Talk:Eye color

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 Wikipedia? 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, 6: 60 days

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.

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor articles
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 articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
???	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.[51][52][53][54][55]"

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.[51][52][53][54][55]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hardly a "gatekept" article. It's protected from random driveby vandalism; once you've made a total of ten edits on Wikipedia, you'll be able to add these references yourself. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing eye color range map?

This map is sourced from UCLA.edu, for an academic research paper, such a source would be considered academic. As such, it is a bit reaching to consider this source not up to par for this wikipedia article as a supplemental picture to the section given. Most supplemental pictures on wikipedia are not even sourced, let alone from a university. I would ask an administrator to decide on this before it results in an edit war. Thank you. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommygunn7886: the map is not sourced from UCLA and is not in a research paper. The map is re-used by Peter Frost, taken from Beals & Hojier (1965), and posted on a personal webpage, which is hosted on a UCLA server. Please don't mis-speak about a map you have no knowledge of. An image concerning phenotypical information is held to much higher standards than any regular picture, per WP:MEDRS. It should come from a peer-reviewed, high quality source.

This link demonstrates the true source of the map: it's from a book published in 1965. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beals and Hoijer is not a credible source, but this book "Seeking the Sacred with Psychoactive Substances: Chemical Paths to Spirituality and to God" is a credible source when it comes to the etymology of Cannabis? Rather curious. It seems one might have a confirmation bias and only be claiming this because it goes against what he wants to believe, but when it comes to other topics, less than scholarly sources seem to be fine, as long as it fits his belief. I am going to guess you are a fan of Mencius Moldbug, am I right about that? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommygunn7886: Beals and Hoijer would be a tertiary source, which is not really MEDRS worthy, especially given that it pre-dates peer review and is nearly 60 years old. Beyond that, serious copyright issues exist regarding the use of that image, especially given that it does have a copyright, and I've seen no evidence that the uploader got permission to modify and upload this map as their "own work".

With regards to your off-topic, WP:BADFAITH allegations; Sears, 2016 is definitely a reliable source, but this UCLA homepage is not. I remind you that you were warned by an admin that you are obligated not to indulge in these kind of allegations as a condition of being unbanned. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really have a power trip fantasy, any time someone disagrees with you you are always quick to report that person to a moderator. You remind me of Randall from the TV show recess. The book you used for the cannabis source is laughably non credible for an etymology, it is a new age book. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]