Talk:Red hair

Previous discussions are archived here:

• Talk:Red hair/Archive 1

---

Martha Stewart show bit

I took out a paragraph describing a Martha Stewart show on redheads, as I don't think it added anything. Someone else disagreed and put it back - fair enough. But it's also (IHMO) poorly written at the moment. Would someone care to try to improve it? Ocicat 19:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

East Asian red-tinted hair

Numerous people I know with Chinese/Japanese/Korean origin have NATURAL red tint to their jet-black (from afar) hair. Is this a variant of "the ginger gene" or some other cause? It seems that most (Northern Mongoloids) have a red tint in their hair, naturally, in my experience. I am aware of the popular practice of dying hair a red tint in Asian countries, but many people have this naturally. Additional info? Shoudl this be added to the article? Chilledsunshine 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, especially a good picture. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

红须绿眼

theres also a chinese saying, refering to western people. 红须绿眼 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoiserie (talk • contribs)

What does that translate as? Hbackman 06:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Google translates it as "Red to green eyes."--Gandalfe 17:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

red beard green eyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoiserie (talk • contribs)

Muhammad

It is not only white-history that claims that muhammad had red-hair, other sources also maintain that he did, Martin Lings for example. Von Scherwins work contains most of the informataion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.54 (talk • contribs)

"According to some sources" is easy to justify with "some" references. A Google search for "Martin Lings" + "red hair" + various spellings of Muhammad comes up with eight unique hits, none of which corroborate this claim.

chocolateboy 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there are hadith (narration about the life of Mohammed) that say he had red hair in his beard, but that's all. See Talk:Muhammad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.185.49 (talk • contribs)

He was supposed to have used henna, so you'd have to be clear on what his real hair color was supposed to have been. Esquizombi 16:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Africans

"Red hair also occurs amongst people of African descent; famous African-American redheads include Malcolm X."

Whoaa- Malcolm X attributed his red hair to the fact that his grandmother (or great grandmother?) was raped by her Scottish owner. Don't quote me on that because I don't have his autobiography with me here. But I asked about that on the Malcolm X entry and someone confirmed that is in his autobigraphy. My point is - Is there ever red hair in black people from Africa that are not mixed race? Also, that is kind of a loaded sentence. I don't think you could just leave it the way it is without an explanation. IMHO --cda 17:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Gingerphobia? Redophile?

Can someone put some kind of reference up for those terms? They seem awfully unencyclopedic and made up.

They are certainly not scientific. While "gingerphobia" is quoted (without attribution), "redophile" is treated as an established term. Seems more like a pun on the word "paedophile" to me. -- Ashmodai 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Catherine Tate episode includes the line, "the police are some of the most gingerphobic people in society" (2x01). Also see [1]. Dunno about "redophile".

chocolateboy 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's picky, somehow. I have seen ginger-head police-people myself here in dublin, ireland, more than once. What's true is the superstition about redhead, barefoot woman (in the middle age): you must cross your fingers then. If it is a redhead boy, you must spit out. If he does, then you are bewitched for that day. At own sites, i have the freedom to tell people things which are not completely true (but they contain some truth). If you see a redhead person, that's also good luck. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian info

i added some info from Australia i thought should be on there about the word Wranger before another Australian beat me to it!

Offensive

I removed the reference to ginger minger as it is deeply offensive, probably racist and no longer "part of popular culture". It never was. Redheads were an easy target for lad culture on TV in the UK for a short time but broadcast guidelines now consider it offensive and its prevent.

Similarly for wranger. Although I haven't lived in OZ for a couple of years I have never heard of this term, and no doubt its use will also disappear from TV in time. Supposedly the terms comes from comparing readheads to Orangutans. Would it be acceptable to compare a black person to an ape because they somehow resemble an ape. Definitely not.

The popularization of such term on Wiki is deeply offensive. Would Wikipedia considered the popularization of similar offensive terms for blacks or asians acceptable? Definitely not.

If you think this is over the top, wait till you have a red-headed child as I have and encounter people who think insulting terms like these are "smart" because they've seen them on TV or websites like this.

Shame.

• Wow. Extremely well written, anonymous. SOme of this, especially the first paragraph should go on the main page. I think it is better to instead of just deleting something, that we should document the history. I think the word nigger is on wikipedia and the historic timeline. I agree that racism against redhaired people is real ethnic racism. What, for example are you talking about UK TV. Is there something written that says "from now on no one can be racist against red-haired people"? I'd like to know about that. Maybe there should be a page just about racism against red-heads. Is there a page just about racism against black people or is it all together?--cda 00:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

disscusion

i dont think its offensive, i have red hair myself and get called Wranger, Wrangs but most of the time now its more of a nick name then a insult. I think its a bit much to says its racist its more of a fad, people used to dine out on jews, then italians calling them wogs and things,japanies and chinese with things like slanties, dark skinned people before all that, i mean its a passing thing and its almost over any way, soon society will find a new target to vilify. But there is reason to take it off as it isnt very purdent to have it on a encyclopedia but there could be a sub section put in a while once the red haired hype has died down.

phobia/philia - some word clearing required

phobia: greek word, fear of something. usually it makes up compound words. philia: greek word, love or affection of something.

it occurs, but mixing greek and english does not sound very much. latin is more compatible (though not anyone speaks it). for red: ruber m, rubra f, rubrum n -rubraphil (to charge it only to love redhead woman) -ruberphil (does not sound) or try japanese: red-> "aka" -> "akaphil". does not sound. probably "akai"?

people talk in greek and latin words, but do they know their concepts, styles, views (their ancient world)? it really helps to use a dicitonary.

i do not "hear" the word "redophil" sounding much valid. something like "podo-phil" (no one uses it). it sounds redo-phil (the affection/a preference to re-do something). red-o-phil is "bad" style (something like "future-o-rama"). people should not use such contructions.

if you do not understand things: i cleared up words using a dictionary. alex 11:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not sufficient evidence of the term "redophil" on the internet. "redophilia" gives 124 hits (arachnophobia gives 232,000 hits). Hence it is a "slang term", but a uncommon one. alex 12:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The word is "redophile", not "redophil". It has 10,900 hits on Google. What's your point? Fnarf999 00:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WOW. Feel free to use it. I am not redo-phile. If i paint my hairs red (not coloring them red), using real paint, this speaks on its own. I do not require this term. I do not see it efficient to edit this article anymore. redo-phile: the philia to redo something. ME NOT. It does not belong to (the) weasley article. Probably i remove it from there, when someone adds it. Because, thank of you, good grief, i can call it non-sense, and un-related vandalism. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point again. I have no opinion on whether "redophilia" belongs in this article or not. I don't care one way or the other. I was merely pointing out that the justification YOU give for YOUR objection is based on a misunderstanding and a spelling error: you googled for the wrong word when you did your research. That's why you got so few hits; you spelled the word wrong. Please refrain from editing this article. Fnarf999 17:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames for people with red/orange hair

• Tomato
• Redhead
• Ginger

Hello red-heads. How do you feel about these terms? Any other friendly words? Do you see this list "vandalism/offensive"? alex 16:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The specific vandalism I referred to was your claim that 'ginger' is used as a nickname for the Gaiety Theatre on South King Street in Dublin, Ireland. Not only is that not true but it is entirely irrelevant in an article on red hair. That said, the edit you are talking about here issuperfluous. We already mention that 'redhead' and 'ginger' are nicknames and I dispute the use of 'tomato' which you did not cite. I'm also going to remove your NPOV tag because you have not mentioned your reasoning here. --Yamla 16:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous --> useful word, i keep it in mind. I believe the first part of the word "Gaiety" refers to the french "gai", in a sense of meaning "merriment". Cockney is a bit rude and talks in tomatoes, see the entry. Hence it is not violating the rules of cockney. Sorry if it looks like doing a bit vandalism. alex 16:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The removing of the NPOV tag: it does not bug too much, and i do not believe the article is neutral, perfect or complete. "Tomato" --> htpp://rottentomatoes.com

Huh? What does rottentomatoes.com have to do with red hair? No one is suggesting that "tomato" is not a word; it's just not a word REFERRING TO RED HAIR. Fnarf999 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably you are too picky with asking for quotations, it is not a reason to discard data (by policy), but it is possible to put a template on an article, which "does not cite its sources". This means the complete article, not a single sentence. redophilia is not very widespread as well, 124 hits do not suggest that it is official slang.

By the way i would like to take steps to improve this article, but i am too technical sometimes. alex 16:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Being technical:

"We already mention that 'redhead' and 'ginger' are nicknames and I dispute the use
 of 'tomato' which you did not cite..."

• I do not know: who is "We"
• It is accepted practice to produce "extract" sections, which contain data which is "most relevant", especially in list form. alex 16:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

cockney slang

Is not it more the usage "something is ginger", which means queer, somehow, or dubious (like a unserious contract)? I do not believe that cockney calls "redhead" people "ginger", to outline their membership to a special population group (i.e. one which is frequents bars). The article gives this idea. It requires to consult someone how knows cockney, to verify it. I believe cockney says "this is ginger to me", and it does not have any reference to "redhead" people.

Well, I must say this is more likely than your contention that "ginger" refers to a specific building in Ireland. Nevertheless, you raise a good point. It is entirely possible that the term, "ginger", does not refer to either gay people or a building in Ireland. Regardless, neither have anything to do with red hair and so I will remove the reference. --Yamla 14:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am no particular expert in Cockney rhyming slang but I have certainly heard "ginger" used as rhyming slang for "queer" (i.e. from "ginger beer"). The implication was homosexual but not especialy pejorative. There was no association with red hair.

By the way "Red hair" just refers to animated objects with red hair, this includes various animals. The article needs rewrite towards talking about "Red hair" only, and not "Red-haired_People".

The pictures of "Redhead people" are nice, i like them personally. But, i do not see where to draw a line (how many to include), or why to include a specific person. A "gallery" of redhead people should be open to anyone red-head, probably it suits to open a special wiki for it. It is out of scope of a wikipedia article. I can connect a wiki immediately, one which is open to anyone to edit/add content. An article might include a picture of a prominent person (which is international recognizeable).

The doughbarber.com site displays adverts, and opens pop-up windows. Hence it is a link to adverts, which might get removed (anyway it does not have to take place). The sub-page containing the information is not "advert-free", and not "pop-up free". alex 08:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

REWRITE

if you prefer not to talk to me- probably you are scared from other websites. I am absolutely pro-redhead. However, this article is about the hair, and not the people. I plan to re-write it, and requested an extra article abuot the people. The cockney remark belongs to a dictionary of cockney, a reference to it is OK. There, it is possibly to demand that it figures the truth. (cockney: something "looks" ginger) Wikipedia is not a closed society. Any redhead person can add pictures of own, how it looks... I would love it, but it is not an image gallery. It does not bug me and i wont remove the images, just saying. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, this article undergoes various edit steps, which are not announced/discussed here. I have added the template Weasel words, someone has removed it again. The passage about "redophilia" is gone, but it still has weasel words, especially "some". I have added ==Nickname for redhead people==, including tomato (there is evidence for this). This was called "vandalism". Now i try discuss this on the village pump (vandalism vs edit mistake). Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 12:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Akidd dublin: your many edits to this page are a source of frustration for me. They are of a uniformly low standard. I am guessing that you are not a native speaker of English, because you are obviously intelligent but make many, many small errors in spelling and grammar, of a sort that are unlikely in someone who is simply uneducated. Small errors like these can be corrected. But larger ones, of comprehension and appropriateness, cannot so easily be fixed.

In addition, you have continually mixed up different topics. The accusation of "vandalism" was made in reference to a completely different edit than the one you claim; it was about the Gaiety Theatre and cockney rhyming slang. That insertion was both inaccurate and inappropriate. Vandalism is too strong a word for this error, and the person who said has retracted it. But it's more than just a simple error.

The edit to which you are referring to here, like most of your edits, is grammatically incorrect (should be "Nicknames") and, again, pointless: the information is already in the article, except for "tomato". You claim evidence; let's see it.

In short, I would like to encourage you to add value to the articles you edit. If you make valuable edits, others can correct your spelling and grammar. But if you add off-topic or repetitive nonsense, these edits must be removed. Fnarf999 17:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely do not get the point. I have not made many edits to this article. I added the section nicknames, three lines, and re-spelled the ghey line. That's all the edits, Yes, of course the templates. There were successful: "redophil" is gone. Guess no one says that. Like podo-phil, theretically valid, but not used. So what are these many edits?

Can you list mistakes i made within other articles? I do not spell small letters, i know it is not accepted for articles. There are numerous places as of 2006, where this takes place. I am not the only one.

I do not get if you refer to my edits to this articles, or to which other articles, i have created, or edited. There are visible from CTR-L (signature).

You say pointless (duplicate data), see the Yahoo! Groups (i have edited much of it). I do believe some want to read float-text, others are looking for a feature list. I do believe it is good right now, and not full of mistakes, like most of my edits.

I do not understand, why Yahoo! Avatars is unrelated- they support the display of redhead avatars. Personally i do not know, if a link to Cockney makes sense, or if it is (again) considered edit mistake/vandalism, if i just add one internal link. For other articles, i am not that pedantic, however i do not really remove data (see Matsuri, can you do it better? - it has political connection, and was in bad state. It is not required to remove the link table. It is valid to use html exceptionally). A little talk about few my edits (grammar?) - see rottentomatoes.com. The Dough Barber site pops up adverts, or it has popped up adverts in the past. It would not be wrong to switch to pop-up free web hosting. I do not get the point why i can not add rottentomatoes.com to here, just because i can not proove that it relates to "tomato" nickname. I have read (more than once) the british make spelling/grammar mistakes themselves. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You do not understand why a link to "rottentomatoes.com" is inappropriate for an article on red hair? Are you serious? Fnarf999 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It puts people (browsing the article) to cinema movies - so to speak. that's NPOV, true, polically correct talking that red haired people are not... we leave it at this point. This site (rottentomtoes.com) does not attack red-haired people. Look, the article contained unsuitable stuff before i arrived. By the way i do not respond to Akidd_dublin anymore. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the South Park reference

Why was the link to the episode of South Park entitled Ginger Kids (can't get any more on-topic than that) removed from the Red Hair in Popular Culture section? South Park is a well known social satire and expresses the opinions of a lot of people, the episode itself highlights many views of people with Red Hair and therefore it is appropriate to this article. Added it back in

Removal of link

I removed a link that I found to be not working. Just letting you know.Cjflash 03:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)cjflash

Changing of picture

I changed the picture of the redheaded dude, it was more Auburn. Instead I have put in a picture of a man with very red ginger hair. Fnarf999 changed it back to my annoyance, he clearly hasnt got a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgovan20 (talk • contribs)

Be civil, please. Editors can have a difference of opinion on things like this without being clue-impaired. Auburn and "ginger" are both shades of red, and it's a judgment call which is the better image. Since it's your picture we're debating, maybe your annoyance comes from taking this a little personally?

Also, please add comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. · rodii · 01:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont like the other pic, the guy looks a little creepy. Also its just distracting from the article, but I have decided to leave it seeing as the general consenus is that it should stay. However I added another picture, which is most definetely of cultural significance seperate from the other.

I've reverted the picture back - the editors here need to talk this out on the talk page rather than playing revert tennis. Settle on a consensus on the images THEN change them - Peripitus 10:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and Peripitus, do not call the picture "unattractive", i'm quite sure my friend would take offense to that. I dont see your picture on here at all...i wonder why. There is a page for people who look ugly you know, it doesnt have to go in your profile. - Ed

Perhaps you have misunderstood. The picture is unattractive that is not-aesthetically pleasing. This is not a slight on the subject but on the composition and overall impression the picture gives. The older picture is clearer and better illustrates the subject of the article - Peripitus 12:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not "your friend," it's you, and the only thing you've contributed to Wikipedia is to plant pictures of you on various pages--and none of them are really satisfactory images for the articles they're in. I don't like either picture, actually, but the older one is definitely better to illustrate red hair. For one thing, there's only one person in it, so there's no potential confusion. It's also more of a closeup, so more detail is visible. · rodii · 11:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk about a lame edit war. I've protected the page and request both sides to discuss the pros and cons of the images here on the talk page. Angr (t • c) 12:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No its not me, it is my friend Ben Thompson. I know the summary of the pic says E W Govan, but that was meant to mean I took the photo. Roddi...put "wan" and "ker" together and that is what you are. The current picture is far too "in your face", he looks a bit creepy and generaly does not make it very "aethetically pleasing". My friends picture is not so "in your face", it get the message across clearly.