Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 6 December 2014

Anatomy C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.

Animal anatomy C‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2004–Oct 2006) Archive 2 (Nov 2006–Aug 2009) Archive 3 (Sep 2009-Dec 2012)

Contradictory assertions about blue pigmentation

From the section Classification of color:

There are three pigment colors that determine, depending on their proportion, the outward appearance of the iris: brown, yellow, and blue.

From the section Blue:

There is no blue pigmentation either in the iris or in the ocular fluid. Dissection reveals that the iris pigment epithelium is brownish black due to the presence of melanin.

Am I missing something, or are these contradictory? Duoduoduo (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the use of the word "pigment" in the paper by Seddon et al. It's clear that in their work they merely classified eye colors based on the appearance of photographs. When they say write of brown, yellow, or blue "pigment", they just mean coloration, as seen in the pictures. The lead and the discussion of blue, green, and grey eyes in this article make it clear that human irises have only one pigment, melanin, which is always brownish-black. The external appearance of the eye is a structural color, given by the interplay between pigmentation and the scattering of reflected light in the stroma or the iris. - Eb.hoop (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to mention structural color an extra time to avoid confusion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Green Eyes

Both of the photos for "green eyes" in this article feature pictures of an iris that is primarily brown with *some* green around the peripheries.

I have tried on two occasions to provide pictures of an actual green eye -- ie. not a "brown" eye with "some" green - but an actual 100% green iris, and both times these edits were reverted.

What gives with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.67.46 (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Both of the current pictures look hazel to me, as per the description in the section hazel.

I can't find your reverted edits in the edit history -- what dates and times did you make them? I'd like to take a look at them. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no documented case of a 100% solid green iris. Before you disagree, listen for a moment. Green eyes can appear solid green from a distance, but when actual detailed closeups are taken, there is always the obvious presence of either brown, gold, orange, yellow, or some combination of those colors near the center of the eye. There is no green pigment. Green eyes are formed by a mixture of yellow, grey, and brown pigment, and it is distributed over the iris in a way that creates a green overall appearance. These pigments do not blend completely to form an actual "green" like a crayola crayon. Ashantifan1224 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I responded to Ashantifan1224 here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hazel eye picture

Currently there is no picture in the Hazel section. But the right-side picture of the Green section, strikes me as obviously hazel: it fits perfectly this passage from the section Hazel:

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.

Yet the picture itself is labeled "Green eye". I suspect this label on the picture was incorrect OR on the part of the person who uploaded it. Can the label be corrected and the picture moved to the hazel section? Duoduoduo (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Grey eye isn't Grey

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

and the light brown eye is yellow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.65.242.28 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Black eyes

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 Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Section headings. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

color changing eye

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. 76.22.30.181 (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)

Y-DNA relevance?

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

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). 110.174.147.166 (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 110.174.147.166 (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: http://m.rateitall.com/iPhone/item.aspx?p=0&ItemID=1074601 that contains numerous sources backing up it's statement http://hazeleyes-wintergoddess.blogspot.com.au/2009/07/hazel-eyes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.147.166 (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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 , entry "hazel": a light golden- or greenish-brown color. From Wiktionary: A greenish-brown colour, the colour of a ripe hazelnut. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hazel?show=0&t=1359387138 : (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 110.174.147.166 (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; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hazel (defines it as a light golden brown colour, after a hazelnut), http://www.wonderquest.com/eye-color-age.htm (states hazel eyes are light brown or yellowish brown), http://www.fanteye.com/extimages/p_FreshlooksColorblendsChartLG.jpg (shows a pure hazel eye, big difference to the green eye diagonally below to the right), http://www.colormecontacts.com/colored-contacts-for-dark-eyes (puts hazel eyes in the same category as honey, not green plus shows a green eye with abit of brown under the green category), http://www.yestheyrefake.net/color_contacts_buy_photos.htm (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 110.174.147.166 (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

Hello.

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

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Hazel_eye_of_a_mixed-ethnicity_female.jpg

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

Turks

Turkey have the highest percentage of green eyes in the world. source: http://bolt.cd/board/f7/eyes-have-389181/ "As a country, Turkey has the highest percentage of citizens who have green eyes, at 20 percent." 95.114.25.65 (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 http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/wp-content/blogs.dir/461/files/2012/04/i-bc532a7af4fd095e0322b5cc57822348-blueeyeddevil.pdf --GaiusCrastinus (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How we choose to describe the results of research

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

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,[REDACTED] 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 173.206.145.239 (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

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;

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Hazel_eye_of_a_mixed-ethnicity_female.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Amber_Brown_Green.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:S7307583.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:HumanFemalewithAmberIris.jpg

http://toponthelist.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/amber_eye.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mocuishle_photography/2340845990/sizes/l/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.147.166 (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. 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. 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 110.174.147.166 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Red Eyes

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

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

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;

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Hazel_eye_of_a_mixed-ethnicity_female.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Amber_Brown_Green.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:S7307583.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:HumanFemalewithAmberIris.jpg

http://toponthelist.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/amber_eye.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mocuishle_photography/2340845990/sizes/l/in/photostream

Here are some sources backing up my statement;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hazel (defines it as a light golden brown colour, after a hazelnut

http://www.wonderquest.com/eye-color-age.htm (states hazel eyes are light brown or yellowish brown)

http://www.fanteye.com/extimages/p_FreshlooksColorblendsChartLG.jpg (shows a pure hazel eye, big difference to the green eye diagonally below to the right)

http://www.colormecontacts.com/colored-contacts-for-dark-eyes (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)

http://www.yestheyrefake.net/color_contacts_buy_photos.htm (shows hazel eyes in numerous pictures presenting them as a golden brown)

http://hazeleyes-wintergoddess.blogspot.com.au/2009/07/hazel-eyes.html (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)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_Hazel_eyes (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)

http://m.rateitall.com/iPhone/item.aspx?p=0&ItemID=1074601 (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: Misplaced Pages: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

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:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Hazel_eye_of_a_mixed-ethnicity_female.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Amber_Brown_Green.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:S7307583.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D

http://en.wikipedia.org/File:HumanFemalewithAmberIris.jpg

http://toponthelist.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/amber_eye.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mocuishle_photography/2340845990/sizes/l/in/photostream

Colour percentages/Eiberg Source

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. Usatoday.com. I couldn't find the correct article from Eiberg's University of Copenhagen page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaner (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dark blue eyes

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 (talk • contribs) 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. --198.229.214.181 (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 110.174.147.166 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Using just Ireland is only part of the story

Internal link Eye color

http://en.wikipedia.org/Eye_color#Blue

Blue eyes are most common in Ireland, the Baltic Sea area and Northern Europe, 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.

To be accurate the area inferred by using is the Baltic Sea area and , 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

http://westernparadigm.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/the-blue-eye-map-of-europe/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bovril stan (talk • contribs) 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 173.76.32.211 (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

True Hazel Eyes

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: http://blog.wordnik.com/shakespeare-soup

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 110.174.147.166 (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Current 'Hazel' eye color picture is not hazel.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 110.174.147.166 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Blue eye picture

I do not use Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Hazel?

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 Misplaced Pages 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 27.32.52.200 (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 Misplaced Pages, you need to grow up and open your eyes Flyer22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.147.166 (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 27.32.52.200 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 27.32.52.200, 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 Misplaced Pages 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; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 110.174.147.166 (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 27.32.52.200'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; Misplaced Pages 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 110.174.147.166 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor Description

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?

Germany

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. --2.245.242.131 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Blue Eyes

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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 110.174.147.166 (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.66.64.72.10 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this confusing?

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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages statement on scientific subjects. I will delete the section on his research if no one replies. Dynasteria (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• C-Class Anatomy articles
• Mid-importance Anatomy articles
• Anatomy articles about an unassessed area
• WikiProject Anatomy articles
• C-Class Animal anatomy articles
• Low-importance Animal anatomy articles
• WikiProject Animal anatomy articles
• C-Class Anthropology articles
• Unknown-importance Anthropology articles