Talk:Eye color - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tommygunn7886 (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 23 May 2024 (→Tommygunn7886's removal of content: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:04, 23 May 2024 by Tommygunn7886 (talk | contribs) (→Tommygunn7886's removal of content: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eye color 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Eye color. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Eye color at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Color Mid‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animal anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Why is editing blocked on an article with such poor sourcing?

"DNA studies on ancient human remains confirm that light skin, hair and eyes were present at least tens of thousands of years ago on Neanderthals, who lived in Eurasia for 500,000 years."

No, those sources don't say that -- especially the bit about "500,000 years," but more important (given the subject of the article) nothing "confirms" "light eyes" in Neanderthals, only light skin and red hair. Genes expressing blue eyes in modern homo sapiens were present but less dominant in a couple DNA samples mentioned in one of the articles, but that's it, and the article warns that the study is not widely accepted and that we ahve no way of knowing what the actual effect of thse genes would have been.

Yet there it is: DNA studies on ancient human remains confirm that light skin, hair and eyes were present at least tens of thousands of years ago on Neanderthals, who lived in Eurasia for 500,000 years.

Who besides me will actually READ all five of those sources? It's not unlikely that the original editor who contributed the sentences had racist motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:cda0:9220:c1ea:12f4:f079:be78 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what the argument is about, but the genetics people are stating that Neanderthals gave the homo sapiens light skin and light eyes over a period of time.ie blue and green eyes. Not sure why that would upset anyone or be a controversial idea. https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neanderthal_facts_and_myths.shtml

Delete "Caucasian," substitute "of European descent."

Caucasian means "from the region surrounding the Caucasus Mountains." The relevant text is actually referring to "white" individuals, i.e. people of European descent. The phenomenon by which "Caucasian" morphed into "white" is based in nineteenth-century thought that privileged the Caucasian as "special" or "exemplary" whites. There is no reason to use the term now as a formal why to refer to whites. By Misplaced Pages's own sourcing, the term is "an obsolete category for race."

https://en.wikipedia.org/Caucasian_race

Why one earth can't I edit the text for eye color? Is it a controversial subject? 2600:1700:5B2C:A090:3111:682E:5CD6:AF1 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Those violet impressive eyes that God gifted to Türkmen race , Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is one of the best example of these fascinating and wonderful eyes in known history. 88.230.9.99 (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please can you remove the photo of Daniel Craig with the caption "Actor Daniel Craig has the most common eye color in the U.K. as of 2014: (blue: 48%, green: 30%, brown: 22%)." This is not true. The linked source is a Times article which quotes a project by 'ScotlandsDNA'. This is a disgraced company, not a scientific source. The myth that blue eyes are more common in the UK now is widespread but untrue. All other studies suggest brown is the most common (even in Scotland!). Green is likely to be the least common. Please see the links below. I would be really grateful if you could remove this misinformation. Thank you for your help.

1) Dubious practices and claims by this company: https://www.mdpi.com/2313-5778/2/4/47 2) Brown is the most common eye colour in UK as of 2019: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497318303387 3) Brown is possibly even the most common eye colour in Scotland (small sample from 2009): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810292/ 217.155.204.10 (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Done ― novov (t c) 05:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Gender and Sex are not interchangable, Edit request!

The article says that "gender" is a deciding factor in what color a person's eyes are. The word gender links to the wikipedia page about gender which is defined as sociocultural. This term should be replaced by "sex" instead because its referring to the biological sexes instead. 152.7.255.202 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Eye Color and Low-Light Vision Studies

Under the "Impact on Vision" section, there's no mention of findings related to vision in low-light. I'd add it myself but this is yet another gatekept article (rather ironic for a wiki site, no?)

You can find a reference to a study at the University of Copenhagen here: https://katrinapaulson.medium.com/study-suggests-people-with-blue-eyes-can-read-better-in-dim-lighting-01b39d1862a6

…and to a study at Liverpool John Moore University here: https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/news/articles/2024/2/7/blue-eyes

…as well as a passing reference to the findings in a section marked "Does eye color affect night sky vision?" here: https://www.almanac.com/seeing-in-the-dark

While these aren't absolutely conclusive, I would argue they're no less substantiated or valid than the portion referring to the study on "Correlation of eye color on self-paced and reactive motor performance." Gaius315 (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hardly a "gatekept" article. It's protected from random driveby vandalism; once you've made a total of ten edits on Misplaced Pages, you'll be able to add these references yourself. --jpgordon 19:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886's removal of content

Tommygunn7886 recently removed content from this article, with the following edit summary:

“

User was putting his own implicaions upon a study in which the only group involved were people of Spanish origin. The study did not show any correlation or causation for populations at large."

”

I disagree. Martinez-Cardenas et al. did not just base their observations about gender asymmetries in eye color on their own data alone. This is also supported by data from several independent sources that they cited.

From the abstract and the meat of the study:

These results are also corroborated by the revision and meta-analysis of data from previously published eye colour genetic studies in several Caucasian populations, which significantly support the fact that males are more likely to have blue eyes than females
(...)
This effect is what may explain the fact that there seem to be comparatively higher frequencies of blue-eyed males than blue-eyed females in populations of European origin such as Iceland , Holland , Australia or Poland , as well as in this study (see Fig. 2).

Tommygunn's explanation for the blanket removal of the eye color gender asymmetry would appear to be faulty.

I nevertheless agree that a specific data point taken from the Spanish sample (such as that only 54% of Spanish women with the SNPs for blue eyes actually had blue eyes...) doesn't belong in the article. That was rather sloppy editing on my part. Removed. - A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I find this singling out of me for attempting to correct the page based on the information that was on the page highly problematic and troubling. I would like a moderator to intervene, this is very threatening and unsettling behavior. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: