Talk:Eye color - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Blue Rider (talk | contribs) at 19:56, 22 February 2022 (→Misleading statistics: Made some minor corrections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:56, 22 February 2022 by The Blue Rider (talk | contribs) (→Misleading statistics: Made some minor corrections)(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 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.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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)

Photo race bias: Caucasian eyes

As far as I can tell, of the 34 photos of human eyes in this story, all are Caucasian except one photo of an east asian eye (repeated twice). As the article's text makes clear, it's not correct to assume that everyone except Caucasians has brown eyes. For instance, just googling "North African blue eyes" generates many striking photos, e.g. https://africageographic.com/stories/the-boy-with-the-sapphire-eyes/ It would be great if this article were more inclusive.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

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

I want to edit or to get edited that to correct you passage, Elizabeth Taylor did not actually have purple eyes. Your article has false advertisement. She had a very beautiful blue color. Many people confuse it with purple due to the lighting. However, if you think about it, she had such a deep blue and back then sometimes when you would take a picture it would make your eyes glow red, or have a red hint. In Elizabeth's case when the red hit her eyes, it mixed with the blue making her eyes then appear like they were a very dark purple. However, there is such thing as having purple eyes. It is a disease though and very uncommon. While Elizabeth Taylor did have very stunning eyes, it can be very easily confused with purple. I am not asking you to let me edit or to even right this. I am just trying to open your eyes to the logistics of this very untrue story. However, if you do decided to remove it please do not put this in, as it was only used to convince you to remove the part about Elizabeth having purple eyes. I hope you consider this writing, as it has taken me a good deal of time to right this. I hope this finds you well and God blesses the rest of your day. God bless you Iamahugesoccerfan (talk)

Already done That is essentially what the article already says. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Although the deep blue eyes of some people such as Elizabeth Taylor can appear violet at certain times, "true" violet-colored eyes occur only due to albinism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Scientifically dubious

In the section Hazel, this sentence appears:

"Although hazel mostly consists of brown and green, the dominant color in the eye can either be brown/gold or green.

It is 100% unclear what "the dominant color in the eye" means here.

Especially because there are no green pigments in human eyes.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can fix this. 2601:200:C000:1A0:C016:D334:56A8:4CA5 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Misleading statistics

In the Green subsection most statistics include both blue and green eyes on them and there is one that also includes grey-eyed people, which doesn't make much sense, because the incidence of green eyes is much lower than blue eye color, even in Nordic countries and most people when looking at these statistics will assume that the percentage is fairly proportional, when in fact it isn't. There was a percentage (which I substituted) saying that 80% percentage of Icelanders have both blue and green eyes, but I was able to find a source stating that 80% of men and 68-70% of women have blue eyes and by contrast only around 8-10% of men and 18-21% of women have green colored eyes in Iceland.

So for the reasons mentioned above, it's misleading to use statistics that aggregate both blue and green eyes in the Green subsection.

I took the initiative and removed/corrected all of those statistics, apart from the last one which I was not able to find any substitutable source. SadAttorney613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories: