mid-importance fashion articles