Talk:Eye color

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.
WikiProject Animal anatomy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 Animals
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.
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Grey eye isn't Grey[edit]

Just wondered why the 'Grey Eye' in this article is actually Aqua blue/green mix and not grey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson121412 (talkcontribs) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

and the light brown eye is yellow — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Black eyes[edit]

I reverted these edits by Wikkedout because, like I stated in that edit summary, the editor needs WP:Reliable sources stating that true black eyes exist. As it stands, the editor added nothing but WP:Original research; for three parts, also seen in that link, he or she also changed text that is supported by three different reliable sources. And the formatting style, capitalizing both "brown" and "black," violated Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

color changing eye[edit]

I have met more than a few people who have eyes that change based on mood, what they were wearing, etc. This is not addressed in this article at all. I think it should be. (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We need more than your observations. Do you have any published sources for this.--Charles (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree there need to be references; it seems much-touted "changing eye color" is more a local, subjective event (due to associated and nearby colors), rather than an objective change is pigmentation.Art4med (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Since limbal ring is reduced by 55% on average by immersion in water (, it is quite likely that natural eye moisture changes can affect light scattering/interference-induced aspect of eye colour. --Bstard12 (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Y-DNA relevance?[edit]

Y-Chromosome DNA testing performed on ancient Scythian skeletons dating to the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Siberian Krasnoyarsk region found that 10 out of the 11 subjects carried Y-DNA R1a1 (most commonly found today in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and the northern Indian Subcontinent), with blue or green eye color and light hair common, suggesting mostly European origin of that particular population.

How is this relevant? Y-ancestry doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the autosomal genes. —Tamfang (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hazel Eyes[edit]

The description of hazel eyes is providig people with the misconception of hazel eyes being green and brown or any multi-coloured iris, when the original/actual concept of hazel eyes was eyes that are light brown, gold & brown, orange brown, basically an eye that resembles a hazelnut shell hence the word hazel. However this true meaning has only been given a one lined description at the bottom of the hazel eyed section. I propose the hazel eyed section be changed to state what true hazel eyes are more in depth and as the first paragraph and then state what the modern misconception of hazel eyes are in a 2nd paragraph while stating the origin of this misconception (North America) and when it started (most likely in the past 100 years). (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2013‎ (UTC)

IP, look at what I stated on your talk page in the Sourcing section. You have to provide WP:Reliable sources for these assertions. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Words change their meanings. It might be the case that "hazel" originally meant one thing but that as the IP says "in the past 100 years" it has come to mean something else. The modern meaning of a term is not a "misconception" -- it's simply a different definition than an earlier one. If someone questions this idea that newer established meanings are not wrong, then he'd better be prepared to examine every word of his post to make sure he's not misusing most of the words in it. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The misconception started in North America and is only used in North America and certain other countries that have been exposed to Americanisation e.g. Australia and New Zealand. The term hazel started in Europe, which is where light eyes and the hazel nut come from, and a european from europe would find green and brown or any multi-coloured eye being considered hazel to be quite odd considering it does not match a hazelnut. if your willing to change the hazelnut section to inform people of the true meaning and misconcepted meaning i would happily provide sources, but it's just common sense really that a hazel eye is one that matches a hazelnut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We have to go by reliable sources on this. While WP:COMMONSENSE is allowed; it's not in cases like this. If you provide reliable sources (even just one reliable source) on this talk page for your assertions (even just one assertion), then we can add something about that in the Hazel eye section (the section is not called Hazelnut, nor should it be). Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
As for what you want inserted about the "true meaning," the line in the Hazel section about hazelnut uses the word "sometimes." It states: "Definitions of the eye color hazel vary: it is sometimes considered to be synonymous with light brown or gold, as in the color of a hazelnut shell." And four reliable sources are used to support that line; it is worth checking those sources to see if they actually support that line, whether fully or partly, however. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

here are some sources/opinions backing up the true hazel-eyed meaning and the modern North Amaerican misconception: that contains numerous sources backing up it's statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources, IP. Read the guideline on reliable sources, linked above. For example, blogs generally are not reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm certain that the first poster in that first link is you, but that is beside the point. Again, read over the reliable sources guideline. Truly read over it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I checked a few of them but didn't find any that are reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. What you have to try to understand is that the question of what eye color is or is not hazel is not a scientific question -- it is a question of what words mean in the English language as this language currently exists. Several of these sources admit that the North American language has evolved in the past hundred years, and that "hazel" now means a combination of light brown and green in American English.
Here's some entries from some reliable sources of meaning of words. From Random House Webster's College Dictionary [of American English], entry "hazel": a light golden- or greenish-brown color. From Wiktionary: A greenish-brown colour, the colour of a ripe hazelnut. From : (a) : of the color hazel; (b) of eyes : of a variable color averaging light greenish-grayish brown. So that's it -- words mean what they mean, not what they used to mean or what people wish they still meant. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you replying to us both, Duoduoduo? As for "what eye color is or is not hazel" not being a scientific question, it seems to be that it is...if the sources backing the hazelnut line I mentioned above do discuss that. But it is also "a question of what words mean in the English language as this language currently exists," like you stated. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't replying to you, Flyer -- as I wrote, I had an edit conflict with you. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw the "ec" note, but it didn't really signify what it should have in mind; thanks for clarifying. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how you can be so ignorant on a topic that requires common sense to understand, a hazelnut is not green and brown however green and brown eyes in certain lightings can look abit gold like a hazelnut so therefore if North Americans have established hazel eyes being green and brown it is called a misconception considering in Europe (the origin of light eyes) the true meaning still exists and a European from Europe would find green and brown being called hazel (resembling the colour of a hazelnut) quite comical. I don't understand how you don't get that and would rather feed people the North American miconcieved meaning instead of the true European meaning. It's called hazel not a forest — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not about what I want, IP. It's about what I've already told you above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok so i've done abit of research and i've come across five websites that state true hazel eyes being a light brown/gold colour resembling a hazelnut; (defines it as a light golden brown colour, after a hazelnut), (states hazel eyes are light brown or yellowish brown), (shows a pure hazel eye, big difference to the green eye diagonally below to the right), (puts hazel eyes in the same category as honey, not green plus shows a green eye with abit of brown under the green category), (shows hazel eyes in numerous pictures and showing them as a golden brown). I have provided you with enough reliable sources there for you to now edit the hazel eyes section and provide people with the true/original European meaning of hazel eyes resembling a hazelnut, and stating the North American modern misconception of hazel eyes being green and brown or any multicoloured iris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, those are not reliable sources for the information that you want added. I don't have much more to state to you about this. Flyer22 (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

How to align photos- 8 month photos of the same iris changing color from Amber to Hazel[edit]


I would like to know how I should format the photos I have taken. They are both photos of my eye, the same pupil 8 months apart from june2012-Febuary2013 and they document the color change from Amber to Hazel. I had no abnormal hormone changes, nor scenery, or lifestyle changes and as a result those have been ruled out as a possible cause for the color changes. The pupils will revert back to Amber and again to hazel approximately once a year, becoming lighter, green/yellow in Winter and a deeper orange/gold in Summer. I've uploaded the photos to commons.

Foobunny (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 2/9/13 Foobun

Add photograph to: 4.8 Spectrum of eye color[edit]

I'd like to add the following photograph to this section in order to further contribute to the spectrum of eye colors.

Signalgoddess (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


Turkey have the highest percentage of green eyes in the world. source: "As a country, Turkey has the highest percentage of citizens who have green eyes, at 20 percent." (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable source . Also according with this study about the population of Tromsø (Norway) , 23% of the Norwegians have green eyes --GaiusCrastinus (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How we choose to describe the results of research[edit]

Reference #10 does contains the phrase "The genetics of eye color are so complex that almost any parent-child combination of eye colors can occur", which is a wild overstatement. It should not be repeated in the text as a fact. References #9 and 11 seem to me to be reliable, and the text should be adjusted accordingly.

Also, I note with doubt the use of the term "polygenic". This has a long history of use in connection with continuous variable quantitative characters, and seems rather out of place. If we can say "SNPs at two loci cause most of the inherited variation in iris colour" then that is what we should say. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

whitey's ubiquitous eye[edit]

so i looked up this article so i could discover more about my friends eyes. shes black. i was hoping to get some close ups of other peoples eyes that might look like hers, but alas, wikipedia didnt have any photos of black peoples eyes. in fact, most of the photos are of white folks' eyes. i am suggesting that perhaps folks could make an effort to post a diversity of eyes, from a diversity of people, not just us white folks.

thank you all for your hard work. i appreciate it a ton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You could start by uploading a shot of your friend's eye(s). —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hazel Eye Pictures[edit]

i'd like to point out the pictures given as an example of hazel eyes both don't resemble a golden light brown hazel eye colour, the picture on the left is a picture of someone with green eyes that contain central heterochromia (forest green, can be mistaken for amber in certain lightings/angles) and the picture on the right is of someone with blue eyes that contain central heterochromia (can be mistaken for green in certain lightings/angles). I propose the following pictures be shown as a perfect example of what true hazel eyes are; — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hazel eyes are due to a combination of Rayleigh scattering and a moderate amount of melanin in the iris' anterior border layer.[4][28] Hazel eyes often appear to shift in color from a brown to a green. Although hazel mostly consists of brown and green, the dominant color in the eye can either be brown/gold or green. This is how many people mistake hazel eyes to be amber and vice versa.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59] This can sometimes produce a multicolored iris, i.e., an eye that is light brown/amber near the pupil and charcoal or dark green on the outer part of the iris (or vice versa) when observed in sunlight.
This is the current description of hazel eyes in the article. I think the current photos match that rather well.
--TheSonoran (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree as first of all that description of hazel eyes states green can be the dominant colour which is wrong as a hazelnut shell contains no green whatsoever, true hazel eyes are a light honey brown colour matching the colour of a hazelnut shell and in some instances can have a slight hint of green when observed in sunlight or when direct light hits it, it is most certainly is not an eye where green is the dominant colour or a light green colour is prominant. Secondly that description says nothing about hazel eyes being blue in any way so why does the picture on the right strike me as an obvious blue eye with brown around the pupil (central heterochromia), get your facts right.

Excuse me i've made a valid statement and i have not had any response in over a week, the hazel eye pictures need to be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Red Eyes[edit]

The label on the picture in this section reads "Red" albino eyes" when it should really read "Red-eye effect".Trisped (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The section discusses how the eyes of albino people can appear red, but it doesn't lump that together with the red-eye effect. The red appearance of the eyes in that picture doesn't seem to be from the red-eye effect, at least not solely from it. For one, there's more than a reddish color showing. Contrast it to the picture of the human in the Red-eye effect article, or other pictures of the red-eye effect on the Internet. The image's description also doesn't identify the red appearance of the eyes as being due to the red-eye effect. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Further down on the image's page, you can also see where User:Dark,green.magician took some of the red away, and User:Kersti Nebelsiek stated, "the red was not a fault." The image comes from this source on PubMed; beside Figure 2, it states, "Eyes from a patient with OCA1A. Note that the irises are almost pink, and fully translucent." Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Eye color chart correction[edit]

I edited the text of the "Martin-Schultz" chart, in that it is inverted from Coon's reevaluation of the original Martin Scale. IOW, the Martin's original scale went from blue = 16, Brown = 1 ; (Coon and) Martin-Schultz Scale is ascending in magnitude based on increasing pigment amount: Blue = 1 to Brown = 16 (see wiki on Martin-Schultz to verify) Art4med (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hazel Eye Myth[edit]

The description of hazel eyes says they're green and brown (either colour could be dominant) and can also contain gold, this description is incorrect, true hazel eyes are a golden honey brown colour (basically light brown) which matches the colour of a golden brown hazelnut shell (hence the word hazel), however in some instances can contain minimal amounts of green (either on the outskirts and/or mixed in with the gold) when observed in direct/sun light, but green is by no means a requirement for true hazel eyes.

The myth of hazel eyes being green and brown or any multi-coloured eye is common in North America aswell as areas of the world that have been exposed to Americanisation, However in Europe (the origin of light eyes & hazelnuts) the correct meaning still exists and is used when identifying eye color (hazel eyes = golden light brown colour). The myth of hazel eyes being green and brown or any multi-coloured eye is likely to of started due to green and brown eyes turning a gold and/or light brown colour in areas of dim lighting and actual hazel eyes sometimes presenting slight green when observed in direct/sun light, but this is nonetheless an obvious misconception which requires common sense to understand.

As for green and brown eyes they're well green eyes that contain contain central heterochromia (brown around the pupil) but this does not change the fact of their true colour being the outer green, if you want to categorise them differently the name Forest Green proves worthy or just simply green eyes with brown.

Here are some examples of what true hazel eyes are;

Here are some sources backing up my statement; (defines it as a light golden brown colour, after a hazelnut (states hazel eyes are light brown or yellowish brown) (shows a pure hazel eye, big difference to the green eye diagonally below to the right) (puts hazel eyes in the same category as honey, not green plus displays a green eye with abit of brown (central heterochromia) under the green category) (shows hazel eyes in numerous pictures presenting them as a golden brown) (states the North American misconception and the true/original European definition while showing examples of various sources, numerous pictures and comments below of people agreeing and showing gratitude) (states the misconception and says that hazel eyes are supposed to match the hazel or cob nut, the fruit of the hazel bush/tree that grows in Europe) (shows an optometrists opinion/experience with the issue while stating the North American hazel eye misconception and providing sources backing up his statement)

We've already been over this with you above (#Hazel Eyes). Flyer22 (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Continually making talk page sections about this topic does not help. Flyer22 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Do not move your sections to the top of the talk page again. I previously moved them to the bottom for a reason: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. And do not remove my talk page comments again. Flyer22 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hazel Eye Picture On The Right[edit]

The picture on the right hand side of the hazel eye section does not match the description of hazel eyes, as it is blue with central heterochromia (brown around the pupil). The hazel eye description says nothing about hazel eyes being blue in any way, so i trust this is a mistake that needs to be changed immediately, i propose one of the following pictures be shown in it's place as they match a golden light brown hazelnut colour:

Colour percentages/Eiberg Source[edit]

From Eye color chart, Blue, :"In Denmark 30 years ago, only 8% of the population had brown eyes, though through immigration, today that number is about 11%. In Germany, about 75% have blue eyes."

This claim seems a bit unbelievable (having lived in Estonia for a while). It would be good to find the original source by Eiberg that's referred to in the article that is listed as reference More than meets the blue eye: You may all be related. I couldn't find the correct article from Eiberg's University of Copenhagen page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaner (talkcontribs) 17:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dark blue eyes[edit]

There seems to be a lack of representation for dark blue eyes in this article, both in pictures and discussion. I tried to take a picture of my eyes, which are a really intense dark blue, but alas the only cameras I have access to are pretty low-quality. Any other Wikipedians out there with dark blue eyes who can upload a picture? Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 02:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In my humble opinion there are already too many photos and colors listed. Sections of this article read like something out of a cosmo rag. Gray = blue; Amber = brown, and so on. There's really no need for all of these ridiculous distinctions; blue, green, hazel, and brown are enough. -- (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with you that there are too many distinctions and that grey eyes are a form of blue and amber eyes are the lightest shade of brown however your theory of blue, green, hazel and brown being enough is incorrect as true hazel eyes are just simply a light golden brown (slightly darker than amber) and the definition you've given hazel eyes (green and brown) makes them fall under the green category. So I say there are only 3 true eye colors; blue, green and brown, the rest are significantly different shades/mixes of the 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Using just Ireland is only part of the story[edit]

Internal link Eye color

Blue eyes are most common in Ireland, the Baltic Sea area and Northern Europe,[1] and are also found in Eastern, Central, and Southern Europe. Blue eyes can also be found in Central Asia, South Asia, and West Asia, especially among the Jewish population of Israel.[2][3]

To be accurate the area inferred by using is the Baltic Sea area and [[Northern Europe], where as Ireland fits in ys is Western and Southern Europe and not a specific country in that area. Only mentioning "Ireland" specifically, trivialise the research information available.

External link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bovril stan (talkcontribs) 18:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference BostonGlobe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). the history and geography of human genes.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference altervista1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Did you say Ireland is in southwestern Europe???????? It's capitol is the same level as Hamburg and its north is the same level as Denmark and Lithuania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

True Hazel Eyes[edit]

The definition you've given hazel eyes is feeding people with the myth that hazel eyes can present prominent green colouring and be an eye that's just multi-coloured when in actual fact they're eyes that are either a golden/yellow-ish and/or red-ish brown colour resembling the appearance of a hazelnut, which is exactly what the colour 'hazel' is. In terms of eyes it is true green-ish colouration can be present when observed in strong lighting as slight greenness is used to create the golden tones throughout the brown eye in order to produce the hazel colour, however the green is very minimal and not a requirement. The very first reference to eyes being described as the colour hazel was made by Shakespeare in which he was referring to the red-ish brown colour of a ripe hazelnut;

Mercutio: “Thou wilt quarrel with a man for cracking nuts, having no other reason but because thou hast hazel eyes;–what eye but such an eye would spy out such a quarrel?” Act 3. Scene I Romeo and Juliet Source:

Now for some reason theres a modern misconception quite common in North American (which is believed to be the origin of the myth) that hazel eyes are any eye that's green and brown (either colour can be dominant) or any eye that's multi coloured (blue, grey or green with brown around the pupil), this doesn't make sense as a hazelnut doesn't present any blue, grey or green colouration and the definition of the colour 'hazel' isn't described as presenting any of those colours either. So even if people 'think' hazel eyes are eyes that contain green and brown or multi-coloured tones, I think the information in the hazel eye section should list the true meaning as it's primary paragraph instead of listing it as one sentence at the end, and then stating that hazel is now commonly used do describe eyes that contain green, gold and/or brown tones as well as any eye that is multi-coloured mainly in North American and that in Europe the origin of light eyes and the colour hazel as well as hazelnuts; the true/original meaning is still used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Current 'Hazel' eye color picture is not hazel.[edit]

The current picture in the beginning of the article is not what it claims to be. Hazel eye is described as a predominantly BROWN color, with minimal green around the eye, and at certain light it can look pretty green too. But for the most part it is rather brown, or at least 50% brown and 50% green. THIS picture does not show anything brown at all in the iris, apart from some microscopic spots maybe. The current eye color picture is predominantly GREEN. Seriously, who the hell is managing this article?

My thoughts exactly whoevers in charge of the eye color article is an idiot. I've tried numerous times to inform them that hazel eyes are not green and brown and that it's a north american misconception. Hazel eyes are light golden and/or reddish brown resembling the colour of a hazelnut hence the word hazel, they can contain minimal green within the golden colouration however it is usually very minimal, only present in strong lighting & from good distance but by no means a requirement. It's an issue that requires common sense to understand, but for some reason Wikipedia cannot process my argument because theres no hardcore 'sources', I apologize if no ones ever done a full on research project tracing back to how the hazel eye meaning started shifting in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Blue eye picture[edit]

I do not use Wikipedia that much, so bear with me... I see that a user keeps replacing the original image of a blue eye. Replacing the original with a lesser quality version of their own solely for the fact that they can say their eye is on Wikipedia is senseless.

Someone who can update this page, please judge for yourself, and choose which one looks better.


Thanks. Schwazii (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the original looks better. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I would appreciate it if you could update the picture. It's been about 3 years since I've used Wikipedia and I have no protected editing privileges due to the new account. Schwazii (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I would, but, like you stated, that editor keeps replacing it with the alternative image (such as this most recent time); I'm not interested in getting into a WP:Edit war. It would be best to ask that editor to weigh in on this discussion, to possibly work out some sort of compromise. One way of notifying that editor of this discussion is by linking his or her username via WP:Echo on this talk page, which I'll do now: Lacobrigo. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


I think the hazel eye section is inaccurate, hazel eyes are just light brown and can be reddish or yellowish matching the colour of a hazelnut, green and brown being hazel is a myth common in the USA. I've noticed people trying numerous times on this talk page to get the hazel eye section edited to give the true meaning a primary paragraph rather than a simple scentence stating that it is sometimes considered synonymous with light brown or gold, why do you keep ignoring them? it's obvious the colour hazel is suppose to represent the colour of a hazelnut not green and brown, I think this article should state what hazel truly means and then state that hazel definitions vary especially in the USA to being green and brown or any multi-coloured iris that shifts in colour which is a misconception. Like seriously who's in charge of this page? this is Wikipedia you're supposed to listen to peoples suggestions if they make a valid point not ridicule them because you don't agree with what they're saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's been the same person making the arguments you are making -- you; this IP. Flyer22 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

HA! this is unbelievable, someone else starts a section agreeing that hazels supposed to be a light brown and not green & brown and you automatically assume it's me because you're an extremely headstrong stubborn person who can't accept the fact that other people agree hazel is supposed to be a light honey brown and not the ridiculous north American meaning of being green & brown which is what your inaccurate eye color page is feeding people with. You're a very pathetic human being who shouldn't even be given editing rights on Wikipedia, you need to grow up and open your eyes Flyer22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated, "You will have to do much, much better if you intend to fool me." Using the exact same wording, exact same arguments, when pretending to be someone else will fool no one but someone who does not pay good attention or who is barely smart. Notice that in the #Current 'Hazel' eye color picture is not hazel. section above, you stated, "I've tried numerous times to inform them that hazel eyes are not green and brown and that it's a north american misconception." Notice that IP stated, "I've noticed people trying numerous times on this talk page to get the hazel eye section edited to give the true meaning a primary paragraph rather than a simple scentence stating that it is sometimes considered synonymous with light brown or gold, why do you keep ignoring them?" See anything similar in those arguments, such as use of the wording "I've tried numerous times" and "people trying numerous times"? See anything similar with regard to your spelling, your bad spelling and use of the wording "multi-coloured"? You are IP, an IP that was not used since 2010...until this year to make the same arguments you have been making over and over again on this talk page, against Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Oh, and get it through your head already that repeatedly insulting me, name-calling and such, does not do a thing to hurt me. What it mostly does is amuse me that you feel that you have to resort to such "tactics." It also keeps getting your persistent self blocked. Get a clue already; Wikipedia is against the type of editing you want to engage in here at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You are incredibly pathetic, a person who has a completely different IP address to me uses one or two words in their vocabulary that I have in my arguments causes you to automatically assume it's me pretending to be someone else as if I have nothing better to do, i'll point out they said they had read my arguments which could have prompted them to use similar words. Why don't you stop being stubborn and accept that hazel isn't what you're telling people it is and I'm not the only one who's picking up on it. Hazelnuts are native to Europe, North America was colonized by Europeans, The first reference to eyes being referred to as hazel was by Shakespeare (a European) where he was referring to a reddish brown colour of a ripe hazelnut, if you go to Europe they will use the term correctly and identify eyes that are light brown with admixtures of golden and reddish tones as hazel. Now why the hell are you giving the true/original European meaning one sentence at the end of the paragraph and giving the north American misconceived ridiculous meaning a large paragraph, if you were to go to North America people will class green and brown, blue and brown, grey and brown or any multi coloured light eye as hazel, they've just distorted the word hazel to basically any eye that has more than one obvious colour in it, so you might as well put that in the definition. Your page is being extremely bias, just because Wikipedia started in America and most of the sites admins are American, you prefer to give your pathetic meaning a large paragraph and the actual/true meaning a small line at the bottom. The hazel section should say hazel eyes are eyes that resemble a hazelnut (light honey and/or reddish brown) and Shakespeare was the first person to refer to eyes as hazel etc etc, and then state that hazel eye definitions vary and have been distorted/misconceived in different regions particularly in North America where many would class green and brown/gold or any multi coloured iris as hazel. But because of strong headed thick people such as yourself flyer22 that will never be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, get it through your head: "You will have to do much, much better if you intend to fool me." I see editors like you all the time; I catch editors like you (WP:Sockpuppets) all the time. You cannot fool me, someone with several years of experience on this site, who is not the least bit stupid as to be fooled by someone using the exact same wording, exact same arguments, while pretending to be two different people. It's not "one or two words" in this case; it's your overall writing style and your overall argument style -- it is exactly the same as IP's. You are sitting here arguing that you are not that person, when anyone with half a brain can see that you are. And yet you call me pathetic? Well, I don't care. Like I stated, "get it through your head already that repeatedly insulting me, name-calling and such, does not do a thing to hurt me. What it mostly does is amuse me that you feel that you have to resort to such 'tactics.' It also keeps getting your persistent self blocked. Get a clue already; Wikipedia is against the type of editing you want to engage in here at this site."
And now it's time for you to be blocked again, because I'm beyond tired of seeing your IP pop up on this talk page, and I'm beyond tired of seeing your nonsense (whether I read it or not; as I type this, I haven't even read all or most of your "08:10, 20 January 2014" post). Buh-bye. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocking me? oh dear whatever will I do. I've been blocked so often and look what it's accomplished; nothing! I'm still here arguing my point, and I'm not going anywhere, nothing's going to stop me from fighting for what is true and what I believe in. I've met people like you, you're the type of person that thinks just because you've done something for years, and have been given little rights and privileges you're on top of everyone, your attitude is; "I'm right you're wrong and there's nothing you can do about it, I have power over this site and I know all, you're just some pathetic little pest who doesn't have an account and won't shut up with your silly ramblings which are wrong because I don't agree". Realistically all you are Flyer22 is some sad little know it all on a power drive who spends too much time behind his/her desk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor Description[edit]

Hazel is not green and brown or a combination of colours, only idiots will say it is and argue that point, hazel is brown with tones of gold and red throughout, sometimes minimal amounts of green can be present but they can't be too obvious and green is never an actual requirement for the colour hazel as a hazelnut contains no green whatsoever. So why does your description say hazel is a combination of brown, green and gold and either colour could be dominant? i've never seen a hazelnut thats green in any way shape or form, and the line at the end which states; "hazel is sometimes considered synonymous with light brown or gold as in the colour of a hazelnut", what do you mean sometimes? it is always considered synonymous with light brown as that is what the colour hazel is, the only people who use it for eyes with combined colours are either ignorant or uneducated on the matter. why are you giving a ridiculous meaning of hazel eyes when you could look up any website with colour definitions which would state hazel is a light yellowish or reddish brown as in the colour of the nut, who writes this stuff, like seriously?


In Germany, about 75% have blue eyes.

The percentage is absolutely too high or outdated. I live there. You have to consider the fact that many people like to immigrate to German. Even ethinic Germans often do not have blue eyes. -- (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Blue Eyes[edit]

It seems like the section on blue eyes is too long (or maybe every other section is too short) its section goes into very intricate detail with several photos while every other eye color only gets a short, one paragraph summary and one photo. And if this is for the most part about human eye color why does the blue eye section also have several animal pictures?FamAD123 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

FamAD123, the Blue section significantly outweighing the other sections in length was addressed before; see Talk:Eye color/Archive 3#Blue Eyes vs. the other sections. Like I stated in that short discussion, I don't think that the Blue section should be significantly cut; it's just that the other sections need expansion. Well, except for the Red and violet section, since there is not much to state about "red" and "violet" eyes. As for discussion of non-human animals being in the Blue section, I suppose it's there because, like that section states, "Blue eyes are rare in mammals." However, "mammals" is not the same thing as "animals," so further clarity is needed on the "animals with blue eyes" aspect. And since this article is not only (though primarily) about humans, non-human animal material can be in some of the sections. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding unsourced material[edit]

Yatzhek (talk · contribs), I clearly reverted you here, here and here. Judging by the warnings on your user talk page, you know how you are supposed to conduct yourself on Wikipedia. Having to revert you three times, when you know why I reverted you (an absence of WP:Reliable sources provided to support your additions), is ridiculous. If you continue to add unsourced material and WP:Synthesis to the Eye color article, and continue WP:Edit warring to keep that unsourced material in, then I will contact the administrator who blocked you before and then take the matter from there. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will add these information all with sources from anthropological books and publications consisting of medical data. Dont worry. I will do it soon. However you must stop supporting repetitions by repeating the same things twice in this article. It's unnecessary. Yatzhek (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yatzhek (talk · contribs), I was not supporting repetitions; I was focused on reverting your unsourced additions. Regarding repetition, I saw that after I reverted you here, you meant the bit about uveitis and uveal melanoma, as seen by your edit here and here. But take notice that uveitis and uveal melanoma are not the same thing. Your edit removed focus on uveitis regarding gray eyes. You also amended the "An increased risk of uveal melanoma" regarding "blue, green or gray iris color" to "and to some extent also in those of green or gray iris color." Unless the source states "to some extent" regarding those eye colors, you should not have added that. I will go ahead and add back the uveitis bit and remove your amending text. And it would be best that the sources you provid are in English and have a URL so that they can be easily assessed and their verifiability (whether they support your content) can be easily proven. Flyer22 (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed back, for the most part. Flyer22 (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This page is complete nonsense[edit]

Blue/green/gray eyes are a genetic disorder. They don't work properly. If you understood how an eye works, you'd probably realize that. No other animals in nature have blue/green eyes for that reason.. Also, people with brown eyes aren't more at risk for cataracts. Just another lie to make people think blue eyes are somehow normal I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavefish777 (talkcontribs) 00:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, they ridicule and ignore people's suggestions if they don't agree with them, so what's the point of having a talk page in the first place, honestly the administrators in this site are all very arrogant and headstrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

For one, there are some animals that have blue eyes in nature. Second, is the white fur of a polar bear a genetic disorder? How about human white skin? In a low light environment, such as the frozen north, vitamin D synthesis is promoted by light colored skin. People wear clothes in cold environments, which mitigates ultraviolet damage. I have blue eyes, and they work well. (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this confusing?[edit]

Excerpt #1: Eye color is an inherited trait influenced by more than one gene [...]

Excerpt #2: Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene [...] reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[37] [...] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes."

In the latter case does only one gene cause blue eyes? It seems contradictory with respect to the first case. Dynasteria (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, is this man's research peer-reviewed? He has basically the equivalent of a masters degree according to the Wikipedia article on him. It is a serious disservice to the public to have someone with only a masters degree be the entire basis for a Wikipedia statement on a scientific subject. I will delete the section on his research in due time if no one replies. Dynasteria (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dynasteria, I don't understand your "masters degree" argument. Eiberg is a scholar/researcher, and to see how much traction his scholarly work has gotten, you can simply look into the matter on Google Books or on Google Scholar. Yes, his work has gotten news attention, but we need to see about the scholarly attention it has gotten. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Google Books and Google Scholar link to the Wikipedia article on Hans Eiberg and nothing else. The Wikipedia article has two external links, one of which does not function, the other of which is Eiberg's personal website. In addition, footnote #36 is to an MSNBC "news" article. Really? So now Wikipedia is putting out "credible" information based on what a reporter says?
Footnote #37 links to this scholarly article which says the following in its abstract:
The human eye color is a quantitative trait displaying multifactorial inheritance. Several studies have shown that the OCA2 locus is the major contributor to the human eye color variation. By linkage analysis of a large Danish family, we finemapped the blue eye color locus to a 166 Kbp region within the HERC2 gene. By association analyses, we identified two SNPs within this region that were perfectly associated with the blue and brown eye colors: rs12913832 and rs1129038. Of these, rs12913832 is located 21.152 bp upstream from the OCA2 promoter in a highly conserved sequence in intron 86 of HERC2. The brown eye color allele of rs12913832 is highly conserved throughout a number of species. As shown by a Luciferase assays in cell cultures, the element significantly reduces the activity of the OCA2 promoter and electrophoretic mobility shift assays demonstrate that the two alleles bind different subsets of nuclear extracts. One single haplotype, represented by six polymorphic SNPs covering half of the 3′ end of the HERC2 gene, was found in 155 blue-eyed individuals from Denmark, and in 5 and 2 blue-eyed individuals from Turkey and Jordan, respectively. Hence, our data suggest a common founder mutation in an OCA2 inhibiting regulatory element as the cause of blue eye color in humans. In addition, an LOD score of Z = 4.21 between hair color and D14S72 was obtained in the large family, indicating that RABGGTA is a candidate gene for hair color.
Note the use of the words "multifactorial" as well as "major contributor" (not "sole contributor") which would indicate that it is not one gene only that causes this phenomenon. Also, there is no mention of this genetic shift occurring 8-10 thousand years ago. I am very curious to find out when this shift may have occurred, but it seems Mr. Eiberg does not reliably supply this information. Dynasteria (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you want to ask about this matter at the WikiProjects currently at the top of the talk page, and/or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology? Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I don't know where those links lead to. I have asked a question here and anyone who wants to join in is more than welcome. I thought that was the purpose of the Talk page. I wonder sometimes about Wikipedia's reliance on experts such as Mr. Eiberg instead of on people's knowledge out in the community.
I also frankly don't understand Wikipedia's use of indents in conversations like this where you would in very short time have your words be narrowed down to
an extremely constricted space. Dynasteria (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a joke, of course. I did try to post a question on User Biology right now but it didn't work. I think I should have done it on the Talk page. Will try again later.Dynasteria (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Some talk pages are low in traffic; this is one of those in some ways. By that, I mean that this talk page does not receive a lot of attention. In such cases, asking for comments beyond the talk page is often better. WP:WikiProjects are a part of that purpose. So are WP:Dispute resolution matters. Regarding the post you made, that should be at that WikiProject's talk page, not on its main page. As for experts vs. "people's knowledge out in the community," I'm not quite sure what you mean, but we should go by the WP:Reliable sources. And for science topics, there are some sourcing rules; for example, WP:Fringe or WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I should have said: reliance on single experts vs. a broader range of people in the scientific community. I may be wrong, but I noticed in the mid 2000s that Jared Diamond was cropping up all over the place as the last word on anthropology. He's not, because there is no such thing as the last word in the hard sciences, much less the soft sciences. I mean, I like Jared Diamond's writing and I agree with him a whole lot. I just think there should be more than one viewpoint put forth.
I'll work on navigating the other talk pages. Dynasteria (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

New interpretation needed[edit]

The following is the next to last section in the Hans Eiberg article linked in footnote #38, which is discussed in the Blue section of this Wikipedia article:

The origin of the founder mutation
The mutations responsible for the blue eye color most likely originate from the neareast area or northwest part of the Black Sea region, where the great agriculture migration to the northern part of Europe took place in the Neolithic periods about 6–10,000 years ago (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).
The high frequency of blue-eyed individuals in the Scandinavia and Baltic areas indicates a positive selection for this phenotype (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Myant et al. 1997). Several theories has been suggested to explain the evolutionary selection for pigmentation traits which include UV expositor causing skin cancer, vitamin D deficiency, and also sexual selection has been mentioned. Natural selection as suggested here makes it difficult to calculate the age of the mutation.

Note it does not say "when" or "at the time that" but instead says "where" in the first paragraph. Note the last sentence in the last paragraph. It states rather unambiguously that the age of the mutation is difficult to calculate. The following sentence from the Wikipedia article Blue section appears to be false or highly misinformed: "The authors suggested that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region during the Neolithic revolution.[37][38]"

There are news articles and bloggers saying that a single individual who lived 8,000 years ago is the sole ancestor of the trait in all blue eyed people, which seems patently ludicrous. I'm going to spend some time working on changing this article. Input from others would be most valuable. Dynasteria (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Chart is a joke[edit]

For some Reason i cant delete the chart at -> Eye Color Chart It only adds up to 70% People who suffer from albinism have red eyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scisne (talkcontribs) 19:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014[edit]

In the chapter eye color chart, there is a chart dhowing the distribution of eye color worldwide. It only adds up to 70% Scisne (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done since it is not clear what you want done. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 21:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Article inaccuracies - Albinism[edit]

Section: Genetic determination

"The gene OCA2 (OMIM: 203200), when in a variant form, causes the pink eye color and hypopigmentation common in human albinism."

Incorrect, actually red eyes is rare and not common in human Albinism as implied in this section, however a strong red eye effect will usually occur during flash photography -

Section: Anomalous conditions

"Normally, there is a thick layer of melanin on the back of the iris. Even people with the lightest blue eyes, with no melanin on the front of the iris at all, have dark brown coloration on the back of it, to prevent light from scattering around inside the eye. In those with milder forms of albinism, the color of the iris is typically blue but can vary from blue to brown. In severe forms of albinism, there is no pigment on the back of the iris, and light from inside the eye can pass through the iris to the front. In these cases, the only color seen is the red from the hemoglobin of the blood in the capillaries of the iris. Such albinos have pink eyes..."

Again this section implies more strongly than is accurate red eyes is common amongst humans with albinism it should more read the average human with albinism has blue eyes but some with severe albinism may have violet or red eyes, although the term severe is also a bit of a misnomer. - 12.14am (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Blue eyes are commonest in Northern Europe, in the British Isles, Scandinavia and the Baltic States. In these countries, over 67% have blue and green eyes. For example in Estonia, Denmark, Norway over 80% have blue and green eyes, in the British, 78% have light eyes, especially blue, in Germany very slightly less people at 75%. For pure blue eyes Ireland, Norway, Sweden are similar all around 50%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishee2000 (talkcontribs) 06:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This map is outrageously ridiculous[edit]

It's absolutely false that anywhere in north Africa or in middle east (perhaps with the exception of some areas in Israel) can be a % of light eyes higher than in Spain, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria.

Morocco 20/49 % light eyes? Lol, I've been in Morocco 4 times, I can say I never met a native with grey, blue or green eyes, and I think anyone who visited Morocco can agree with me, almost all the people have black or dark brown eyes as it happens among the other arabs, maghrebians, kabyles, riffians and anyone else lives in North Africa. Only very very very few people have hazel eyes, which are even not considered light eyes.

Blue eye precentages[edit]

The article used to repeat Hans Eiberg's claim that 99% of Estonians have blue eyes, including showing it on a bar chart. This claim seems to have spread all over the Internet, probably thanks to this article. As an Estonian, the claim seems absurd to me: grey and green eyes are more common than blue in my opinion, even brown eyes are probably more common than 1%. Also, the initial context (quote from a newspaper article) is such that Eiberg may well have exaggerated, it doesn't seem like a precise precentage that can be put on a bar chart. It is also possible that the USA Today article used "blue eyes" as a shorthand for all light eye colours.

I removed all precentages whose source was that article (also Denmark, Germany), as the absurd claim about Estonia casts doubt on them as well, and it might be talking about light eyes rather than just blue ones. I also removed the bar chart.

A Google image search for "blue eyes distribution" brings up many maps claiming that the precentage is over 70-80% in North Germany, Baltic and Nordic states. Other maps with similar data mention "light eyes", which is probably the correct interpretation.

User332572385 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit User332572385 is referring to. User332572385, why should we go by your word instead of, like the Hans Eiberg Wikipedia article currently states, the word of "a Danish geneticist, known for his discovery of the genetic mutation causing blue eyes"? Here at Wikipedia, we are supposed to go by what the WP:Reliable sources state (or that there is a lack of WP:Reliable sources) when adding or removing content, not solely by what Wikipedia editors state. If he was misquoted, that's another matter; but there should be proof that he was misquoted before we remove material because we think that's the case. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I support removing that bar chart because it was based on several sources, which used different statistics. Top data were based on Eiberg, who did not seem to have representative statistics. Indeed, 99% is ridiculously high; also, that source [1] did not say about blue eyes in Denmark, it said about brown eyes, and someone assumed that there are only two eye colors in that country and subtracted 100%-11%. This hints that User332572385 is correct, and "blue" meant "light colored" in Eiberg's study. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Materialscientist; I wasn't stating that User332572385 is wrong. I was stressing that we generally should not be basing our edits on our personal experiences. That stated, WP:Common sense also applies, and User332572385 was apparently following WP:Common sense. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hans Eiberg may be a respectable source, but a newspaper citation of him saying '99%' off the top of his head is not. Generally, such statements should be traced back to primary sources if possible. User332572385 (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
User332572385, it may be that Eiberg stated that to a news source; if that's the case, then the news source is the WP:Primary source. News sources are often WP:Primary sources anyway, as noted at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news. That stated, news sources can be, and often are, legitimately used on Wikipedia. And if a researcher gave an interview to a news source, that researcher can be quoted on that matter via that source. If it's a dubious statement, WP:Intext attribution is one of the available options. The content you removed had WP:Intext attribution. Whatever decision an editor makes on such a matter, WP:Secondary sources are usually preferred over WP:Primary sources. Flyer22 (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My question is why did you erase the whole chart with REFERENCES given by other countries research...sure you can erase the Estonia and German statistic but why the rest that had official research done such Great Britain and France... these are not off the top of someone's head you erase all the other research done too?... make sense...jeez. Puertorico1 (talk)

I have studied eye color distribution across Europe for quite some time on including counting national parliament and national sports representatives and the irony of this entire discussion is that the data without any credible source namely this one: is from my research much better and believable than most of the other coming from mainstream sources. Yet people are still more likely to believe Estonia 99% pure blue eyed (with an Estonian himself here claiming it is ridiculous), just because there is some source. Even though source isn't even context specific, meaning the point of the article isn't to give data about frequency it just talks about eye color genes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common (talkcontribs) 20:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Neolithic Revolution and date of the "blue eye mutation"[edit]

In this edit, ‎Evanh2008 removed mention of the Neolithic Revolution, stating, "The Neolithic Revolution was a worldwide event, not a local one." I changed the wording, stating, "Then tweak it. Not giving any kind of date is too vague." Evanh2008 reverted me, stating, "Then the problem is with the sources; they give no date."

Actually, the sources do give a date. This one states, "The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago, so before then, there were no blue eyes." This one is a WP:PAYWALL source, and I don't think that Evanh2008 read that one beyond the abstract. And this one states, "Frank Sinatra, Stephen Hawking, Marie Curie and Stephen Fry all owe their blue eyes to a genetic mutation that likely occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago, researchers say. ... Blue eye colour most likely originated from the near east area or northwest part of the Black Sea region, where the great agriculture migration to the northern part of Europe took place in the Neolithic periods about six–10,000 years ago." The article used to state "6,000–10,000 years ago," but, Dynasteria removed it. For other comments from Dynasteria, see the #Is this confusing? section above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And like I just stated in this WP:Dummy edit, my point (for adding the Neolithic Revolution link back) was that the Neolithic Revolution link gives some type of time frame. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about which sources I've read. I have access to the paywalled source on the ProQuest database via a university subscription. You are certainly correct that I was wrong in saying that the sources don't give a date—I read the paper and, my reading comprehension academically blunted, skimmed through the other two. While skimming I saw the last of the quotations you gave, describing the Black Sea (for some reason) in terms of the date at which agriculture developed there. Poor choice on the part of the writers, but poor attention-paying on my part as well. The paper does the same thing, unfortunately, and without even the benefit of giving even a cursory guess at an actual date for the mutation. They could have just as easily described the Black Sea region as the site of the Crimean War in the mid 19th century; it's unclear in the context of the article why they chose to give that date, and I now wonder if that choice has resulted in confusion on the part of the secondary sources.
My point, basically, is that I find no support for a Neolithic date in the primary source—that's why I reverted you—and what support I now see in the secondary sources looks worryingly like a misreading of the paper. Evan (talk|contribs) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, this is the relevant extract from the paper:

The mutations responsible for the blue eye color most likely originate from the neareast area or northwest part of the Black Sea region, where the great agriculture migration to the northern part of Europe took place in the Neolithic periods about 6–10,000 years ago (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

Which is paraphrased by The Telegraph in the fourth paragraph of the article. I'll try to track down the Cavalli-Sforza article tomorrow. Evan (talk|contribs) 06:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, Evanh2008. As for the WP:PAYWALL comment, I was speaking from experience; by that, I mean that editors usually don't have access to whatever paywall source in question, or they have limited access to it. Regarding the sourcing issue, it seems like a Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news issue, an aspect that I also mentioned in the section immediately above this one. Flyer22 (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22 - Cavalli-Sforza turned out to be a book. I managed to get my hands on an abridged version of the book, but couldn't for the life of me track down any mention of eye color and the Black Sea (the paywalled article wasn't kind enough to give a page number). If someone wants to restore the Black Sea datum to the article, I'm not dedicated enough to revert it, though I still think the evidence is shaky, unless someone can check the Cavalli-Sforza source and verify. Evan (talk|contribs) 06:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Automatic archiving[edit]

Have added automatic archiving to this page. Threads that have had no responses within 2 months (60 days) will be automatically archived. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of European chart[edit]

"Eye colours around Europe"

This chart is based around a study from 1965 and does not match data or percentages provided in the article. I'd also note that with immigration and at least 2 generations having passed since the data was collected this is most likely out of date anyway. We should be giving preference to some of the more modern sources used in the article. Consequently I've removed the image. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Eye Color Worldwide chart (first chart in the page)[edit]

The chart percentages add up to around 60%, meaning 40% either don't have eyes or are albinos80.98.215.244 (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Rayleigh vs. Tyndall[edit]

The Tyndall effect article claims that the Tyndall effect is the source of color (at least, for blue irises). The Eye color lede says that "The appearance of blue and green, as well as hazel eyes, results from the Rayleigh scattering of light in the stroma", and this also has a cited source. 93 01:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Eye color chart (Martin Scale) section[edit]

The "Eye color chart (Martin Scale)" section is, presumably, a relic of earlier anthropological writing. However, this is no excuse for scientific disinformation being included. The section mentions "brown pigment" and, "light pigment". There is only one pigment involved in iris colour and that is melanin - which can appear brown or black depending on concentration. The various colours found in the human iris are the result of optical effects due to muscle layering interacting with greater or lesser amounts of melanin. These anachronistic, and scientifically meaningless, references need to go. Urselius (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Blue eyes are rare in mammals "[edit]

Point 1. Surely this is demonstrably untrue? Lots of cats have blue eyes. Quite a few humans have blue eyes. Some dogs have blue eyes. Any one of these counterexamples makes the sentence untrue.

Point 2. To go off at a tangent, there is a reasonably common mutation in alpacas whereby male alpacas with blue eyes are almost always deaf. This is regarded as a deleterious mutation, since hearing in alpacas - whether wild or farmed - is extremely important. I don't have a reference for this, but I dare say any national alpacas association can probably provide something. (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that first part. I'm not sure about the specific wording, but blue eyes are not particularly common, and citing a couple of examples does not disprove a claim. The best action you can take on your part is to attempt to find reliable sources supporting your claim and bring them here. Dustin (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction in this sentence[edit]

"The majority of people in the world overall have dark brown eyes. Dark brown is often found in the Semitic people, among Jewish and Arab populations in the Middle East."

According to whom and where is the proof? This sentence also contradicts itself implying majority of the people in the world have dark brown eyes and then proceeds to say it is the most common among semites. So i think the last sentence is really pointless since Arabs and Jews also fall under the category of the majority. Not to mention no citations are given for the afromentioned. Akmal94 (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Recently add blue eye (and other light eye) statistics, etc.[edit]

As seen here, here, and here, Evropariver (talk · contribs) recently added dubiously-sourced, WP:Undue weight content regarding blue and brown eyes. The Tinypic sources, this source, this source, and this are not WP:Reliable sources in the least. And as has been made clear above on this talk page, there is already enough content in this article about blue eyes, when blue eyes are not even the predominant eye color.

Evropariver's editing is similar to what is going on at the Physical attractiveness article with an IP, Tomwsulcer, Ozzie10aaaa, Adrian J. Hunter and myself, and given that these two articles are not heavily edited (they are occasionally edited), I do not find this to be a coincidence. If the IP/Evropariver keeps adding such material, I will deal with it at the appropriate noticeboards...whether the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, WP:Original research noticeboard, and/or WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Evropariver, this edit, where you removed one of the poor sources you added, barely helps. Your text still has poor sources and WP:Synthesis. is WP:Self-published, by the way. The population graph text you added on to already had poor sources, and all of that should be removed as well. And it will be. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am really sorry for the unreliable blogs, stupid repeating of information and undue weight. I thought I was going to be the first to add it, but I actually found out that I am repeating the same info with unrliable sources. Excuse me for the stupid mistake. However, the studies for the frequencies is a real one, but probably by unreliable publisher.--Evropariver (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
You are the IP from the Physical attractiveness article, are you not? You edit like him, make typos like him, do not WP:Indent (which is something I did for the IP and now for you), and you sign your username like him (with two dashes in the front). Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I am going to revert the table--Evropariver (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are completely right. I introduced plenty of silly mistakes here. Is the article OK now?--Evropariver (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate these reverts you made. But there was more to revert, which I did. Did you want that latter bit that I reverted moments ago to stay? If so, why? Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a reliable source I suggest should stay, - inlcudes Ireland, Greece and Poland--Evropariver (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:Primary source and WP:MEDRS. It is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You mean the source is medical or that it should be?--Evropariver (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS concerns biomedical information; by that, I mean biology topics in addition to topics more strictly medical. Eye color clearly falls in the realm of biology, which is why the top of this talk page is tagged with, for example, a WP:Anatomy WikiProject tag. A lot of content in this article needs to be compliant with WP:MEDRS or more compliant with it. The source is a poor biomedical source. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I see that has a Wikipedia article: International Society for Forensic Genetics. Maybe that source is not as poor as I think; it does cite other sources. I'm going to go ahead and WP:Ping Jytdog on this matter; he's better at analyzing biomedical sources than I am.
What did you want to use that source for, by the way? Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
That is PMID 22917817 which is a primary source where some scientists are trying out a method to predict eye color from DNA. Not great for statements about reality. I looked on pubmed for reviews and the most recent is 2008 and it makes it clear that at that time, the best reference work was Tony Frudakis, Molecular Photofitting: Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype Using DNA. There is a version published in 2010 - ISBN 9780080551371. That is probably the best source out there for DNA and eye color stuff. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jytdog. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


I have tried adding the "missing" references to the statistics chart to back up the statistics given.. Since somebody deleted the sources but couldn't be bothered to even look at the chart to delete the remaining stats. so I added the much needed references.. the sources apparently are not useful if in a press link.. However the British eye colour stats are taken by the official scotlandDNA site and put on a press site. The USA statistics are the same and seem to be kept. Are these references for Britain, Spain and USA reliable since they are official eye colour research. Puertorico1 (talk)

Eye color chart (Martin Scale)[edit]

This chart is misleading because light, mixed and dark overlap (16-12 and 12-6 and 6-1)

Correct version:

  • light 15-16
  • light mixed 12-14
  • mixed 7-11
  • dark-mixed 5-6
  • dark 1-4

References [1] "In eye color as in hair color, the native farmers are lighter than the recruits, with 86.5 per cent of light and light-mixed eyes (Martin #12-16) as against 76 per cent. Of the recruits, 38.5 per cent have pure light eyes (Martin #15-16)." "Of this group, which included Charles Darwin the younger, 29.8 per cent had pure light eyes (Martin #15-16); 27.4 per cent light-mixed eyes (Martin #12-14); 2.4 per cent pure dark eyes (Martin #1-4); while the remaining 40.4 per cent had medium- or dark-mixed irises." "By contrast, the eyes are very light; less than 3 per cent have brown or dark-mixed shades (Martin #1-6)"

Typologist (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2015[edit]

The part about Slovene eye color has nothing to do with general population of Yugoslavia. It is an experiment using 105 people and determining if eye color could be predicted from DNA. The idea that over 40% of Slovenes have blue eyes is ludicrous.

2602:306:8B73:D000:D47B:77A5:E2D8:B81D (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done I removed the statement on Slovenians as you are right that Wikipedia was misrepresenting the source which didn't aim at measuring prevalence of blue eyes, but how eye color could be predicted. Thanks for pointing this out. Others may consider whether the results on predictability merit inclusion in the article, so I included a link to the source. Iselilja (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That's ludicrous. A quote from the actual study.


Blue eye color was observed in 44.7%, brown in 29.6%, and intermediate in 25.7% participants. Prediction accuracy expressed by the AUC was 0.966 for blue, 0.913 for brown, and 0.796 for intermediate eye color. Sensitivity was 93.6% for blue, 58.1% for brown, and 0% for intermediate eye color. Specificity was 93.1% for blue, 89.2% for brown, and 100% for intermediate eye color. PPV was 91.7% for blue and 69.2% for brown color. NPV was 94.7% for blue and 83.5% for brown eye color. These values indicate prediction accuracy comparable to that established in other studies."

"Characteristics of the study population

The frequency of blue eye color in the studied sample was 44.7% (47 samples) and the frequency of brown eye color was much lower and reached 29.6% (31 samples). The individuals were categorized in these two eye color groups only when the color was homogenous, regardless of the intensity. The frequency of individuals in the intermediate eye color group was relatively high, 25.7% (27 samples)."


Lavezzicavani3 (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Lavezzicavani3 (talk · contribs), regarding this and other edits you've been making to the article, it was already noted in the #Recently add blue eye (and other light eye) statistics, etc. section above that the source is a poor source to use. Other sources you've been using are also poor. Your editing style is similar to that of IllusIon's (previously known as User:Evropariver). In a few days (or maybe in a week), I will get around to significantly comparing the accounts to see if any WP:Socking is going on. If I find WP:Socking to be the case, I will be reporting it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ćwirko-Godycki map

The sentence "Beside Slovenes, low frequencies of dark eyes (less than 50%) were also observed... in the neighboring populations of northern Croats and northern Serbs," is deceptive and incorrect as the map shows this category encompassing almost all Croatia (except Dalmatia) which is 80.12% of Croatia's population, so not just "Northern Croats". However the map doesn't prove Northern Serbs to be under 50% dark eyed as Vojvodia used to be only 33% Serb in 1931 when the map was created, the rest being mostly Germans, Hungarians and Croats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common~enwiki (talkcontribs) 11:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Coon C. S., The races of Europe, 1939