Talk:Unibrow/Archive 1

Definition

What else can you say?Wetman 18:39, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Does wiki normally describe obvious slang or colloquial language without mentioning that it is colloquial? --Waltonics 07:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Illusion

The article states: "Unibrow is a term used for the excess of hair between eyebrows. This gives the person bearing the unibrow a illusion of having one eyebrow." Is it the illusion of one brow, or actually one brow? Hyacinth 20:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

It could possibly be either. (In fact, the 'illusion' is not necessarily an issue at all.) What it is is that the hair grows between the eyebrows, which may(?) but doesn't necessarily connect them (the effect is kind of like the finger sausage illusion, but with the eyebrows). I've been accused of having one myself, and I look like this: [1]. —Muke Tever 13:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV problems

This article has serious NPOV problems. The "unibrow", real or apparent, is just part of normal human variation. More work is needed here. -- Karada 10:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I fixed the NPOV problem.Navii04 03:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is fixed. These apologetics don't add anything to the article. I will admit, the statement I added about prevalence in certain ethnicities was based on my observations and the observations of others with whom I have discussed this (and if you think this is strange, believe me, you don't want to hear the bizarre topics that come up when I talk to my friends), and not scientific study or anything of the like. But it is not a point of view. It is either true or it is false. Obviously, I believe it is true, despite my own inability to back it up with data, though I hoped someone might be able to do so. In addition, considering that the article does not make any value statements about unibrows, there is also no value statement attached to the observation that their distribution varies among ethnicities (unless it is an uncontroversial fact that unibrows are unattractive). Would it be POV to state that persons of African ancestry tend to have darker skin than persons of Scandanavian origin? I don't think so.

Honestly, the lengths to which people go to avoid noticing differences between people sickens me. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 08:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV problem has certainly been fixed. Navii04's additions to the article has not been apologetic in any manner, she simply addressed two diffrent view point regarding the subject at hand.
You said it your self, " I will admit, the statement I added about prevalence in certain ethnicities was based on my observations and the observations of others with whom I have discussed this [...] and not scientific study or anything of the like." That's fine, that's YOUR view point and also the view point of a few others. OK, we have identified the view point of one group, now what is the view point of another group of people? Can it be those who "believe that the unibrow, weather real or apparent, is just a natural trait of human variation."? Can that be another view point? Of course it is another view point! What makes you think that your view point should be the only one added? You made the claim, "Obviously, I believe it is true, despite my own inability to back it up with data, [...]" The reason you can not back up your claim is because it is not simply, "true or it is false," but infact a view point.
Honestly, the idea that there are people who think there is only one correct way sickness me. -- Joel M. 18:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, after rereading the article, I believe it still has a NPOV problem. "The unibrow is a often derided as being a throwback to primitive state or as showing a lack of self-grooming [...]" this paragraph should be rewritten. --Joel M. 01:49, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

You have correctly identified a paragraph that needed to be rewritten. That paragraph does have a point of view. I agree as strongly that that needs to be changed as I disagree that the article is now more NPOV than it was.

I don't see how you can say that it is not a matter of fact (true or false, whichever it may be) that certain populations have a greater prevalence of a certain physical feature. It is not at all a point of view. If someone out there were to take a sample of people from different ethnicities, count how many had a unibrow, and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, then it would be clear what the facts are. Until such a study is conducted, it is not the factuality of the statement that is in question, it is whether or not such data is known. This being a collaborative effort, I hoped another contributor might know of such a study. Maybe it is silly of me to think such a study would be conducted (although sillier studies have been conducted). And if my statement turned out to be false, it would be changed. If it is false, it should not be included as a "point of view", except to point out that many people are of the mistaken impression that this is the case. And if it is true, it needs nothing else to balance it. I'm sorry, but there is one correct answer here, whether or not I know it.

The revisions were apologetics precisely because of the phrase "the unibrow, weather real or apparent, is just a natural trait of human variation." First (a minor objection), "real or apparent" is apologetic, because it implies that the very existance of unibrows is a point of view and that we should look at the other side. What other side? If there was any doubt in anyone's mind that the feature mentioned really exists in people, there is now photo evidence on the page. Second, the "natural trait of human variation" given as an opposing view is not really an opposing view. I believe that the unibrow is a natural trait of human variation AND I believe that it is more common in certain ethnicities. They are not conflicting viewpoints, except that the addition of that phrase strongly implies that the latter statement is inextricably tied to a belief that unibrows are unattractive, unibrows make someone inferior, or something of the like, something other than "just a natural variation". I don't hold any such belief, nor would I put it into an encyclopedia article claiming it to be fact even if I did. If that implication was not intened, I am simply pointing out that the editor should be more cautious about revisions that make such implications. If it was intended, I am insulted that the editor would put such words into my mouth and the mouths of others who agree with my observations, but that is not what is important; what is important is that the implication is wrong.

I avoid editing articles about which I get into heated debates, but here is a suggestion for anyone who wants to fix it (and I really think it needs to be fixed):

Some have observed a greater prevalence of unibrows among certain ethnicities...There are however to date no peer-reviewed studies to corroborate this observation.

I strongly suggest that the phrase "natural trait of human variation" be moved to a different part of the article and not identified as an opposing point of view, because of the reasons I mentioned above.

Finally, I realize the last stab I made was somewhat harsh. I am just frustrated that statements regarding ethnic differences are so often held to a different standard of neutrality than everything else.

I am also sickened by people who feel there is always only one correct way. But I am equally sickened by people who feel there is never only one correct way. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 10:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reason I say that it is not a matter of being, "true or false," is because no one has shown it to be, "true or false." If you believe something to be true but there is no data to back up your claims then its your point of view/opinion.

1. Opinion - A non-objective thought that a person has formed about a topic or issue.

Now if you had credible data to show that your claims are correct then it would be fact because there would be something we can point at and say, "Look, this study shows group X indeed has more unibrows then group Y." Like wise with me, I agree with you on the fact that i do believe, "particularly people from the Mediterranean countries of Turkey and Greece," the unibrow is common. I believe this because I also believe that in those countries it is, fashion wise, acceptable, just as in France, it is fashionable for women to not shave their armpits. But, regardless of MY view points, I have no data or experience to support my claim.
In science what do we call something that seems true, it might be widely supported to be true, but can not be proved to be true? A theory, and a theory has to be expresses as a theory and not as fact.

Now about the, "real or apparent," discution. You are correct, the phrase "real or apparent," does seem to imply that unibrows might be a POV in it self. The opposing view, "Others believe that the unibrow, weather real or apparent, is just a natural trait of human variation," is very lose and should be edited to voice the opposing views on the matter.

Your revision, "Some have observed a greater prevalence of unibrows among certain ethnicities[...]" is a grate one and should be used instead of the current version, but I also believe others should become involved in this matter before making major changes.

And about the editor putting words in your mouth... I don't believe the editor was, in any way, putting words into your mouth, what might have happend was, some one read the article and wanted to make it better then it was. This entire conversation has been in the spirit of, "making the article as grate as it can be," even if it just about unibrows.

Honestly, bad Chinese food sickens me.--Joel M. 17:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

The distinction often made between theory and proven fact, although commonly used to attack scientific theories that do not fit within a chosen frame of belief (such as in creation vs. evolution), is artificial and is not used in science. Is there really anything we can know as fact? This is a complicated philosophical issue. And I wouldn't claim that my observations are a theory, as the term is used in science, nor is it really the type of claim that is usually verified in science. But they are two entirely different things to say that "it is the point of view of A that claim X is true" and "it is the point of view of A that evidence B supports claim X". I maintain that the claim I made is not a point of view, even though it is a point of view to say that evidence supports it. Fortunately, it appears the NPOV problem can be resolved without solving the problems of theory vs. fact or fact vs. opinion on which it appears we disagree. Hopefully, someone can come back and fix it in line with the way I suggested, or I will do it myself when I'm sure the discussion has cooled down.

I wonder if the NPOV problems Karada refered to had more to do with the previous paragraph. That is where the more serious (in in my opinion the only serious) POV problems lie. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 05:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to post a reply, I will try to post tomorrow. --Joel M. 23:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Unibrow Photo added

I have added a photo of a Unibrow man. What do you guys think?

It's a bit much, unflattering, panders to ethnic stereotypes, and it doesn't have a copyright license specified. I've removed it from the article and replaced it with a Kahlo self-portrait which is more pleasant to look at, is of verifiable copyright status, and is of a figure famous for her depictions of her unibrow (so we don't have to worry about it being interpretted as saying "Mexicans have unibrows" in quite the same way that the other photo might lead one to think). --Fastfission 01:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Links

I suppose this article could/should be linked to other grooming topics such as underarm or leg hair.

Yes it should be linked in other grooming topics under the See Also header. --Joel M. 04:05, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Questionable claims about prevalence

I would like to keep this comment separate from the POV debate, partly because I think it is probably not what Karada meant by NPOV problems. As I have said, I don't have a reliable source to verify my claims about varying prevalence of the unibrow among different ethnic groups. But considering the two possibilities:

1. The prevalence of the unibrow varies between ethnic groups.
2. The prevalence of the unibrow is uniform across all ethnic groups.

the burden of proof should be on supporters of the second position, being that the first is far simpler (I am trying to point out, in a roundabout way, how Ockham's razor could be used as a guideline).

Further, it is a matter of fact that the unibrow is viewed as a unattractive feature by many people in some cultures, and that in other cultures, it is seen as normal. Perhaps in some cultures, a unibrow is regarded as very attractive (this would be an interesting thing to mention in the article if it is true). But in any case, it is entirely natural to assume that, given the availability of hair removal, there would be a decreased prevalence of the unibrow in cultures where it is considered unattractive (and a corresponding relative increase in prevalence in those where it is not), even if there is not naturally such a difference.

It can be readily verified that in the countries I mentioned, a unibrow is not widely considered unattractive. Because the observations of myself and "a few others" support the most natural conclusions based on this data, they are perhaps not as unbased as it may first seem. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 10:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fixed up

I tried to fix this up. In particular:

• Drop all info about ethnic groups, normal variations, whatever. There's not even the semblance of this information out there. Noted that there is no data. Left it at that.
• Noted that it is not a term used in standard dictionaries.
• Note that in Western cultures (USA, Europe) it is sometimes seen as a sign of poor grooming. Won't try to generalize beyond that without any evidence.
• Replace photos with a nice paiting of Kahlo.

Hopefully that will kill the POV dispute. Any further problems? --Fastfission 00:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the Kahlo image. I always thought one of her self-portraits would be best, and am glad you found a free one on a stamp.--Pharos 06:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current version looks good. I'm sad to see all info on ethnic variation removed, but I am hopeful that someday a peer-reviewed study will waste taxpayer money to satisfy my curiosity and, with luck, confirm what seems obvious to me. Sigh... CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 07:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Obviousness" in something like physical traits, especially ones which can be easily concealed and have large cultural valences, is almost always misleading. I also don't see any advantage to saying that X group is more likely to have these than others, especially if it can't be backed up with anything other than anecdotal evidence. At the very best, it looks like an ethnic jab more than anything else (whether you mean it as one or not), which I think we can all agree the world has quite enough of as it is.--Fastfission 22:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, part of my point is that I think it is sad that people take things to be ethnic jabs when they clearly are not, and I don't think such misinterpretation, whether intentional or simply censorial vigilantism, should be a factor in what can and can't be considered fact. I am perfectly happy to leave out this information until better data is available, but not because of NPOV policy, only because of "no original research" policy. If data surfaces to support my original statement, I would hope to see a similar statement reappear in the article as significant and interesting encyclopedic knowledge, regardless of how it might be misinterpreted.

I don't believe obviousness in physical traits is as misleading as you say. People have long used differences in physical traits to tell ethnic groups apart. Whether or not this is right, it is effective. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 08:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but, no it's not effective. Hyacinth 19:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Attitudes towards unibrows

"In Western culture, the unibrow is often derided as being a throwback to a "primitive" state or as exhibiting a lack of self-grooming." What is the source of this? It is OK if you say "in US", but I question that it is so in the whole Western culture. I am a Finn, and Finnish language hasn't a word for unibrow. They are "dense eybrows", or "eyebrows that have grown together". Nothing big. People hardly think about unibrows, so they are not derided here. There have been some fashion trends to pluck one's eyebrow in the 1950's and in the beginning of 2000's, but then people look at their own eyebrows, not at the other people's brows. I have dense, almost-unibrows, and people have never derided me on them. Some nasty pupils derided my nose in comprehensive school in 1980's. They surely would have said something about my eybrows, if they were widely seens as strange here. But those pupils said nothing about them.

For the same reasons, I question the accuracy of this text: "The Mexican artist Frida Kahlo often depicted herself with a prominent unibrow and a thin moustache, which was seen as unconventional and purposely unflattering by Western audiences." I have never heard any comments on her eyebrows, only on her moustache. I also have an anecdotal evidence that in Mediterranean culture people rarely pluck their eyebrows. (Unless cosmetics companies have brainwashed them to do so in the last ten years.) Mexican culture was influenced by Mediterranean culture. What if Frida Kahlo also thought that her eyebrows (and moustache) are just normal, and painted them because she had such? -Hapsiainen 17:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe she thought they were beautiful. I certainly do.

Unlucky?

People with unibrows are also often considered unlucky, especially at weddings.

Any source for this? Flapdragon 12:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that a vandal? (removing it) -User:Carie

George W. Bush

When did George W. Bush have a unibrow? How about a link to a picture? Flapdragon 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing this entry since Bush doesn't have a unibrow. Brianreading 19:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bushphobia strikes again.98.165.6.225 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a Soapbox. If we had it your way, the Free Trade article would probably just have a big photo of Hitler on it. Please understand what Wikipedia is before you become so critical. Brianreading (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous people with unibrow?

Frida Kahlo? Ok. But many of the rest, I doubt there is a scientific NPOV rationale to include them all there. It becomes a matter of opinion. Besides, how was it decided who goes in the list and who doesn't? I think unless clearly unibrow 90% of the time in public, many have to be removed. What are the sources? This could be another one of those things that later come bite us (wikipedia) in the ass by having people there without any supporting rationale. Why not Shakira? Marilyn Monroe? Albert Einstein? Ronald Reagan? Better remove the list. Anagnorisis 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need pictures that show connecting eyebrows before putting anyone on the list (besides the fact it's original research but this page is pretty much a joke anyway). Arniep 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This list is so stupid, and it IS an opinion—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gplpark92 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC).

I'd say add references for the people on the list or delete them. 58.104.183.185 14:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Celine Dion?

Not that I'm doubting her place on the list, but does anyone have a picture? I'm mighty curious. Gooberliberation 00:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Persians!

The Persians are an ethnic group and are one belonging to the Iranian peoples. The Persians are well renowned to have a prevalence of the Unibrow to the extent that it is the norm. Both males and females possess heavy united eyebrows. It is not uncommon for a Persian child to have a unibrow fully grown and thick. The majority of Persians live in Iran. by BB

---

Please provide some evidence. Arniep 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Evidence :-) haha. Shall I pluck some hairs for you, no no mate, its well known ask anyone who knows about Persians. It is so prevalent that if you were to see a photo of a Persian there is a greater chance of them having a unibrow or to have plucked it. But, I'll look for some "evidence" haha for you. Tell you want look up Persian, see any person or art or photo or painting or sculpture. It is the norm, just as it is the norm of a Chinese person to have thick eyelids that make it seem thin. It is part of their culture. by BB

---

Hey I just looked up Persian & Unibrow on Yahoo, the first site that came up talked about a Persian Parade that happened in San Francisco. One statement in the article said, "a parade of Mercedes & women with unibrows" haha. Men are more likely in most cultures to have a unibrow because of the male hormone but in Persian culture the Unibrow is female & male. by BB

---

Hey You! Who keeps deleting what I write. I put Persian Ethnicity as one that is known for unibrow and you keep deleting it! Here read this then http://www.iranian.com/Diaspora/2003/August/Eyebrow/ by BB...ps. Then put back what I wrote about Persian ethnicity.

People removed from list

I can't find any pictures that show these people have or had a unibrow. If anyone finds a pic or comment made by the person please link to it and place a comment next to their name below:

• Erin Andrews, ESPN/ABC sideline reporter
• Jules Asner, a television personality and model
• Bill Berry, former drummer of R.E.M.
• Bonnie Bernstein, CBS sideline reporter
• Chris de Burgh, British singer
• Celine Dion, singer
• Tommy Lee Jones, actor
• Kajol, Bollywood actress
• Maria Kanellis WWE wrestler/diva
• Momčilo Krajišnik, Bosnian warlord
• Justin Langer, Australian cricketer
• Bob Lenzi, musical theater actor
• Mike Marshall, baseball outfielder

(starting removing it while gettting into acting)

• Maria Menounos, actress/journalist/television presenter
• Summer Sanders, sports broadcaster, actress and Olympic medalist
• Melissa Stark, TV news reporter
• Richard Trethewey, plumber on TV's This Old House
• Pavel Vorobiev, Russian born hockey player for Chicago Blackhawks
• Kimberly Williams-Paisley, actress
• Tracy Wolfson, sideline reporter for CBS for college football, college basketball

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arniep (talk • contribs) , at 01:28, 4 May 2006

Well deleted. More should go. This is supposed to be an article about the unibrow, not a list of famous people that (allegedly) have one. Naturally most famous people that do, especially models and suchlike, will pluck or wax it, so they effectively don't have one anyway. I can imagine Alistair Darling may well have one, but if so he obviously shaves it, so when you click through to his aricle and look at the picture you don't see a unibrow. Some are people whose appearance (or even identity) is really not widely known anyway, like Gerald Grosvenor. There should be maybe half a dozen well-known people/face, no more, to exemplify the notion of the unibrow. It probably doesn't even need a separate heading, which just encourages people to add more and more unsuitable names, often as an in-joke. I suggest Breznev, Hess, Gallagher and Healey; Kahlo and Sharipov are already present as illustrations. Meanwhile if anyone's mad enough to start a List of people with a unibrow (and probably get it AfD'd) that's up to them... Flapdragon 14:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actualy I am pretty happy with the list as it stands now, most of the unconfirmed people removed are mostly not that famous or don't really have unibrows. Alistair Darling does not in fact shave and is actually quite a good example of a unibrow (it is just shielded by his glasses in his Wikipedia article, see this pic. Arniep 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

All those requests for citations make this article a real eyesore. What terrible editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.154.142 (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Werewolves

You know, just because it's in some werewolf movie doesn't mean it comes from ancient folklore. Are we sure this is genuine?--Pharos 10:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

yes it definitely was part of folklore, I'll have a go at finding some refs... Arniep 12:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

"Secret unibrows"

I really think this is overkill. If someone is known for wearing a unibrow during their public career that's one thing, but we shouldn't be linking high school yearbook photos like for Ashanti.--Pharos 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It could be faked so I removed it. If someone can actually find her commenting on it it can be put back. Arniep 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

i removed this stupid list

there must be thousands of famous people with unibrows, and noting those people is demeaning and stupid, because there is no relevancy to it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gplpark92 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC).

some cultures like Armenia Unibrows are very sexy, so it depends who is looking at the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.67.145.171 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

Hey!

Andy Kaufman had a unibrow

List way too long

It's insane to list every single notable person who ever wore a unibrow, even when the issue can verified by a photo or some side-remark. People should only be discussed if they are famous for wearing a unibrow, if it's some sort of trademark, like with Frida Kahlo.--Pharos 02:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Attendum

How about Stephen King, the famous writer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.43.224 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)