Talk:Eye color - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 4 April 2022 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Eye color/Archive 6) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:44, 4 April 2022 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Eye color/Archive 6) (bot)(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.

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)

Spelling

Inconsistent spelling of “grey or gray”, are we to use queen’s English or bastardized English. 150.143.179.27 (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Both forms are acceptable in both types of English, but I suppose we should us one consistently in this article. The article title is a bit of a clue as to what variety is used here.... Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Categories: