Talk:Eye color

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

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

"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 (talkcontribs)


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."[edit]

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 Wikipedia's own sourcing, the term is "an obsolete category for race."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2024[edit]

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]

 Donenovov (t c) 05:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and Sex are not interchangable, Edit request![edit]

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[edit]

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]