Talk:Eye color

"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

You did not answer the editors original question - why is editing restricted on such a poorly sourced article. Then you demonstrate how poorly sourced it is by linking to an opinion piece on some website called eupedia.com - how about a link to a recent research paper? ~2025-43423-41 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

This needs to be eye colour and not color ~2026-17362-48 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Both spellings are correct. Color is typically used in American English, thus it is more global that colour, which is the British English spelling. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

English is ‘eng’lish and therefore colour should be used!!!!! ~2026-31942-44 (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

While archiving a different post of my own, I noticed this post on the archived page by user:Jbt89, quoted from his original post in its entirety "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."

There was only one reply from another account, which dismissed his concerns. But I looked into his concerns because the idea of blue eye color being recessive is still what is generally taught in mainstream biology courses, including at the university level and above. Additionally, as pointed out by the user mentioned above, the sources cited do not actually necessarily agree with the view that eye color is not recessive, this seems to just be original research. As such I will remove this as original research unless someone can prove to me otherwise that this is not only not original research, but something that is actually scholarly accepted and the mainstream position. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

In the section regarding green eyes, in the last sentence of that section, the hyperlink connected to "lipochrome" takes us to a page about Lipofuscin, which is something entirely different.

This is the sentence: "Green eyes contain the yellowish pigment lipochrome." ~2026-28428-52 (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

If lipochrome lipochrome shouldn't be redirecting to lipofuscin, then you should update it at the redirect page, so that it fixes for every use. If there is a reason why only this one is problematic, but the redirect should stay in general, please explain. meamemg (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

In the Iberian peninsula the 40% of population have hazel eyes ~2026-28354-65 (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

That result was based on a series in which a small selection of photographs were judged. It contradicts earlier anthropological work which shows hazel eyes to be much more common in northern than southern Europe. Quantum Mechanical Engineer (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply