Talk:Red hair: Difference between revisions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

The spanish figure is 2-3% redhaired people according to data. I leave the link here https://www.elmundo.es/magazine/2003/183/1048874109.html#:~:text=Si%20s%C3%B3lo%20el%207%25%20de,tanto%20dorado%20por%20nuestras%20ciudades? (Si sólo el 7% de los españoles es rubio natural (el 57% es castaño, el 26% moreno, el 3% pelirrojo y el 10% restante moreno y castaño claros)

Under section 2.1 Genetics I propose the following addition:

A haplotype has been identified on the ASIP locus on chromosome 20 that is associated with red hair.^[1] The ASIP locus prevents the MC1R receptor from producing melanocyte-stimulating hormone. As a result, less eumelanin and more pheomelanin is produced. Pheomelanin has been linked to red hair and increased risk of skin damage due to UV light.

[2] 

Tbechar

I have heard some irish people say that some irish people have red or blonde hair because of the Germanic invasion(Vikings) of Ireland. Why do irish people say this?

The following proposition:

The medieval prejudice against red-hair may have derived from the Ancient biblical tradition, in relation to biblical figures such as Esau and King David.

is unsourced and it is contraddicted by the Bible. 1 Samuel 16:1–13 affirms king David “was ruddy, with bright eyes, and good-looking.” King David has been proclaimed saint for all the Christian Churches whi veretate the saints: his being ruddy couldn’t have arisen any prejudice against rutilism.

That may also have come from the Roman superstition that people with red hair were unlucky, as were the left handed. JDZeff (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several contradictory statements being made regarding the rate of red hair occurrence in Scotland which is incorrectly claiming a 13% occurrence despite the two most comprehensive studies in the same paragraph confirming an occurrence of 5.7% and 6%. This needs to be amended immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Staines (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again requesting that the correct and factual information is displayed on this wikipedia page. It’s bewildering some people have an issue with reflecting the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Staines (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/life-sciences/sites/life_sciences/files/press_release_scotlandsdna_announces_the_results_of_the_red-head_project_scotlandsdna_27-08-2013.pdf#:~:text=6.%20The%20percentage%20of%20red%20heads%20is,English%20are%20red%2Dheads%2C%20around%202.1%20million%20people.

Here in Black and white, the most recent study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Staines (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been had before, as you are well aware. The problems and limitations of that source has been exhaustingly discussed before, as you are well aware. Do you think dragging this up again is going to change anything? In what way?–Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That link is to a ScotlandsDNA press release. It’s easy to see many ways in which it was flawed (the quoted sample size was every customer of BritainsDNA regardless of nationalty or location; it was not a random sample; the redheadedness “study” was a crude database search of the DNA found in those samples, not a survey of those exhibiting red hair in Scotland; identification of people as Scottish was according to an ad hoc metric of the number of grandparents or great-grandparents that customers had listed as Scottish on their forms; the exercise was a promotion for a service telling couples who bought BritainsDNA sample analyses whether their children might have red hair and was a low-effort way of gaining press attention too, which it did but without saving the company), but crucially for our purposes it’s not a WP:scholarship-compliant reliable source for Wikipedia.

This content has been discussed with you in 2016, 2019 and 2021 – see Talk:Red hair/Archive 6 – and you did not gain consensus for it then; re-adding it now without gaining consensus is disruptive, and drawing out another talk-page discussion would be too. NebY (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of the 13% claim for red hair occurrence in Scotland comes from the same author Alistair Moffat, in his book where a general statement was made, no research was carried out. The 6% claim comes from the exact same author after he led a specific study of red hair – where not just the genes were analysed, but the occurrence of red hair in the sample, and published through University College London. The occurrence of red hair in Scotland through the two most comprehensive studies is objectively around 6%. Headline 6 from the research paper itself clearly states: “The percentage of red heads is lower but also varies, with about 6% of Scots having red hair, about 300,000. About 4% of English are red-heads, around 2.1 million people.” Above you are referring to Britain’s DNA – that is an older study, this reference comes from Scotland’s DNA study.

What is the basis that actual research by the same author in collaboration with two others, and published by UCL, is less reliable than an un-researched comment made in a book by the same author? It makes no sense. S.Staines