Talk:Eye color/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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

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 dienekes.blogspot.com source, this eupedia.com source, and this eyedoctorguide.com 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. Lulu.com 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 fsigenetics.com source is a poor biomedical source. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I see that fsigenetics.com 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)

References

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)

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

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-IX4.htm "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)."

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-X3.htm "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."

http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XII5.htm "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

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)

•  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.

"Results

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)."

READ THE FREAKING STUDY!!!!

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 fsigenetics.com 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 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Add world tally

Add world prevalence tallies. Jidanni (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright issues

This article has been reverted to eliminate edits by User:Lavezzicavani3, who by all indications appears to be returned serial copyright infringer User:Joeyc91. He has a broad history of copy-pasting content from his sources and from other Wikipedia articles without mandatory attribution and adding material directly translated from Italian sources in contravention of copyright policy and law. His history includes providing false attribution, generally by copying citations from the sources he has copied.

In the case of this article, while not all content has been checked, copied content has been verified:

Source text	Article text
However, most of the individuals included in the intermediate category had green irises and blue irises with brown spots or peripupillary rings and therefore could be included in the group of light eyed people. Taking this into account, it can be said that the percentage of light-eyed individuals in the study was 56%, which is in accordance with the Eupedia.	However most of the individuals included in the intermediate category had green irises and blue irises with brown spots or peripupillary rings and therefore could be included in the group of light eyed people. Taking this into account, it can be said that the percentage of light-eyed individuals in the study was 56%

Please do not restore material added by this user without thoroughly checking it for copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonriddengirl. Finally, someone blocked that editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent ancient DNA evidence

A number of recent academic papers on ancient DNA have shown that pale eyes were a feature of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations of Europe, combined, interestingly, with dark skin. The Near Eastern Neolithic farmer populations and the Yamnaya Culture people (putative proto-Indo-Europeans), who seem to have been involved in a Bronze Age migration into Europe from the Pontic Steppe), both had pale skin and, the latter at least, brown eyes. Pale skin and pale eyes seem to have arisen in entirely separate populations.

See: Allentoft et al. in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14507.html Haak et al. in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14317.html Urselius (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This has a number of interesting facets: for Europe light coloured eyes are the original state, in that 100% of Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) people investigated had alleles coding for light eyes. Brown eyes in Europe are therefore the result of Neolithic and Bronze Age migrations into Europe. Urselius (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2016

Change sentence "David Bowie, on the other hand, has the appearance of different eye colors due to an injury that caused one pupil to be permanently dilated." to "David Bowie, on the other hand, had the appearance of different eye colors due to an injury that caused one pupil to be permanently dilated because David Bowie is dead. RIP Chimutri (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Done - sadly. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity content with regard to blue eyes

With this edit, Monochrome Monitor removed some material, calling it "psuedo-genetic racial theories from 1911." With this edit, Avaya1 restored the material with extra text. Maybe you two want to discuss this here on the talk page? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't relate to genetics or race, but is simply a survey describing eye colour, and relevant to the earlier sources describing eye-color in different regions of the world. Avaya1 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the source? It espouses very outdated racial theories. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

That is true, absolutely about 35% of the ethnic Germans have blue eyes and another 30% have gray or green eyes. Mcdonnolly (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Using just Ireland is only part of the story

Internal link Eye color

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 [[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

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)

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)

Ireland is geographically precisely located in North-Western Europe, never Southern Europe. Mcdonnolly (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ireland has one of the highest frequencies for blue eyes in Europe. Mcdonnolly (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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)

False this is just an exaggeration. Mcdonnolly (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2016 (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)

There is nothing wrong with the blue eye section being long. Mcdonnolly (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Blue eye precentages

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 ....so 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:http://i.imgur.com/K9Oye.png 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 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Norway more percentages Germany - 35% Belgium - 28.9% Switzerland - 28% Portugal - 8.5% Mcdonnolly (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Graphic showing percentages is missing countries

There is a graphic on the right hand side a bit down which shows the percentage of blue eyed people by country. Countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Faroe Islands are missing. These areas are likely to have rather high percentages of blue eyed people.

The graphic therefore appear to be very unaccurate. Suggest that it is updated or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmalerbakken (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Norway - 55% Denmark - 50.7% According to the ScottishDna Project, Denmark is as roughly as blue-eyed as Scotland! Mcdonnolly (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Eye color. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about7587.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/08-05.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/08-05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

how about some heavy editing nearing re-writing the whole thing?

the article is messy, incomplete and contains obvious mistakes. anybody feeling like writing it again?. i'm new to this, it shouldn't be me, i don't know if that is even possible...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.78.198 (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pigments

In once place in the article it says that there are three pigments, including blue, green and brown. In another place in the article, it says there are no blue or green pigments. This is obviously contradictory.

Mikeymo1741 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

67.225.25.70 (talk) Asians cant have blue eyes

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XX with YY" or "Please add ZZ between PP and QQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The eye color map of europe

The reason behind the change does not make any sense. Where does the "science-fiction study..." come from? Someones personal blog is not a very reliable source. Also, one of the reasonings behind the change says that on the previous map it included green eye color. Green eye color is considered as a light eye color! And the map clearly stated it shows frequency of light eyes around europe. And now to the best part, this "new" map, also shows frequency of light eyes, including green, so what is the problem? The "new" map is based on a study made around 1930s, im sure you can do better.

Also to all this estonians having 99% blue eyes talk. First of all, blue eyes is often a synonym for light eyes. This 99% hype is just an honest mistake made by the author of the article. The real number is 89% and the fact remains that 89% of estonians have light eyes, blue/green/grey. The number is about the same in Finland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredopatuliano (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) What about the number of 'light' eyes in Britain? the percentage of blue eyes in britain is 48% according to article,but what's the number of whole light eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero011 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Spectrum of eye color pictures

Hi, I have some pictures of eyes with colors not on the spectrum list on the article. I don't have the necessary permission to edit, but if anyone would like to add the pictures, just ask.

Jonahpoke92 (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Jonahpoke92, what spectrum? If you mean colors such as violet eyes, violet eyes don't exist. The article pretty much mentions this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Spectrum of Eye Color

Any chance that the spectrum can be expanded adding more colors and that the existing spectrum can be labeled - It would be helpful to put a name to each color shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.187.11 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Color change

Color change of the iris is addressed for children with caucasian ancestry, but has not been mentioned for elderly with caucasian ancestry (part of the population, I don't really know how many, may suffer iris depigmentation caused by age) or in any other cases. Just to add an example of those "other cases", my own eyes are usually brown, but sometimes (I have yet to determine the exact causes) they shift in color to a pale, discolored green. When I check myself on a mirror, I can often see two layes of coloring, with true brown appearing on "islands" of an outer layer while discolored green appears as a "sea" in a deeper layer. How would you call those eyes?--178.57.128.222 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In Iceland 89% of women and 87% of men have either blue or green eye color <- INCORRECT

This is incorrect. This was the statistic of a small sample size not a nationwide survey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:40AF:FB41:490:FAC9 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

nomenclature

i know this isn't the place for discussion, but i think that we need to discuss the nomenclature of eye colors, since the way it is explained in this article it makes absolutely no sense, though i see the same problem in other sources. in particular green and hazel. some people have eyes that actually appear green, but most examples given of green eyes (especially if you google it) are just copper-brown in the center adjacent the pupil, and blue(ish) around that, sometimes with some yellowish lines or a yellow band in between the brown and blue. the problem is that those look very different from actually green eyes, and look to me exactly the same as most of the examples of hazel eyes (why is that even called "hazel"?). and then there's people with straw-colored eyes, which also gets called hazel. so this distribution doesn't seem to make any sense at all. first of all adding straw and green eyes with mixed colors, and secondly randomly dividing mixed colors into the hazel or green categories. i think this is done because actually green, and straw colored eyes are so rare, people fill up those categories with mixed colored eyes. but this is done in such a senseless way, it ruins any meaning that statistics regarding eye-colors could have. also i don't think actual green or straw is any rarer than amber. i would suggest using green for actually green-looking eyes despite rarity, adding straw as a rare category for eye colors (some people genuinely have straw-colored eyes), and allowing a separate categorisation for the predominance of brown areas, in particular centrally located, as any eye-color quite often has a less or more predominant central brown area. while changing the article to that would be original research, i really think it would help accuracy, because y'all know i have a point.· Lygophile has spoken 13:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

also, the color called "amber" looks nothing like amber. it's clearly copper· Lygophile has spoken 15:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eye color. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909190624/http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~pfuerst/courses/eeobmg640/reading1eyecolor.pdf to http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~pfuerst/courses/eeobmg640/reading1eyecolor.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110912065611/http://j-sallabouteyes.wetpaint.com/ to http://j-sallabouteyes.wetpaint.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023191830/http://www.eyecarecontacts.com/eyecolor.html to http://www.eyecarecontacts.com/eyecolor.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927085904/http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=232 to http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=232
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100224065704/http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/digi/D193D7DD8DD78628CC257540000F4A4F to http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/digi/D193D7DD8DD78628CC257540000F4A4F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ancient DNA

Recent papers on ancient European DNA has cast some light on the history of eye colour in Europe. Surprisingly, light coloured eyes are a primitive feature of the European gene pool, with 100% of all Middle Stone Age hunter-gatherer remains showing alleles for light coloured eyes. Later additions to the European gene-pool, the earliest farmers and the Bronze Age Yamnaya people (possible Proto-Indo-Europeans) having much higher frequencies of dark eye alleles. I have added a section, supported by references to papers in 'Nature', on this recent development. Urselius (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

---

I find the claims in this paragraph to be odd, given the widespread publication of work claiming that blue eyes arose from a mutation 6,000-10,000 years ago, of the OCA2 gene, such that the mutated version of the OCA2 could not produce melanin. (see https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm ) Could someone please explain the discrepancy between these two claims.

I am also aware that genetic patterns for light skin, hair, and the presence of freckles were established in Europe because they were inherited from Neanderthal ancestors of Europeans. But I have not seen any definite claims about the eye colour of Neanderthals. More information would be welcome. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Genetic clocks are unreliable and vary hugely, being dependant on the assumptions made by each group of researchers in creating the models used to generate the rate of genetic change. This is true of research done into the genomes of living people and then projecting these findings backwards in time. The research on ancient DNA I described above is much more absolute, as the DNA is extracted from the remains of people who lived and died in the Mesolithic or Bronze Age etc. As far as I'm aware some Neanderthal genetic alleles for variation in pigmentation seem to have been specific to Neanderthals and others seem to have been inherited by modern non-African humans from Neanderthals due to genetic introgression in the distant past. Urselius (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please remove your bizarre(racist?) and inaccurate Map of eye color

Why is there a 1930s map of eye color based on region? Anyone who doesn't think atleast 1/3rd of NA-ME doesn't have light eyes hasn't been there. There has been no systematic study of eye color populations so that bizarre and ignorant nearly 90 year old map map should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8782:32DF:396D:54A3:AE32:708C (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2018

In the lead section, please:

1. Provide link: [[gene polymorphism]]
2. Provide pipe-link: [[Regulatory sequence|regulatory region]]
3. Fix redundancy ("proximal" means "close to"); change: close to proximal -to- close to (proximal) (or similar clarification). 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:50D3:F595:540:9925 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Partly done: The source says "at the 5′ end of the OCA2 gene near proximal regulatory regions", so "close to proximal" doesn't seem to be redundant. Gulumeemee (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Really?

Close up of a blue/green human iris.

This is the first image in the article and I think that the original image was wrongly described. It seems to plainly show a blue-grey eye with a very small amount of hazel around the pupil. There is no hint of green at all. As the image is in such a prominent position it should be relabelled or an alternative, accurately described, image substituted. Urselius (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

The reference to "Chromosome 15" should be linked to the page Chromosome_15 76.3.127.208 (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done   SPINTENDO          04:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

change the links "https://web.archive.org/web/20090202023446/http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about7587.html" and the broken link "http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about7587.html" to the new location of the source "https://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/viewtopic.php?t=7577" 62.219.74.18 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The archive.org links are working Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

Add a hatnote to Blue eyes (disambiguation). 93.142.83.227 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Already done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018

Sclater's lemur, also known as the blue-eyed black lemur

Please add [[File:Blue_eyed_black_lemur_face_by_Bruce_McAdam.jpg|thumb|[[Sclater's lemur]], also known as the blue-eyed black lemur]]

just before "Blue eyes are rare in mammals". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.83.238 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Newslinger talk 06:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about table

I have a number of concerns about the following table:

Blue-eyed populations
Country			Percent of population
Estonia			89%
Finland			89%
Ireland			57%
Scotland			50%
England			48%
Wales			45%
Belgium (adult population)			28.9%
France (adult pop.)			20.2%
United States			16.6%
Spain			16.3%
Algeria (adult pop.)			2.6%
Morocco (adult pop.)			2.1%
Tunisia (adult pop.)			1.2%
sources:

1) Although the table has a number of citations attached, I cannot find support for the vast majority of percentages presented in the table within the cited sources.

2) The possession of 'blue' eyes is a subjective judgement, it is far more likely that the numbers actually refer (if they do have a reputable source) to 'light eyes' a category which is less subjective and has genetic markers. Most anthropological work divides human eye colour into 'light' (blue, blue-grey and light grey), 'intermediate' (darker grey, green, hazel) and 'dark' (all shades of brown and sometimes the darkest of grey).

3) If, as I suspect, the table has been cobbled together from various sources and not from a single reputable source, then it constitutes 'own research' and is inadmissible to a Wikipedia article on this count alone.

I think that the table should be deleted unless all of these points can be adequately resolved. Urselius (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ____

References

Human Eye Color

This article is almost entirely and almost exclusively about human eye color. It should be renamed to "Human Eye Color". ----Cowlinator (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)----

Cowlinator, the vast majority of the literature on eye color is about humans. And there is material about non-human animals in the article. So, no, there is no need to rename the article "Human eye color." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2018

The earlier theory of blue eyes 69.65.90.61 (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Physical and psychological variation associated with iris color section

Urselius, regarding the "physical and psychological variation associated with iris color" section you created, which I made edits to, as seen here (followup fix here), you need to be sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in the case of the health and psychological material. And, for certain things, you should not be presenting it in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:YESPOV. I will go ahead and alert WP:Med to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

They are all peer-reviewed scholarly papers. Urselius (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And peer review is not the same thing as literature review. I ask that you take the time to read WP:MEDRS. And WP:YESPOV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have peer reviewed for journals, and written reviews - and writers of reviews are not entirely free of inbuilt biases. Of course, in introducing modifiers to statements we walk a tightrope with the (deeply unhelpful) concept of 'weasel words'; attempting adherence to all of Wikipedia's conflicting guidance would result in every editor becoming a psychological wreck. "Studies have shown ..." was intended as a catch-all, anyone with any knowledge at all of science and academia would infer that no absolutes were following. Urselius (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I take it that you haven't read WP:MEDRS? As for weasel wording, yes, "studies have shown" is on the WP:Weasel wording plate. "Shown" is also strong wording for dubious material. And, yes, stating that light-eyed people are more susceptible to becoming dependent on alcohol, and that light-eyed people have higher tolerance to pain, is dubious. This is why we adhere to WP:MEDRS on things like this. "Indicated" or "suggested" wording is at least better than "shown" in this case. So is "may be" instead of "are," which is I used "may be" for your material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course I have used the word 'association' extensively, and association is not the same as causation. As a scientist I am used to not describing phenomena in absolute terms, it is understood that very few things in the universe are known definitively. This makes the concept of 'weasel words' so very unhelpful, nay stupid. I came across one editor deleting the word "however", that standard piece of English, on the grounds that it was a 'weasel word'! The Nazis considered blue eyes to be linked to a 'Master Race', that was certainly dubious. Some of their ideas on such things were certainly published, but not within a rigorous and intellectually free system of pre-publication review. I'm afraid I find many of the guides in Wikipedia are flawed, they far too often apply findings that were originally arrived at to cover specific cases, on an inappropriately universal scale. They also, strangely, often do not comply with usage in scholarship. Any thoughts on the table issue I raised above? The table is questionable for the reasons I have outlined, any one of which, I think, renders it unsuitable. Urselius (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See this discussion at WP:Med about the aforementioned section. Although you may not understand or like all of the rules, you should try to understand them and follow them. The wording in the aforementioned section is better now since it's not using absolute terms for the claimed health aspects, but, per WP:MEDRS, it's still not something I would have even included. Not unless WP:MEDRS-compliant sources support the material. Also take note of WP:INTEGRITY. It's commonly ideal to place the references beside the parts they explicitly support so that readers and editors know which source supports which line. In this case, I don't think each source supports the whole paragraph. If you don't know how to duplicate refnames, see WP:REFNAME. I'm not going to remove the material you added. I have a lot of articles to keep up with and this article has been a pain in my side for years. Time and again, I've considered taking it off my watchlist. WP:Med isn't trying to help with it either. So, clearly, your content gets to stay for now. At least I pointed you to relevant guidelines and the WP:YESPOV policy page. As for the table, the statistics and tables in this article are always a problem because of sourcing issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I really have no interest in Wikipedia formatting issues - in scholarship if the same reference is cited more than once, it is just cited more than once - unless Latin terms are used - ibid idem etc. I just write stuff with appropriate citation and references. It is usually OK at worst; I haven't had a page I created deleted, for example. The additions I made to this article are more in the realm of physical anthropology than medicine per-se, I can understand why medical editors are generally uninterested in the article. If there are scientific papers out there that modify or contradict any of the ones I have commented on, then any editor is free to add their own commentary; this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Sorry if I have appeared abrasive, it is just that I have been involved in disputes where reference to "WP:x" has been so flagrantly misapplied that any such reference brings on a sneering rictus, and supplies neat acid to my typing fingers. I imagine most editors carry such baggage around with them. Urselius (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a live link to the WP:Med discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Ophthalmology: Eye color article. Do see the latest comments made there. How Wikipedia is supposed to work is what is stated in that section. Health claims are within the realm of WP:Med and WP:MEDRS. As for formatting issues, they are a big aspect of how Wikipedia is supposed to work as well. It's why something like WP:INTEGRITY or WP:Manual of Style exists. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Olive branch ignored. Enjoy your wikilegalist rectitude. Urselius (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Learn to follow Wikipedia's rules, and you wouldn't have these problems. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have done a little research and now have some idea as to why my 'olive branch' was ignored. Enough said. Urselius (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you are stating, but, either way, I do not care for your defensiveness and dismissive rationales when pointed to the rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Enjoy your wikilegalist rectitude." Wow! Enjoy you righteous indignation. Bye. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of any further constructive discussion with Urselius, I am deleting the disputed text from the article. I would be happy to resume civil discussion on the matter at any time. Disputed text:-

Physical and psychological variation associated with iris color

A number of studies have associated eye color with a various physical and mental traits. Studies have suggested a correlation between possession of light colored eyes and a higher tolerance to pain. Blue-eyed men may have a more feminized face shape than dark-eyed men, which makes them appear less dominant, a factor in female mate selection. This trait has been linked to a lower exposure to testosterone during development within the womb. Some research investigation has indicated that information processing, the speed of reaction to novel information, is quicker in dark-eyed people. Light-eyed people may be somewhat more susceptible to becoming dependent on alcohol. Behavioral traits in children have also been linked to iris color, with blue-eyed boys showing a higher incidence of shyness than their darker-eyed peers.

References

Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"However, there are reported eye colour effects on reaction time and the involvement in particular sports (Rowe and Evans, 1994), associations with shyness evident in childhood (Coplan et al., 1998), links to noise induced hearing loss (Da Costa et al., 2008), and sexual selection (Frost, 2006). There may have been coselection for lightening of pigmentary traits in humans but evidence from haplotype analysis comparing Dutch and Mediterranean population samples has been presented to suggest that blue eye colour has only arisen once during the past 10 000 yr, again apart from albinism, as a founder mutation shared by diverse European populations (Eiberg et al., 2008). So if the selection for eye colour was so strong other pressures must be proposed. In this dim light it is interesting to note that reports of the ability to overcome seasonal affective disorder (SAD), a major depressive illness, is linked to lighter eye colour (Goel et al., 2002; Terman and Terman, 1999), and perhaps those with blue eyes may have been able to withstand the dark, depressing days of the Neolithic European winters better than those with brown eye colour?"

From: Genetics of human iris colour and patterns, Richard A. Sturm and Mats Larsson, 26 August 2009, Pigment Cell& Melanoma Research, Wiley https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-148X.2009.00606.x

The discussion sections of primary papers constitute a de facto series of reviews of any subject and, as they cite other people's research, are secondary. Ignoring peer-reviewed, published evidence concerning eye-colour associated traits is fundamentally unencyclopaedic. Urselius (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Axl, Urselius has added on to this discussion months later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Primary papers (including their discussion sections) do indeed cite other primary papers. However this is often with the context of supporting their own findings. (Occasionally it is to contrast findings.) As such, we need to be very cautious about potentially including unduly weighted information derived from primary papers' discussion sections. If the points raised in a primary paper's discussion section are indeed genuine and significant, then that information might be available elsewhere in secondary sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick look at Sturm & Larsson's paper. It look like a good quality source with useful information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sturm and Larsson are merely commenting on works that support the existence of eye-colour associated traits. The papers mentioned are not directly supportive of the Sturm and Larsson paper itself, but the authors think them important enough to end their discussion with references to them. I think that there are now 16 papers mentioned either by myself (above) or within the Sturm paper that describe eye-colour related traits. I would suggest that this constitutes a sufficient body of work that a reference in the article to research supporting the existence of eye-colour related traits - perhaps with a few examples - would be an uncontroversial addition. Urselius (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that you might have misunderstood my points. I am happy to include Sturm & Larsson as a reference to support the associations of iris colour with other traits. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was suggesting, the latter. Urselius (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

To be explicit, something along the lines of: "In humans iris colour has been linked to variation in some physical, neurological, and psychological traits. These traits include: noise induced hearing loss, reaction time, shyness and susceptibility to seasonal affective disorder". Referencing Sturm. Urselius (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in principle that is fine. Although I think that there is some unnecessary text in your proposal. How about this: "Human iris colour has been linked to reaction time, noise-induced hearing loss, seasonal affective disorder and childhood shyness." Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The word 'variation' is a necessary modifier in there, as the traits are not absolutes like the ability or lack of ability to taste PTC or to roll the tongue. Urselius (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that you think "has been linked to" could be interpreted as "is the absolute cause of". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I am dumbfounded that you could think that my reference to variation has anything to do with linkage or causality. 'Variation' as I was employing it - as my note above makes lucidly clear, I would assert - is a reference to variable characteristics. For example, reaction time is not an absolute characteristic it has a natural variation - think bell curves and statistics - this is in contrast to a characteristic that is either present or absent, such as polydactylity, you either have five fingers per hand or more than five fingers per hand, there is no variability within the characteristic, it is a yes or no situation. Thus, the relevant publications assert that there is a statistically significant difference between the average reaction time of blue-eyed people and the average reaction time of brown-eyed people. However, reaction time is a variable character (like height or weight) between people and the reaction times of blue-eyed people and brown-eyed people obviously overlap hugely. I don't think I can make the relevance of 'variability' in this situation any more obvious. Urselius (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

To take your own sentence: "Human iris colour has been linked to reaction time, noise-induced hearing loss, seasonal affective disorder and childhood shyness." It is scientifically incomplete as it stands, and introducing two words makes it scientifically and logically valid: "Human iris colour has been linked to variation in reaction time, and incidence of noise-induced hearing loss, seasonal affective disorder and childhood shyness."

I think that it is a trivial distinction. However I am happy with your new suggestion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

problem with Tyndall vs. Rayleigh scattering in article

The introduction makes clear that eye color is subject to Tyndall rather than Rayleigh scattering, as does the linked page to the Tyndall effect. However, in the the rest of the article, the explanation returns to claiming Rayleigh scattering. An editor should correct this. 209.6.199.75 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This article obviously sucks

It doesn't address anything related to human eye color and it's sources are decades old, and absurdly irrelevant. Sacessaces (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

:true for example this part " 

Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Eiberg.[35] Eiberg and colleagues suggested in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[36] The authors suggest that the mutation may have arisen in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region, and add that it is "difficult to calculate the age of the mutation."[35][36][37]

• said Eiberg.[35] < in 2009
• is "difficult to calculate the age" < of blue eyes but we can put lower bound data range found in ancient DNA
• as:

rs12193832 in the HERC2 (hect domain and RLD2) ... eye color in Europeans22. The derived allele is observed as early as 14,000–13,000 years ago in individuals from Italy and the Caucasus8,23, but had not yet been reported in early farmers or hunter-gatherers from the Near East." from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7

see also: blue eye Neanderthal

suggestion add after: and add that it is "difficult to calculate the age of the mutation."[35][36][37]

Single nucleotide mutation A>G rs12193832 in the HERC2 was found in European aDNA 14,000–13,000 years ago. ref Nature Communications volume 10, Article number: 1218 (2019) Late Pleistocene human genome suggests a local origin for the first farmers of central Anatolia ;Michal Feldman, &all.

IMO Due to distance from Italy to Caucasus and multiple aDNA caries this mutation must predate above 14k aDNA date. This trait was probably inherited or mimikrył Neandertahl phenotype. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence Neanderthals had blue eyes nor that Neanderthal DNA is related to the pigmentation of modern humans with blue eyes. The previous statements about that have been removed as no source ever indicated Neanderthals had light-colored eyes. This was established as consensus on the main Neanderthal article and can be seen on Archive 6 at Talk:Neanderthal, "Pigmentation" by Agricolae, dated 19:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC) -- Hunan201p (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

yes sucks aber "OCA2 locus is the major contributor to the human eye color variation. ... blue eye color locus to a 166 Kbp region within the HERC2 gene" Hum Genet (2008) 123:177–187 DOI 10.1007/s00439-007-0460-x 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hitler's eye color

It might be poignant to include Hitler's eye color, BLUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.255.190 (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a socio-political statement and irrelevant to the article. Dynasteria (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Finally, the most common eye color in Europeans is...

Brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.198.231.22 (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It might help if the relevance of this information were made more explicit and if a source were provided.Dynasteria (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

https://amp.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/4e7vaf/how_common_are_brown_eyed_germans/

Melaneas (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

> Varies by location quite a bit, so the percentage among all Europeans is a bit misleading. This map unfortunately doesn't cite sources, but it presents this concept well. https://vividmaps.com/distribution-of-blue-or-brown-eyes-in/ Elf | Talk 22:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Spectrum of eye color is sadly lacking in variety

Needs more photos of faces with darker skin. All the skin here is light-colored.

It's been a long time since I've been doing much here... I'll go looking to see whether the "photos wanted" page still exists. Elf | Talk 22:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Here we go:

Elf | Talk 22:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)