Talk:Eye color

Why is editing blocked on an article with such poor sourcing?

"DNA studies on ancient human remains confirm that light skin, hair and eyes were present at least tens of thousands of years ago on Neanderthals, who lived in Eurasia for 500,000 years.[51][52][53][54][55]"

No, those sources don't say that -- especially the bit about "500,000 years," but more important (given the subject of the article) nothing "confirms" "light eyes" in Neanderthals, only light skin and red hair. Genes expressing blue eyes in modern homo sapiens were present but less dominant in a couple DNA samples mentioned in one of the articles, but that's it, and the article warns that the study is not widely accepted and that we ahve no way of knowing what the actual effect of thse genes would have been.

Yet there it is: DNA studies on ancient human remains confirm that light skin, hair and eyes were present at least tens of thousands of years ago on Neanderthals, who lived in Eurasia for 500,000 years.[51][52][53][54][55]

Who besides me will actually READ all five of those sources? It's not unlikely that the original editor who contributed the sentences had racist motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:cda0:9220:c1ea:12f4:f079:be78 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what the argument is about, but the genetics people are stating that Neanderthals gave the homo sapiens light skin and light eyes over a period of time.ie blue and green eyes. Not sure why that would upset anyone or be a controversial idea. https://www.eupedia.com/europe/neanderthal_facts_and_myths.shtml

Eye Color and Low-Light Vision Studies

Under the "Impact on Vision" section, there's no mention of findings related to vision in low-light. I'd add it myself but this is yet another gatekept article (rather ironic for a wiki site, no?)

You can find a reference to a study at the University of Copenhagen here: https://katrinapaulson.medium.com/study-suggests-people-with-blue-eyes-can-read-better-in-dim-lighting-01b39d1862a6

…and to a study at Liverpool John Moore University here: https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/about-us/news/articles/2024/2/7/blue-eyes

…as well as a passing reference to the findings in a section marked "Does eye color affect night sky vision?" here: https://www.almanac.com/seeing-in-the-dark

While these aren't absolutely conclusive, I would argue they're no less substantiated or valid than the portion referring to the study on "Correlation of eye color on self-paced and reactive motor performance." Gaius315 (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hardly a "gatekept" article. It's protected from random driveby vandalism; once you've made a total of ten edits on Wikipedia, you'll be able to add these references yourself. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

O please change altitudes to latitudes in the text on blue eyes. 78.67.202.11 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Copyright notice for Beals & Hoijer (1965): sockpuppetry

This image should never be re-added to the article again. As was shown at the original deletion case on June 18, it is a copywritten work belonging to Beals and Hoijer (1965). Frost used this with limited permission in his blog post, but we do not have permission from Beals and Hoijer to use it. Regrettably, this image was recently re-uploaded under a false license using a circular reference, and has now been nominated for deletion again. Please don't add this image to the article as it is a violation of international copyright law. - A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for brining attention to this. This map should not be added to this page as it does appear to violate copyright law without permission from Beals and Hoijer. I am in full agreement with you. Upon the rein of a wimpling wing (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Predictably, the individual who uploaded this image and posted it here, Runjeetgupta008, has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Tommygunn7886. Also confirmed as a sock was Ari Feldstein, who also edits with the same POV as Tommygunn7886. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Blue eyes: recessive trait?

The article states that "the earlier belief that blue eye color is a recessive trait has been shown to be incorrect," but the three sources provided do not unambiguously state this.

One (to medterms.com) is a dead link with an archive of some irrelevant nonsense. The second (sciencedaily.com) states that "“It used to be thought that eye colour was what we call a simple Mendelian recessive trait - in other words, brown eye colour was dominant over blue, so a person with two brown versions of the gene or a brown and a blue would have brown eyes, and only two blues with no brown could produce blue eyes. But the model of eye colour inheritance using a single gene is insufficient to explain the range of eye colours that appear in humans. We believe instead that there are two major genes - one that controls for brown or blue, and one that controls for green or hazel - and others that modify this trait." (emphasis mine)

The third (Duffy et al.) states that interaction of a recessive mutation of OCA2 modifying other alleles associated with fair pigmentation is primarily responsible for blue eyes.

The current wording is misleading (describing a recessive allele partially contributing to a polygenic phenotype as "not recessive" is roundabout to the point of untruth) and should be updated to better reflect Duffy et al. Jbt89 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Duffy. They explained in it that it is multiple SNPs on OCA2, not OCA2 alone, which are responsible for color variation. It is not a "recessive" trait. Upon the rein of a wimpling wing (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)