From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology / Medical genetics / Ophthalmology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dermatology task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Biology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Albinism is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do:
Note: To watch this to-do list, click on "watch" at top right of this table. Watching the Talk page won't watch the to-do list.
Priority 3

Why to say "albinism"? nobody say "negrism" or "blackism".[edit]

Resolved: Concerns addressed, to the extent they can be understood at all, and the complaint appears to be trolling to begin with.

Hi, I'm from Senegal but I live in Spain. I don't speak English very well, sorry. :) I use a online translator, sorry again. :)

In the article "Albinism" are many offensive terms against albino people ("albinistic", "congenital disorder", "person with albinism", "albinoid", "albinic", "genetic disorder" and more). Very very offensive terms because it's saying that albino people are diseased people.

You must read the albino definition in the Oxford dictionary: albino |alˈbīnō| noun ( pl. -nos) a person or animal having a congenital absence of pigment in the skin and hair (which are white) and the eyes (which are typically pink). Not only Oxford dictionary, the RAE (Spanish dictionary) say the same.

a person or animal having a congenital absence of pigment in the skin and hair (which are white) and the eyes (which are typically pink).

The albinos don't "suffer" a "disorder"... The albinos are so natural like blacks, whites, redheads or blondes, let us watch the nature. It's true that the albinos aren't a race, but, the "blacks" or the "whites" aren't a race too. The albinos are part of the diversity natural, along with blacks, whites, browns...

Albinos and visual problems: The CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas) has demonstrated that there is no relation between pigment and bad vision. This means that the albinos don't have visual problems as a result of pigment absence. Article published in "Journal of Neurochemistry" Spanish article: The visual problems depend on the person, albinos or not.

Subject: "Symptoms and conditions associated with albinism"

Oxford American Dictionary... symptom: a physical or mental feature that is regarded as indicating a condition of disease, particularly such a feature that is apparent to the patient.

The albinos are ill, according to Wikipedia, homosexuality too? :( No comments... :(

Why to relate syndromes to albinos?:

Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome: it's not related to albino people Chediak-Higashi syndrome: it's not related to albino people Griscelli syndrome: it's not related to albino people Ocular albinism family: it's not related to albino people Other types: Vitiligo, Melanism, Leucism: it's not related to albino people

WHY????? It's incredible. It's stupid!! "Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome (HPS) (OMIM: 203300) is not a type of OCA, technically, but has similar features."

Ok, the vampires and the gothic boys: is not a type of OCA, technically, but they have physical similarities. hahaha, oh please...

For example: "Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome" is a syndrome

"Albino" strictly it means: a person or animal having a congenital absence of pigment in the skin and hair (which are white) and the eyes.

ok, please, no more stupid discrimination

blacks discriminate to albinos, whites discriminate to albinos, browns discriminate to albinos spanish discriminate to albinos, ...

The ONLY difference between an albino and a "black", a "white", a "brown", a "spanish" is the amount of pigment —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

While albinism isn't a disease in the strictest sense (one can't catch it), it is still defined as a medical condition, as there are problems often associated with it (propensity for burning in the sun, and sometimes a greater sensitivity to light). This is not unlike dwarfism or gigantism, or my own condition, spina bifida. Far from being discriminatory to talk about albinism as a medical condition, and also some related ailments, I think it is noteworthy in the sense that it will give people interested in learning about the condition a better understanding of the possible ramifications of being an albino. It's not a matter of discrimination to explain at length the condition and its ramifications, discrimination is how some people react to the condition.--Ramdrake 14:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, many people with albinism consider the term "albino" to be an epithet, not a descriptive term, and to be offensive, ergo per WP:NPOV we use "people with albinism" and "albinistic". I'm sorry that you - the anonymous editor from Senegal, I mean - find a factual description of albinism as a genetic disorder to be offensive, but no one else in the world so far has said anything like that here, and I don't think there's anything that can be done about that. You are clearly misreading the article, which never uses the term "diseased". Further attempts to removed sourced factual information from this article is likely to be interpreted as POV-pushing vandalism and dealt with accordingly. With regard to the term "albino", yes, such perceptions can change over time (e.g. the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have changed their names to the United College Fund and the NAACP which is no longer officially considered an acronym at all, due to criticism that "negro" and "colored" are now considered offensive terms in modern American English). I don't think comparing ethnicity and pigmetary disorders is a useful excercise beyond such examples, however, and the assertion that there's no difference between an albinistic person and a Spaniard other than pigment is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard, and easily falsified by noting that there are albinisitic Spaniards. Further, the assertion that we don't use -ism with other such terms is also false (yes, we do not say "negrism" or "angloism", but those would be ethnic/racial terms, not medical ones): We do in fact use "melanism" or "hypermelanism" for the exact opposite of albinism. Also, the article does not say that HPS, etc., are forms of OCA; it says that they are forms of albinism (i.e. hypopigmentation), which is correct, not "stupid". Try to moderate your tone, please, and actually read articles before attacking them, or you will be treated as trolling. "Having a congenital absence of pigment" is a syndrome, which is just a fancy word for "medical condition". If, as you say, you are not very familiar with the English language, I have to question whether you are in a good position to criticize a medical article on its usage of the English language. Finally, your point about CSIC contradicts all known research in the area. I strongly, strongly suspect that you are misinterpreting it. You will need to provide a lot more evidence and detail before convincing anyone here. I would suggest that any attempt to do so be posted as a new thread, divorced from your ranting about the article's wording. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And please stop badgering people on their personal talk pages about this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
While I don't agree with, you apparently misunderstand what he/she is trying to say, SMcCandlish, so I'd like to explain the point. Consider redheadedness, as a close example: like albinism, it is an inheritable, genetically based pigmentation property, which carries with it health effects such as increased sensitivity to sunburn. Unlike albinism, it is never described as disease or medical condition, but is considered part of the normal spectrum of human pigmentation patterns. Most redheads would undoubtedly be quite offended if you claimed they have a "genetic disorder" or that they "suffer from redheadedness". 213.97 is making the case that albinism should be treated the same way as redheadedness, and there is nothing inherently illogical about that argument. The analogy with homosexuality is also quite relevant: homosexuality was once classified as a medical condition but is now considered part of the spectrum of human diversity, and homosexuals would rightly be extremely offended if you called them "sick". Which human personal properties are considered diseases or not is ultimately a cultural question, subject to cultural change, and 213.97 is in his/her right to voice an apparently strongly held opinion on the matter. There is no reason to accuse him/her of trolling, use words like rant or badgering, or to dismiss the opinion as a matter of weak English, which it clearly is not. By the way, you may want to be more careful with the the "Resolved" template – the way you used it here could be seen as arrogantly dismissive. This template is best used by the OP. --mglg(talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with you on all major points. As is evidenced by the numerous OMIM entries and other medical references, albinism is classified as a disorder, and not generally considered part of the "normal" human pigmentation range (especially given that it is much more than a pigementation issue, and also affects the development of the fovea of the eyes, etc., while several variations of it are also linked to other disorders, some of them fatal as early as childhood). These facts are well source. Secondly, homosexuality was classified by some as a medical disorder, but for religio-political reasons and on no factual medical basis, so the comparison is not apt at all. The anon is entitled to an opinion, of course, but is not entitled to have that opinion accepted if it does not match the sourced facts. If someone badgers people on their homepages, I will call it badgering. There is nothing incivil about that, it's simply my statement of the facts as I see them. Looking up the word in the closest dictionary at hand, I don't find anything particularly insulting about the word, any more than "pedatry", "harassing", "insulting" or other straightforward descriptions of negative behaviors. Being civil does not mean being butt-kissingly euphemistic. People troll on this page fairly frequently, most commonly linking albinism with racial issues, as in this case, leading to pointless arguments that have nothing to do with the facts in this article (and per WP:TALK the discussions here should be about this article, its facts, and its improvement, not people's off-the-cuff opinions, pet peves, personal theories, etc. I did not insult the anon's use of English in any way, I simply noted that it's reasonable to be skeptical whether someone who says they have poor English skills is in a good position to correct the usage of English medical terminology. And finally, I and many others use {{Resolved}} in this way, and there is nothing wrong with that, since anyone, even an anon, is free to remove it if they consider the matter unresolved. I've used that template over 1000 times by now with no complaints like yours - this is a Wiki after all, and it's not like someone has had this talk page protected. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read this thread. I fully agree with you that albinism is medically classified as a disorder and that it is perfectly fine for the article to state that it is a disorder. Where you and I disagree is in that I believe 213.97 deserved a greater level of courtesy and AGF than he or she received from you. His/her post is not politely worded, but expectations are higher for a seasoned user like you than for a non-English-speaking newbie from Senegal. You and I do agree that discussions of courtesy are better suited for your talk page than for this page. I placed my comment here for two reasons:
  1. because of your, as I read it, intense dislike of being approached on your talk page by 213.97 – I have no desire to provoke any of your above examples of "straightforward descriptions"; and
  2. an entry's level of English, and conclusions from it about a user's likelihood of having a valid point, are only relevant if the point itself is not understandable: once the entry's argument can be understood, the argument itself can be discussed, and the language skills involved lose all relevance. For this reason I assumed that your comment about language must have been indicative of a failure on your part to understand 213.97's point, and that if you did not get it, other readers may also be missing the point. I therefore attempted to make that point clear in acceptable English, apparently in vain.
As for the template being removable by any user, we apparently disagree about the appropriateness of editing other users' entries on talk pages, including templates. The way in which "straightforward descriptions of negative behavior" or dismissive use of the Resolved template can be insulting could of course have been made much clearer to you by direct demonstration, but I will not succumb to the temptation. Will not, will Not... --mglg(talk) 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction too long[edit]

The introduction is far too long in this article.Jimduchek (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I was thinking that myself just the other day. It should not be too hard to slightly rearrange the material and introduce a new section heading. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ablinism is not what most people think it is it can take place in any living organism including plants. If teh plant contains chloryphyll then the plant will turn purple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite sources. No one here has yet found a reliable source for albinism in plants (do they even have melanin at all?) I'm sure that there is an analogous condition in plants, but at best that would be a "See also" link to another article about that condition, whatever it is called. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Misconceptions issue[edit]

I'm definitely no expert on albinism, but I question the part of this article which states that "the vast majority of albinism is not linked to inbreeding," especially since this section of the statement is unreferenced. Statistically, 18-24% of albinism in the US (among humans) occurs among individuals which are the offspring of cousin matings - this number does not include other potential inbreeding which would logically to me be much more common (such as second cousin matings). While it is completely true that many albinism cases are in fact not caused by close inbreeding - I think it's rather not really neutral POV to state that the vast majority of individuals with albinism are not inbred especially since the meaning of "vast majority" is pretty subjective and in my mind implies like... 99.9% (I'm sure this is different for other people)... so maybe it should be clarified or rephrased? I can suitable documentation (information from genetic studies and a book which covers a lot of the population genetics information on inbreeding) if anyone else agrees with me making this change. I mean, I know it's not PC for a lot of people to project this idea, but isn't the idea of wikipedia to ideally have the most correct information available (as we know it)? (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you can find references etc there may be no problem. I suspect it might be a good idea to somehow make it clear that this is true of most genetic disorders, not just albinism. Something like 'Like most genetic disorders, albinism is not usually caused by inbreeding, however, genetic disorders such as albinism are made more likely by inbreeding, for example....' Again, assuming you have good refs.Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Dbrodbeck; for some of the rarer types of albinism, it has been linked to inbreeding or simply genetic isolation of a population such as on an island. But I strongly question the unsourced assertion that most albinism cases are the result of cousin-cousin unions. The numbers simply don't support that. Divide the total US population by 20,500 (split the difference between 18K and 24K), to get the total number of albinistic people in the US, then multiply that number by probably at least 10 to get the total number of carriers of the gene in the US, and you'll see that "it's mostly a cousins thing" is a completely implausible theory. That said, the phrasing Dbrodbeck states is certainly accurate, and should address the anon's concerns without making inflammatory unsourced statements. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

the term inbreeding is subject to a great deal of POV,interpretation,cultural bias(people from most human cultures would object to cousin matings to be considered "inbreeding" for example and most definitions of the term do not cite specific types of matings leaving it up to the readers to determine how closely related or isolated the populations need to be to be considered inbred) I think the article should use more specific terms if it wants to associate a rate of albinism with a specific types of mating practices, it should be specific and use the terms found in the source material. Also if there seems to be no notable difference compared to other "conditions" in the occurrence of albinism due to "inbreeding" why include the subject at all if its not even sourced from any referenced material on albinism? why do that? (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is affected?[edit]

Unresolved: A photo of a European with albinism is still needed.

Is it only blacks or people with dark skin who can have Albinism, or can European type people get this illness? From the pictures, it looks like its not possible.Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Any animal, including any human. I raised this issue in an earlier thread, but I guess no one has found a good-quality and representative public domain or GFD/CC-licensed image of a Euro with albinism yet. I've been actively looking. I did contact a photographer who specializes in albinism, and he agreed to provide such pics, but I haven't heard from him since then. I'll try contacting him again. There was one of an asian, but it looks like someone removed it. It is still in Commons, so it can be re-added if others think that the article is now African-heavy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hell, you want a pic of me? I have some, and I am European descent/Canadian, let me know on my talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh and I can release the pics for a cc license no prob. Finally, illness is not quite right, more like umm, disorder. I have a genetic disorder. I am not sick though. THat said, I had a cold the other day, and a small hangover on Saturday... Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

M/F distribution[edit]

I encountered the following anon post on an albinism board:

the reason there are more males than females is because females get two genes and most of the times the recessive albino gene is overruled by the dominant typical pigmentation gene whereas in males they have just one place for a pigment gene making them have a 1:4 chance if one of their parents is a carrier and a 2:4 chance if one of them is albino. A girl would need to have two parents with the albino gene while a boy would need only one. (it’s a rare gene)

This sounds like nonsense to me, but if it isn't, the article is missing key information. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I now note that the article covers this for ocular albinism, but what about the other forms? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist article more closely[edit]

For just short of 24 hours, this article has stated that smoking marijuana is a cure for albinism. This is not acceptable, obviously. Anyone interested in this article or in Wikipedia's perception of reliability, please watchlist this article and check it frequently for jackass edits like this. This article is a frequent target. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hunt on albinos in Africa[edit]

Resolved: Just an FYI, and not relevant here; see Persecution of albinism instead.

A recent article in the online version of the German journal DER SPIEGEL presents a couple of cases in which albinos have been hunted and killed in African states to use their bodies for "black magic". Maybe someone could include it in the source list?! Use google to translate the page.

Alligator pic[edit]

Resolved: The California Academy, where this alligator resides, indicates that it is indeed albino. howcheng {chat} 00:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that the alligator in the picture actually suffers from albinism and not leucism? (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If the institution at which the photo was taken is mentioned on the image page, they may have information about the specimen. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your questions. Yes, we are sure that the alligator is albino. Here's the quote from leucism
"A further difference between albinism and leucism is in eye colour. Due to the lack of melanin production in both the retinal pigmented epithelium (RPE) and iris, albinos typically have red eyes due to the underlying blood vessels showing through. In contrast, leucistic animals have normally coloured eyes."
The color of the eyes of this alligator is anything, but normal. Besides you could take a look at official California Academy site.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The thing with the eye color is not absolutely shure. Most Leucism Loci mutations leave a bis of color in the eye, but some Mutations of the MITF-Locus lead to red eyed animals. Kersti Nebelsiek (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything that would cause you to doubt the word of the California Academy of Sciences, which houses this individual? howcheng {chat} 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested addition to: Symptoms and conditions associated with albinism[edit]

One possible factor causing improper RPE development is likely a disruption in the production of the neuron survival factor PEDF [1]. A recent study involving Oa1, a gene which, when mutated, can cause ocular albinism, suggests that improper subcellular localization and/or decreased activity of the Oa1 gene product, OA1, disrupt PEDF secretion by making OA1, a G-protein coupled receptor, unable to effectively bind its ligand L-DOPA, a by-product of pigment synthesis.

Nebhwt (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the "one recent study" the item you've already cited, by Lopez, et al., or another one? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up on this. The Lopez study was the only one I was citing, but I didn't do it very clearly. I moved the ref to the end which makes it more sensible:

One possible factor causing improper RPE development is likely a disruption in the production of the neuron survival factor PEDF. A recent study involving Oa1, a gene which, when mutated, can cause ocular albinism, suggests that improper subcellular localization and/or decreased activity of the Oa1 gene product, OA1, disrupt PEDF secretion by making OA1, a G-protein coupled receptor, unable to effectively bind its ligand L-DOPA, a by-product of pigment synthesis[1].

Nebhwt (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Albinos in myths[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue; see Albinism in popular culture. Moot anyway (already covered at correct article).

An main character in Persian mythology is Zal who is an albino. After born, he was departed by his father, Sam, because of being an albino. A mythical bird, Simorgh, looked after him until he grew up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Has899 (talkcontribs) 07:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong article. See Albinism in popular culture. The main Albinism article is about the science. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
PS: Zal is already covered at Albinism in popular culture anyway. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Answered.

Is it possible to have a living creature with all dominant traits? Uber-Awesomeness (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, since it seems to be two questions. Yes, there could be (and surely are) organisms with no recessive traits. As for the title of your topic, the opposite of albinism is melanism. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly incorrect statements[edit]

"In Tanzania starting in 2007 persecution of albinos was initiated by witch doctors and their helpers to provide magic potions for clients."

  1. It's sorcerers in the Cultural Anthropology sense. Witches are inherently born with power. However, Sorcerers learn the power and can do good or evil. Using the term "Witch Doctor" is actually not very P.C. So I think it's better to go with the sanctioned academic wording rather than the ethnocentric terming... or go with the cultural term for it in Tanzania... (i.e. what is the specific name in Tanzania's language by said specific group *for* this term.)
  2. It wasn't persecution. It was because Tanzania sees Albinos as taboo good, as in good luck. So it was hunting in terms of charm and it's still happening... so one could say killing for good luck charms, which is the truth. Persecution seems to imply taboo bad to the Tanzanians which is why they are killing albinos... but that's not the case. (I'm asking for better vocab here).
  3. The articles *never* mentioned it was for potions. In the article that came out today about these attacks it said taking of limbs, etc. Which means the skin, etc is being used for good luck charms (like pouches), which is not the same as potions. Potions implies internal use, but a good luck charm is something like a rabbit's foot, i.e. wards against evil.

BTW, I'm not advocating or defending these actions, just pointing out the flaws of the statement.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As a trained anthropologist (though not a working one; I do computer science and media relations these days), I'm not aware of any standardized usage of the term "sorcerer" within the discipline. "Shaman" is far more common, and probably a better term (though that one also has its detractors, who prefer to use it only in its original Siberian context). All of this may be a moot point, however, as:
  1. The original sources used "witch doctors", so we have no particular reason to change it, and doing so could in fact falsify the source citation if the intended meaning was altered in any way.
  2. There is no evidence at hand that "witch doctor" is ever confused with the Euro-American pagan usage of the term "witch" (the usage you are proffering), so the issue you raise is presumptively moot.
  3. The argument about whether their powers are innate or learned is silly to begin with from a scientific point of view (and this is a science article), since magic powers have never been shown to actually exist
  4. We do actually have a fairly well-developed Witch doctor article (needs some work, but it's no AfD target), that particularly applies the term to the African context, making it a natural link target here and an appropriate usage here.
  5. Meanwhile there is no "Sorcerer" article of relevance, only a Sorcerer disambiguation page that will not be helpful in any way to our readers, since they will have no idea which sense was intended if they follow a link from this article to that DAB page. And in fact none of the senses presented there matches what was meant by "witch doctor" here (shaman).
  6. Implication of "taboo good" vs. "taboo bad": Cite a source. Under most of the definitions in the dictionaries I have at hand, hunting a particular class of people to ritualistically murder and mutilate them very certainly qualifies as "persecution".
  7. Potions: I'd have to re-read all the sources from top to bottom (and there are probably more of them - keep in mind that the mention here and the sources cited here are only a precis of the more expansive material on the topic at Albinism in popular culture. I seem to recall that at least one of those sources did in fact say "potions", and I don't recall any of them talking about making human-leather charms, though for all I know that might also have been among the purposes of the albino murders. Is there a source that specifically says that it was? I.e., you may have a legitimate issue on this point, but sources are needed, and they need to be compared to the sources at the more specific pop-cult article.
SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking with amelanism[edit]

Resolved: Articles linked.

I have to admit, I'm not excited by the idea of doing much to an article that people feel so strongly about. However, I did create Amelanism and I would appreciate guidance on a good way to relate the two articles. Countercanter (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Just link 'em up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


I recognize that there is prejudice abroad throughout the world against all sorts of people, and that pejorative statements may include the word "albino", but I don't understand "the word is sometimes used in derogatory ways". Surely it is the nature of the statements, rather than the utterance of the word itself, which might be regarded (or intended) as "derogatory". When one speaks of Jews or protestants, for example, no matter what one says, it isn't the word "Jew" or "protestant" which is objectionable, even though the statement itself may be so. "Albino" is surely a scientific, accurate, and non-judgmental word; isn't it? That it is sometimes used in hate speech is hardly worthy of mention, much less emphasis, early in this article. Unfree (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the derogatory usage implied might not necessarily refer to the word's usage when directed at people with albinism, but at any very light skinned person (as an ignorant generalization). For example, if a child had platinum blonde hair and very light skin, his/her peers might use the word as an insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Preamble: I'm going to put this suggestion for article in the prejudice section because 1) being a primarily a social construct in reaction to large scale phenotypical variation and scientifically undefinable, any reference to "racial" groups will carry into the domain of prejudice since it is arguably the source of the idea of "race". 2)because the website I reference here appears to be somewhat racially motivated and very colloquial. My suggestion is that it be considered to determine whether a section may be needed to include any theories about the origin of "white" racial groups being tied to albinism in northward pre-ice age migrations of African groups of humans. I find the idea plausible but uncertain and probably unlikely as I'm not sure of the inheritable composition of albino traits. eg. Is it possible to be partially albinoid? as in: I have my fathers albino skin but my mothers brown eyes? I didn't think so until I came to this wiki article with a passage stating that it IS possible to inherit albinism from only one parent. I figure the idea of racial heritage corresponding to "white" "racial" groups is not possible if albinism cannot be only partially pheno-typical, and can't account for mutual expression with non albino traits on the same gene structure... I herefore suggest current willing editors do some research and make a determination if a section expanding the article on that subject should be included now before someone less cooperative decides to do so. I'd do it myself but I'm currently doing the research for another project, but I will share here the website that brought this interesting hypothesis to my attention. I am not in anyway suggesting whether or not to believe there is any way this website could be considered a reliable source for citations(I know nothing about the author or the merits of the publication, just merely sharing it as an indicator that the subject is already being discussed. I think it should be taken seriously despite all our instincts to dismiss the notion, because new understanding of genetics makes it clear that the science is statistical and not easily governed with "my albinism might be more recessive than your albinism." and also because the subject is also being discussed/argued on at least one message board dedicated to people with albinism, and I find the question debatable and not altogether implausible despite my questions about the plausibility of an ancient people with no working knowledge of genetic testing could successfully isolate in their population the genetic recipe that it would require to proliferate an entire set of human "races"..but then we don't know if earlier forms of the condition are the same as those occurring today. I understand that would then lead to the question: would such a condition even be considered the same as what we know of as albinism which would in turn call into question the appropriateness of the section being part of this article. (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed ratings to C[edit]

I've changed the ratings of this article to C as it clearly isn't a B standard article. There are large swathes of uncited text and numerous "citation needed" tags. The lead is almost unreadable due to the large amount of bolding and the classification and external resources in the box on the right is a complete joke. Wikipedia is not a link farm and the articles are supposed to be understandable by the man on the street. Most people would have no idea what the link farm is about or understand the links if they clicked on them. Also, is the article about albinism in general or albinism in humans? The text is all about humans with animals getting a brief mention at the end in the form of a few links but then there are a couple of pictures of albino animals illustrating text about humans - bizarre! Richerman (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten the lead, seperated the text into animal and human albinism, got rid of some of the link farms, removed some of the more dubious uncited information and the "how to" information, removed some of the images of animals that wouldn't fit the animals section, and rearranged the article to look something like it should according to the Manual of style. Richerman (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lab animals[edit]

Of all the 100+ unsourced things in this article that could be deleted, this one seems the least likely target:

"Albino axolotls, zebrafish, medaka and frogs are other common laboratory animals."

Yet it's been deleted, despite being obviously true. Hell, the only reason axolotls won't be extinct within probably 10 years (introduced carnivorous sport fish are eating them all in the wild) is because they've been bred by the millions for labs (mainly to study their limb regeneration and neoteny). It's dark:30 my time, so I'm not going to source this right now. But, sheesh, if you're going to delete something, at least pick something controversial instead of obviously true. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's the second least-likely target, the first being the fact that being called "albino" is offensive to a large number of albinistic people. How in the world did that get removed? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Albino frogs? I've worked in animal research for over 40 years and seen lots of frogs and xenopus used but never albino ones. Albino zebra fish? seen plenty of zebra fish used but but not albinos. Axolotls are used, although not in my neck of the woods, but are they mostly albinos? - I don't know. So as none of this was referenced and I don't believe the albino forms are common laboratory animals so I removed it along with a lot of other unreferenced statements. If you have information that they are commonly used by all means add it with a reference. As for 'being called "albino" is offensive to a large number of albinistic people' - if it wasn't referenced I would have removed it. If I made a mistake and it was referenced then feel free to put it back in. Richerman (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

eye colors[edit]

pink, blue, and silver (very pale gray) are the possible eye colors for albinism, with pink being the most common, am I correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WIth my 2 month old albino kitten, its eyes are pink if viewed from one angle, faint blue if viewed from another. As you might have guessed, blood has a different color depending on whether it has passed through the lungs, or is merely approaching the lungs. Oxygen changes blood's color. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Very rare to see a human being with pink eyes in average daylight. More common are pale blue and violet. Citation needed. (Leegee23 (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)).

Source for expansion[edit]

  • Cousins, D. (2007). "Albinism and leucism in primates". International Zoo News 54 (3): 134–145. 

I don't have time to add the material myself, but any editor may email me for a copy if needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


Article should be organized arround WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Human is implied unless stated otherwise. If you look at the other thousands of disease articles this is how they are all formatted. Not sure why this article should be an exception? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Because this article isn't just about the human condition - it's about albinism in general and it includes examples and pictures of albinism in animals. It either needs the to be clear which we're referring to or else the article needs to be split into two - one for animals and one for humans. Richerman (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
All articles on diseases could be potentially about animals. Look at the article on obesity for example. Human is just implied. We do not need to state the obvious.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok point taken - I think I'm being a bit over protective as the article was a mish-mash of both when I first came across it and it took me some time to sort it out. I thought you'd deleted the epidemiology section but I see it was just moved. I would like to see that gallery of animal pictures go, but unfortunately people are fascinated by albino animals and keep adding their favourite pictures. There would need to be a lot more text in the animal section to support that number of images. Richerman (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It's an issue that keeps coming up. There are a number of discussions in the archive such as
I do favor having a general article on both, and one specifically for humans.
Wapondaponda (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


The scientific understanding of albanism seems to have changed greatly in the past 40 years, yet this article barely touches upon either the types of albanism or their causes. Might it be expanded? (Leegee23 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)).

Animal and melanin centric bias to this article[edit]

Albinism is the condition of an organism exhibiting deficient pigmentation. Organism can include plants and pigmentation doesn't only mean melanin. There are albino plants, most notably the albino redwood. This article requires a fundamental rewriting to include this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernwayfarer (talkcontribs) 20:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A few questions regarding the definition, mostly[edit]

  1. Does albinism require "defect of an enzyme involved in the production of melanin"?
  2. Does albinism require that it "results from inheritance of recessive gene allele"? For instance, the equine Cream gene is incomplete dominant.
  3. Is "hypomelanism" a synonym for "albinism", or is "albinism" only for "albino" and "hypomelanism" the wider definition?

I'm tired of "yes" to the "no" and vice versa about equine dilutions being forms of albinism/hypomelanism. --Pitke (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Article incorrectly decribes cause of blue eye color[edit]

Blue "pigments" of any kind are extremely rare in nature. Blue eye color is not because of any pigment, but is rather a structural effect of light scattering as described by Rayleigh and Tyndall. It is the same reason the noonday sky on a sunny day appears blue.

This error is significant because the article now implies that albinos can lack essentially all pigment except this fictitious blue pigment of the eye. (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Matthew 03/0312

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 


Would like to point out that astigmatism is a result of nystagmus, which is a result of albinism. Without the nystagmus, there would be no astigmatism, so I wonder if the article ought to clarify this, rather than list astigmatism as a *direct* result of albinism..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Picture of Albino being shunned" accurate?[edit]

In the Society and Culture section of the page, which already has a disclaimer against citing legend and myth as fact, contains an image with the caption "Picture of Albinistic child being shunned by society." However, the person in the image does not look like a child, nor does he seem to be in any sort of actual distress. He doesn't look like he's being shunned, he's sitting at a table where presumably people are there to meet him. Of course, I have no context for the actual photograph and it's possible that the caption is indeed correct, but can somebody more qualified and knowledgeable verify this? Thanks! Waij (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the pic does not demonstrate this at all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Society and culture excludes animals...[edit]

Society and culture excludes animals entirely. In classic reference sources much time and effort in related articles has gone into talking about the perceptions and impact of albino animals.

In general this article reads more like a human medical condition, and I would go so far as to say there seems to be a bias when compared with other sources. (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Animals?[edit]

Would it be practical to post a list of animals known to have albinos? What information should be on such a list? I can think of number of known specimens at least. CFLeon (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).