Jump to content

Talk:Discrimination against people with red hair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by SL93 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No response from nominator.

(
)
A Uyghur child with red hair
A Uyghur child with red hair
  • ... that referring to someone with red hair (pictured) as "a ginger" can be offensive?

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 20:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Interesting article! New enough, long enough, sourced, and AGF on the plagiarism-free because Earwig seems to be down. However, I have problems with the neutrality of the hook and article. The sourcing you provide doesn't seem to bear out the idea that "ginger" as a noun is seen as definitively or widely pejorative, as the article says. You cite the Irish Times, Al Jazeera, Psychology Today, and The Guardian. The Irish Times cites opposing viewpoints from people who don't think the term is offensive, suggesting a kind of "no consensus". Al Jazeera's work is an opinion piece, so it doesn't necessarily reflect the wider views of the red-haired community. Psychology Today does support the idea of the term being widely viewed as pejorative, but it does say "usually" and I don't necessarily view PT as the most rock-solid source, although it seems fine. I see no mention in The Guardian's article on whether or not the term is seen as pejorative.
Other neutrality issues:
  • The article says "children with red hair suffered a wave of assaults" in relation to "Kick a Ginger Day"—while that is horrid, the article it cites only mentions a handful of cases. A "wave" makes it seem like there was a dedicated assault from backwards bigots, and not a few teenagers being stupid.
  • The television program South Park has become known for promoting abuse against people with red hair. The fact that South Park humourizes or even trivializes violence against people with red hair does not equate to the show blatantly encouraging said violence, and i don't see the cited sources bearing that out either.
  • Mentioning the Halle Bailey/Ariel incident of the lead being criticized for ginger hair without putting it in the context that said criticism was itself criticized in The Guardian's opinion piece for being dogwhistle racism isn't a neutral point of view.
  • Stereotypes about red-haired people that aren't derogatory or discriminatory aren't within the scope of the article.
If the article and hook were both changed to "is perceived by some" to not put it in Wikipedia's voice, that'd be a pass, but I also think there's more interesting hooks to be had, if you're open to that—I've suggested an alt and I may suggest more—let me know what you think. Overall, this is a fascinating article, and I hope to see it run on DYK. Cheers, and don't forget a QPQ! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 06:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aighty, I gotta sleep—I'll finish this review in the morning. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 09:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: I think I've finished my review for now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 05:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bias

[edit]

Article says "The term "ginger" is pejorative or offensive" with a very strong language, even though it states some people think the other way. There are problems with this statement,

  1. References are attributed to opinion pieces or similar style writings that has no value as a reliable academic source.
  2. Multiple dictionaries do not classify "ginger" as a pejorative or vulgar term.[1][2]. Cambridge dict says it can be used in an offensive way (at the bottommost definition), however, they note that it is also used in a non-offensive context, and they neither classify it as a slur nor a derogatory term.[3]

Regarding article in general,

  1. People in some images are not even exactly red haired, but more close to blondish or chestnut/brownish hair.
  2. Article says, Prince Henry is reported to be abused for his hair color. It is unclear how this is supported by concrete evidence.
  3. The content regarding alleged discrimination is generally supported by opinion pieces or similar quality references. There are academic works used but they are mostly used to support content not directly related to discrimination (e.g., the reasons of MC1R mutation in Europe).
  4. The source of the content about Japan is not specifically about red haired people. In fact, the news report says the student was BROWN haired.
    1. I have deleted this part.

Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Even the article's definition is problematic, "Discrimination against people with red hair is the prejudice, fear, rejection, stereotyping and dehumanization of people with naturally red hair...". This is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources. The more I read the more and severer problems I see; I wish I used a stronger wording than "possible bias".--John the Janitor (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2

I wanted to note that I had revised the part that is related to South Park, which, I believe, was misleading.--John the Janitor (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 3

"In 2018, a television advertisement for Carlton & United Breweries Yak Ales was criticized after the Advertising Standards Authority found that it vilified people with red hair by suggesting society should work towards their eradication." The reference for this statement does not support that advertisement suggests that "society should work towards their [read headed people's] eradication". This article might even be considered a hoax.--John the Janitor (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 4

In 2015, a person with red hair was convicted of terrorist offenses over a plot to assassinate Prince Charles and Prince William in order to ensure Prince Harry, who has red hair, would become King of the United Kingdom.[28] The man attributed his genetic supremacist views towards childhood bullying to which he'd been subjected over his hair color.[28] incorrect. The reference actually states that, Loner Mark Colborne, who felt marginalised because of his hair colour, dreamt up the terror plot to transform himself from a ginger-haired victim into a notorious military terrorist.--John the Janitor (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, since that's fixed then, I'm removing the tags. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have removed the tags. There are still problems with the article. I have only pointed out some of them, and I don't have to point out every single one to reveal that; this is called inductive reasoning. Ignoring that the article still has profound problems is a disregard to obvious facts. Therefore, I am adding back the tags. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can maintenance tags be removed from this article?

[edit]

Three maintenance tags (neutrality, factual accuracy, source reliability) were added to this article. Only two editors are active on the article and both disagree whether the application of the tags is necessary. Should (a) any, (b) all, (c) none of the maintenance tags be removed? (Holding this for listing as an RfC pending closure of AfD.) Chetsford (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC); edited 20:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Remove all three John the Janitor, a new member of our community, recently set about a failed AfD on this article. The reasoning in that AfD seems to largely -- though vaguely -- describe their reasoning for the maintenance tags (in the thread above) which more or less came down to 50% basis in an erroneously interpreted policy belief and 50% unknown other problems that, when questioned, they refuse to identify as "I don't have to point out every single one to reveal that; this is called inductive reasoning" [4]. Ultimately, if the only person involved in applying maintenance templates refuses, when asked, to provide the reasons for why those templates were added (other than vague generalities), no improvement leading to the eventual removal of those templates can occur. In other words, these seem to be "scare tags" applied as a fallback option due to the failure of the AfD, as opposed to any attempt to raise a legitimate maintenance issue, and should be removed. Good faith should be assumed, but it also must be demonstrated. Chetsford (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three There are unreliable references in the article, such as this opinion piece. The article contains bias. For example, one of the references cited in this article define gingerism, a synonym for the article subject, as such, "prejudice against people with red hair is known as “gingerism."[5] Yet, our definition seems more extreme that goes into claim that red-haired people are "fear[ed], reject[ed], and dehumanize[d]", in addition to prejudice and stereotyping. There are also factual errors. For instance, the article claims that discrimination against red-haired people is caused by "imperialism, religious bigotry and war", an Exceptional statement that references only an opinion piece. There are also other mistakes, which I had removed, but they were reinstated by Chetsford.[6]--John the neo-Janitor (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Chetsford Chetsford relates the placement of tags to an AfD by me. AfD is not related to whether this article contains unreliable sources or bias. I invite third party users to discuss the legitimacy of the arguments without making remarks to AfD. The user also incorrectly assumes that I did not present evidence regarding why I placed tags. I did explain my reasoning and showed evidence for it but also stated that it would be ineffective to show every single error in the article to prove this, hence the inductive reasoning. They also think that I interpreted the policy wrongly but neither it is clear which policy they are talking about nor they did an attempt to explain this unmentioned policy correctly. It is also funny that the user asks others to demonstrate good faith whilst labeling my edits as an attempt to censor Wikipedia in their edit summary.--John the neo-Janitor (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Three John's claims are not at all generalities. Rather, he pointed out specific issues with the article. I don't think this article should be deleted, but it does seem like it's written from a POV that attempts to magnify the phenomenon as much as possible. The lead is specifically suspect to me, because it makes a number of strong claims without any sourcing. For example, in the passage "the routine characterization of people with red hair as subhuman animals, and occasional declarations of a desire to eradicate people with red hair.", the word 'routinely' is very strong. It implies that there's a widespread belief or ideology that redheads are subhuman animals. This short passage also implies there is serious genocidal intent against redheaded people. I'm sure some people said that, but I'm also sure some people said "I want to kill all X" for any arbitrary group. But it seems to me that this unsourced statement was included here to make the user think there is some credible threat to redheaded people, to make it appear like there's a real genocidal movement aiming to destroy redheads as a group, like there is for Jews or Tutsis. There is some prejudice and maybe even mild discrimination against redheads, but I think this article is written in a way that exaggerates it. Av = λv (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

[edit]

Remove from Wikipedia

[edit]

The introduction to this article is clearly biased and based on no references. This is a hate article and an embarrassment to Wiki. 2601:587:380:5490:9921:E30F:3715:4426 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a “Hate article”? What an ignorant and uneducated comment. 2600:6C52:7800:E7:14ED:3C27:E600:9612 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of redheads which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discrimination_against_people_with_red_hair&oldid=1260335183"