Talk:Eye color/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

amber eyes

Sorry in my opinion that is called light brown. Humans are not animals. Amber is pretty much equal to orange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.195.148 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Light brown is light brown - amber is orange to yellow. It's just called "amber". Humans are kinda animals too so..--Element Freedom (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Too bad not a single human being has orange eyes then, eh? No humans have yellow eyes either. He means that human eye color and animal eye color are two very different things. We don't share the same eye colors as cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.125.141 (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My sister has yellow eyes-- and they are truly yellow. So get off your high horse, your ignorance is showing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.187.166 (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Unless you mean the whites of her eyes (what are supposed to be white anyway), then I doubt that, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Flyer22, irises can be amber as well. Your shallow opinion doesn't count as evidence. Michelle1228 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Michelle1228, eyes are not yellow. That is what I was clearly responding to. There is a difference in saying someone has amber eyes and someone has yellow eyes. Science, not a shallow opinion, is on my side. Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, though you are very adamant with your opinion, here's a shocker: amber eyes do exist. It may not be yellow, but it's like hazel with less green and more of a gold look. And Michelle wasn't saying that amber eyes are yellow like user 74.46.187.166. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess877 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And where did I state that amber eyes don't exist? I didn't, so your "shocker" revelation isn't a shocker and is irrelevant. And the IP stated that her sister has yellow eyes. Then Michelle1228 stated, "No, Flyer22, irises can be amber as well." Michelle1228's statement is no doubt backing the notion that amber eyes are yellow. For some reason, saying that people don't have yellow eyes translated to Michelle1228 that "Flyer22 says amber eyes don't exist in humans." And it apparently translated that way to you as well, despite your "[i]t may not be yellow" statement. Again, science, not a shallow opinion, is on my side. Stating that yellow eyes don't exist in humans is not an opinion, but rather a fact. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And for future reference, take note that I also never stated that human eyes cannot have what appear to be yellow flecks; these flecks or what appear to be yellow flecks are of course different than having yellow eyes. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes no one can have yellow eyes, that is a fact. Just stating that amber eyes can exist. Jess877 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have visited parts of the Middle East and there WERE people there with true amber eyes. They looked like the color of the gemstone, amber, and sometimes even lighter and yellower. There were also more orange-toned amber eyes; they were more like a bright rust color. I can't blame you for being ignorant; I haven't seen such colors in America or Europe either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.72.124 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 141.164.72.124 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Can the blurry picture really count as amber eyes ? It just looks like light brown eyes eyes put into the light (I have a friend with very dark brown eyes who seems to have "orange" eyes when looking directly into the light, but they are clearly brown so I'm not quite sure putting one's eye into the light is relevant). I'm not saying that the eyes are not amber at all, but it would probably help to have a picture of amber eyes without putting them into the light because it somehow seems false. 84.99.2.176 (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

image changes

The first image of amber eyes is used later in the hazel eyes section (with a different name).

image changes

i think we need to change some images on this page as many hear and some hazel eyed people around (like myself looks dark green but there hazel) think they have green eyes but there hazel (if they look more green) and others think think they have amber eyes if there more brown both green and amber are rare and i think people to often think they have them and judying my this facebook group its a some like amber eyes and like the most comon eye colour with the amount of hazel eyed people there in photos. these are amber but these are hazel

everyone thinks they have a rare color. reality is most eyes are brown, hazel, or blue, and a small minority has green or grey. no such thing as amber or violet eyes. someone with amber or violet eyes would be famous instantly, like the afghan girl and her green eyes on national geographic. its hard to believe her eyes arent even on this page in the green eyes section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liebeistfur (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding violet eyes, if that eye color exists at all, that apparently has to do with albinism; see the last section on it: #Violet Eyes again. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yellow Eyes And Colour Change

I have yellow irises, not amber. Are yellow eyes normal? If so, they thould be added to the page. I will do so if no-one else does after I get some more info. My eye colour also randomly variates extremely when I wear grey or black, it goes from green to yellow to amber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.192.90 (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

there hazel like these http://farm1.static.flickr.com/3/2816409_8fe35b8d42.jpg i really really hate people who get it wrong hazel are a mixer many many people who have hazel eyes thing they have green or amber coloured eyes which they don't both are rare but so many people like to thing they one of those when there not so your eyes to me sound like hazel if there green amber and amber eyes are like the vampires from twilight if you read the books you find they say they have amber eyes and picture them look like yellow gold this girl has aber eyes and very yellow http://estherhavens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/.jpg

Your eyes are either amber or hazel - no such thing as "yellow" eyes - but many people call amber "yellow" vice versa.--Element Freedom (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Animal eyes

Shouldn't this article be called "Human eye colour"? Since it doesn't mention animals once. And how about we have some information about animal eye colour too in either this or a different article? -OOPSIE- (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Humanes ARE animals. therefore, this artical is technicaly about animals' eye color... however, I do agree it should be less vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.34.231 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Primates' eyes

While it must be pretty hard to catalogue every primate in the world, I can't help but ask if primates (chimpanzees, apes, orangutans, &c.) have any variety at all in eye color? Is there any way of examining DNA to estimate how many thousands of years old each of the eye color genes might be, to produce the results we currently find in humans? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is, apparently, diversity of eye colour in at least some species of primate. See [1] about Japanese macaques. 87.113.17.89 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of other races would help

All I've seen so far is pictures of white people. Other races are not fairly represented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.20.254 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

yes agree as this girl http://estherhavens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/.jpg has amber eyes if people contected the lady from the website who posted it (http://estherhavens.com) and try and get her picture on this profile would be nice as people on the acutally amber section have hazel eyes not amber at all why'll others think they have green eyes when they don't wayyyyyyyy to many people get hazel eyes mixed up and it pisses my so off amber and green eyes are rare for a reason and people make them sound really comon my eyes are hazel look mostly greeny hazel

I completely agree that it would be good to have pictures of different races. My children have eyes that are so dark you can rarely see their pupils as distinct from their irises. Nothing like this is shown on the page. There are so many different sorts of eyes and it is crazy to just represent White eyes. Just like growth charts in the US: they are based on White kids in the 50s and don't represent the growth patterns of other race of children. Shaslang (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)sh

I agree, there are no African or Asian eyes that I can see. That's kind of silly that they would be left out.

Also there are many shades of eye color, for example, there is not just one "blue" color for blue eyes, but there are actually several different shades of blue eyes.

And what about grey eyes? Or the rare but amazing violet eyes?

98.245.150.162 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Colour change

Blue eye color doesn't change?

"Eye color usually stabilizes when an infant is around 6 months old." - This I have seen in almost all infants, most infants I have observed are born with blue eyes, most of these have later shifted into either green or brown (depending on the eye color of the parents (hooray for captain obvious)). Although further down in this article I found this statement: "As melanin production generally increases during the first few years of life, the blue eyes of some babies may darken as they get older. But never turn to a different color." - I was born with blue eyes, and so were all of my three sisters (same parents, mother green-eyed and father blue-eyed). Me and my sisters all have green eyes...

Lazersnus 09:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of questioning that statement too. My older sister and parents all have the same dark brown eyes. I was born with really dark brown eyes, now they're greenish-brownish. I consider them to be hazel. My mom claims me and my sis are 12% European -- Italian or Portuguese -- so maybe that's why, but the statement should be removed or sourced? ― Sturr ★彡 ^Refill/lol 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll just add my two cents. I was born with bright blue eyes, and now they have darkened to medium blue, with an outer ring of dark blue and a very faint inner ring of light brown. They have darkened, but have not really changed hue. Monkeyguru00 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It does exist. Some people are born with blue eyes and they later turn green or brown, I have seen it, keep the statement.

I have seen this too. however I doubt that it occurs in "almost all infants" i know i had brown eyes from birth, and looking at pictures of family members as babies, they all had static eye color.

Faris b 07:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• 12% European. and the remaining 88%?! I had blue eyes until very late age, say 10 yrs old (then people said I had blue eyes, at least), now they are green, the colour can "change" due to light or cloth that I wear to lecture green (my favourite), military green, green, occasionally (rarely) they may seem grey or blue. My mother also said that I was born with very dark eyes (I never believed in her), but what sturr said made me remember that. I'm Portuguese (North) with 25% Brazilian (of Southern Europe descent, mostly Portuguese). my brothers all have different eye colours: Green, Brown and Blue. My Mom's eyes are brown, father's blue - all same parents. Those people with Aniridia seem to have alien eyes. That's cool :P. "-I'm alien!" "no, you're not!" and the guy takes off his glasses, and freaks out the other one. lol. --Pedro 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm 88% Chinese, 12% European. ― Sturr ★彡 ^Refill/lol 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Might she mean 12.5% European? As in an 8th? That would suggest one great-grandparent was european. If it is really 12%, I would wonder how on earth she could know that... Skittle 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is 12.5% -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eurasian_%28mixed_ancestry%29#Um ― Sturr ★彡 ^Refill/lol 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason for all this confusion is that blue and green eye colours can often appear very similar London Steam 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I was born with blue eyes, which shortly turned a vivid green with almost-red flecks. When I was about ten my eyes changed colour yet again, to grey-green with brown-orange . Now they are in-between the two greens. So yes, I would definitely say that babies' eyes change colour from blue to green or brown, but I suppose not everyone. I am of 100% European descent, which may have something to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.157.16 (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm 100% Chinese. My elder sister says that eyes get lighter as you grow older. I don't think so. Though yes, my family's eyes range from dark to light in order of young to old. Hmmm. I, the youngest, have eyes that are near black, while my mother, the eldest, has light brown eyes. Lighter than me or my sister, anyway. But as far as I can tell, my sister and my father have the same eye color. She insists hers is lighter. Haarrumph. Another question. My mother has a brown ray in the white of one eye like the rays bloodshot eyes have, exept this ray is in only one direction, beside being pernament. She said it was a childhood injury, then clammed up and won't say anything. What would have made her eye like that? ---- Dawn

Was this relating to blue eyes only? Eyes do change color. Mine have changed from my baby color of near black, to green. I would guess they are following my grandfathers pattern of black, to green, to light blue. I am younger than my grandfather was when his eyes were blue. I have no reason to believe that I won't have the same thing. Eyes do not only change color, they do so predicatively in certain families. Tucker454 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Eye color#Changes in eye color tackles this topic, and those are the only instances of eye color change that I know of. Eye colors generally don't change, and certainly not generally out of nowhere. Most changes in eye colors happen while people are infants. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

after puberty your eyes arent going to change color. the color may lightens or darkens, but that is not changing color. alot of people who think their eyes change colors have hazel eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liebeistfur (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, i was born with light blue eyes and now they are very dark brown (appear black from a distance). I thought it was a strange thing until reading this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.48.38 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My eyes keep changing color, they're blue when i wear most colors but sometimes brighter or darker.. if i was wearing a green shirt they turn green but you can still see a little blue in them, if i wear grey they would turn grey. and they change color instantly and its easy to notice them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.62.170.38 (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Change in Eye-Colour by Substance

I have hazel green eyes, normally with little light, you can’t see much of my color, looks hazel, but more brown color is visible than green. With sunlight, you can see more green color in my eye. I use marijuana from time to time and I notice that it changes my eye color from normal (inside a room-normal lighting); to really green/hazel rich color (as if it was receiving natural sunlight). Is there a link (proof) to this? I suppose I’m not the first one to experience this. Joey 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the obvious question is, who is observing the change in your eye colour after using marijuana? If it is you, yourself then you should consider the possibility that your preception of your eye colour has changed, rather than your eye colour itself. If an independent (and not high) observer is reporting the change, then it is indeed an interesting finding.

This is not direct evidence, but I do wonder if there is a link. Some treatments for glaucoma, such as prostaglandin analogs, are known to change eye colour in maybe 10% of patients. These combat glaucoma by increasing drainage of intraocular fluid, thereby lowering pressure. Its thought that prostaglandin acts on eye colour by mimicing a natural hormone that mediates melanin production. Here is the interesting part: people have reported that when they are ill or under stress that their eye color becomes darker or lighter. A modified version of the pigmentary hormones are also produced during stress (and when you stress fish and frogs, they change colour for this very reason). So, since marijuana clearly has a stress relieving effect, one could image that it effects the very hormones that control melanin production (and stress) and thereby change eye colour.

Interestingly, marijuana has also been used as a drug to lower intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma. Quite how it works is unknown however and I have never heard of eye colour changes being talked about as a side effect of its use. Hope this helps. Rockpocket 10:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

case in point - I went out last night with friends and got overly inebriated, as in completely trashed. I went down to the shop today and everyone could see my eye color change from across the room. For some reason, they are a blazing green. Looks like colored lenses. They were blue-grey as a child, hazel as an adolescent, routinely changed between light brown to blue in my early 20's, and now are a faded blue/brown. Except for today. Lightertack 07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Eye colour does not change like that. -Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.217.100 (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of marijuana ma y cause some redness in your eyes. The contrast between the red and hazel could make your irises appear greener.

That's true; your eyes appear red after smoking marijuana, and since green is opposite red on the color wheel, the green in hazel eyes really stands out, while the brown tends to fade against the red background.

I have brown eyes. Why a photo with glowing red eyes?----dawn

Blue eyes

Blue eye contradiction

In the article we are told that blue eyes are not a recessive trait, that it is a polygenic trait, yet several sentences later we are told that blue eyes are a recessive trait. Just pointing out this contradiction in hopes that someone who better understands this matter can straighten this out. Dionyseus (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

in agreement with what you've said, the last section entitled 'Theories of Mate preference' i think should be deleted, as it is already refuted in the inroduction. Sato au (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked the blue eye bit, as seen here and here. As I stated in that second edit summary, "All eye color is considered polygenic, even the source [basically goes along the line of stating that]." Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning of the article it says that green eyes are the rarest...Then under the "blue eyes" section it states that blue eyes are the rarest with 2.2% of the population having them...Which one is it? This is a rather obvious contradiction and I'm quite surprised that it hasn't been brought up already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.14.114 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where either section uses the wording "the rarest." Maybe it was removed before this response of mine. But both sections do seem to be saying that their respective eye colors are rare. I'll see what I can do to clarify this "rare" matter later. Flyer22 (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Origins of blue

The first paragraph of "Blue" is a barely-altered copy from [2]. If you must steal, steal from a real scientist, eh? I'd comment that a single mutation does not conclusively imply a single common ancestor (a mutation can occur twice), but that would be OR. —Tamfang (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I quote:

"In 2008, new research revealed that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor."

This should be changed to 'people with the allele for blue eyes have a common ancestor.' People who are phenotypically brown eyed can carry the genetic mutation for blue eyes. Two brown eyed people can have blue eyed offspring, such offspring self-evidently do not have an ancestry which is not also found in the parents.Urselius (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best to source your change to a reliable source. The wording you want altered is worded that way because of the source. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My husband and I both have brown eyes. Our son has blue! It happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.63.117 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Map

The map with blue eye distribution is self-evidently wrong. Just to take one striking example, there are far more blue-eyed people in Ukraine than in France, and the map shows the opposite. Another example: there are far more blue-eyed people in the French and Italian Alps than in southwestern France. Another one: there's obviously far more blue-eyed people in southern Britain than in northern France. And on and on. Plain wrong it is.--Little sawyer (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, from my observations, Ukrainians and Frenchmen appear to have an approximately equal distribution of light eyes - close to 50%. Apart from that I do agree with your other points and that the presented map is overall not completely accurate. Another clear example would be the underestimation shown in Italy and Bulgaria as opposed to the overestimation in places like the Caucasus, Greece and Turkey. Also, the center of maximum frequency should lie within Scandinavia, not east of the Baltic. The cited frequency of blue eyes in America is also quite ridiculous, just a look at pictures of non-hispanic white members of the US House of Representatives reveals that there are way more people with a light eye color than dark eyes. Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with this section of the article. My suggestion would be to use better sources in the future. I have far too much money to be expected to fix it myself. 83.228.36.247 (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The best example of the map's wrongness is the frequency around Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro compared to Southern England. I almost fell out of my chair on this one; I am from Bosnia and I can tell you blue eyes here is about 1/4 at maximum, probably even less. I don't have to mention England (even the southern and Western Part) is at least 50%, probably more. I have read somewhere that even in Wales Brown eyes are only at 34%.

As for the US frequency; Congress members are usually old. The article is about the frequency among children today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.95.2 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"According to a 2010 study including over 8000 samples, light eyes(including light-mixed eyes) in Europe reach greatest distribution in Finland(at 89%), followed in descending order by Sweden, Norway(88%); Estonia, Denmark(85%); Latvia, Ireland(83%); Scotland(80%); Lithuania(78%); The Netherlands(76%); Belarus, England(74%); Germany(70%); Poland, Wales(68%); Russia, The Czech Republic(65%); Slovakia(63%); Belgium(60%); Austria, Switzerland, Ukraine(53%); France, Slovenia(50%); Hungary(43%); Croatia(40%); Bosnia and Herzegovina(38%); Romania(33%); Italy(30%); Serbia, Bulgaria(28%); Spain(25%); Georgia, Portugal(23%); Albania(20%); Turkey and Greece(18%). Analysis of the results demonstrates that the overall average frequency of light eyes in Europe is 50%, with 68% in Northern Europe and 30% in Southern Europe. 213.91.144.132 (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The data posted above seems quite accurate. Also the map on the link you posted makes much more sense than the one in the article which we all seem to agree is fairly incorrect. Can you give the source of this study? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.160.124 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not acurate, my last post was in error, sorry. I made it up using random number generator. 213.91.144.132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The percentages above may not be really accurate, but having studies the matter for some time, I can say that they are certanly not far from reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.241.123 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For anyone who interested what the map should really look like (approximately), look at my version of it. I left the lines from the original so that one can see the difference. http://shrani.si/f/2l/FJ/71oGWAb/blueeyesmap.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.130.53 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Aryan = Scythian?

Where did "Scythian (Aryan)" come from? AFAIK, this is far from an accurate association.

Kortoso (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Green eyes

Green and grey eyes

It says in the article that green is the least common eye color. I'll assume it's referring to "common" eye colors, i.e. not red or purple, but I've seen a lot more green-eyed people than grey-eyed people. This claim is not sourced, so would it be okay if I changed it to saying that grey is less common? 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying "common," maybe the article should say "least dominant"? Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please change this, I think it is very misleading. You should take it out altogether because it is not cited either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilus (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Chinese got green eyes?

Can please anyone tell me that if it is true there is probability that Chinese could be green eyed? As i have seen from East Asians, they only got brown eyes.--134.151.0.39 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

several of my relatives have hazel eyes: http://i.imgur.com/HsEeD.jpg Cecikierk (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no, unless they have Caucasian blood. Even hazel eyes is very rare. I'm sure there are some Chinese with possible Caucasian blood due to contributions from the Mongol invasion (from Persians, Russians . . . any number of possibilities). Hazel eyes are more likely than green (based on any anthropological evidence and studies I have read). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement about the percentage of Icelandic people with light eyes has been removed. When referencing the source, it was found that this was not accurately stated. The citation references a study conducted on a small, random sampling via mailed census. Of those that responded to this survey, 89% of the women and 87% of the males in the survey had light colored eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.7.244.215 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mythical "violet eyes"

One of the Worst Articles on Wikipedia

I've read some poorly written articles on Wikipedia, but this one really takes the cake. It's full of incorrect information, backed by nothing, or by very shady references. Take the section on the elusive "violet eyes." Not only can no one seem to produce even a SINGLE image of this purported eye color (unlike every other color mentioned, this one seems to avoid detection by a world full of millions of cameras!), but the citation provided takes us to the H2G2 web site, which at first glance appears to be supported by the BBC, but in the fine print at the bottom of the page says, "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced." Now, does that look like the kind of web site you'd want to take evidence from? So far as violet eyes are concerned, it should be stated that humans do not have violet eyes, despite various claims to the contrary, such as those by public relations personnel handling celebrities like Elizabeth Taylor. And for gawdsake, stop posting information about your own eyes! You're not special, and no one cares about your eyes except your mother! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.229.138 (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

thats the funny crap i read in my life your great its a fake thing elizabeth taylor PR and fans made up to to make her apear rare and speical her eyes are a very very comon blue just trying to have famous eyes like bette davis total copying like j.lo famous for her butt and kim kardasian trying the have her trademark it the same here elizabeths fans think shes one in a million not the reality one OF a million her eyes aren't speical nice but not rare like amber or green (agian wishful thinking people like to think they have them but really hazel).

I was slightly disappointed to see that there was no information on violet eyes in the article. So far I'd agree that until some solid scientific backing is found it should remain away from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.160.102 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 216.254.160.102 (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry I am new to wiki so sorry if I am doing this wrong I found a pic of a man named tore johnsen who is the sami christian priest he appears to have violet eyes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tore_Johnsen.jpg look up the wikipedia page on sami —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.213.63 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The priest in that pic has light blue eyes...nothing violet about them, and I'm sure most people will agree with me. Ashantifan1224 (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

a good bunch of what you hear about eyes on the internet is incorrect. that is because people cant let it go that they have a common color. they absolutely want theirs to be unique, which is why a good deal of this article could be easily removed. the priest doesnt have violet eyes for the simple fact that hes not famous for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liebeistfur (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What is "the good deal of this article that can be removed"? It's not going by what people wish their eye colors to be. This talk page arguably is, but not the article. As for violet eyes, if that eye color exists at all, that apparently has to do with albinism; see the last section on it in this mega-section: #Violet Eyes again. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Populations with violet eyes

This article mentions of some middle eastern populations with violet eyes. Why not provide some citations on this, and finally lay this little controversy over their existence here to rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.192.144 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Purple eyes

http://cdn-www.answerbag.com/images/answers/430936/4803506/eyescolor06.jpg

Here is a picture of a 12 year old girl I found online with purple eyes. I do not think it is in violation of any copyright. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2009 (AT)

Thank you for your contribution, but it really looks like the color was changed in Photoshop or some similar program. What is the source of this image? Who made it? Gary (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think that this photo of Tore Johnsen, Sami Christian priest and leader of the Sami Church Council Has nearly with no doubt Violet eyes! And i think we should add it.-> [3] Since its already on Wikipedia, there is no problems with adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.7.8 (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That link of the girl with purple eyes is edited. Period. Ashantifan1224 (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to become the typical flammer... but... NEVER TRUST A DAMN PHOTO ANYMORE. Pretty much anything ANYONE uses as supposed "proof" with a picture is 9 times out of 10 PHOTOSHOPED or EDITED in SOME way. PERIOD. No arguments. I hate to say it, but typical human nature does not give room for trust in photos provided over the internet, or almost any other sourse, these days. The photos given throughout this article are ALL easily altered. I use photoshop, I do not claim to be an expert, nor do i claim to be an amiture, but it's simply too easy to alter a photo given today's software. NOTHING CAN BE COMPLEATLY TRUSTED.

Another thing to keep in mind is that color on computer moniters is ALWAYS DIFFERANT. for every moniter. the color simply does not come across in the same way, especialy when printed, or when compaired to actualy sight. what appears "violet" on the one persons moniter could be red, blue, or anything in between on another moniter. i know this for a fact, being a Multimedia & Design Tech student. I constantly run into color perception problems dealing with this issue.

Also, in-person perception can also vary. Take for example some "hazel" eyes. not only do light, reflections, ect take a play in the appearance of a person's eye, so too do the same effect the OTHER person's perception of said eye color. Take for example my girlfriend's eyes. They are, overall, fairly hazel. Though depending on the light and angle they may appear any shade of brown or green. I've even seen them yellow and blue around the edges! Yes, her eyes DO occationaly change color temporarily, but even when examined by two people (another close friend and myself), her eyes may seem a rich green to me, yet a hazel or brown color to him. in summery, PERCEPTION varies also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.34.231 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, there really needs to be a paragraph or two talking about the "rumor", "myth", "claim" or "theory" of purple eyes. Even if the claims are false, given how prominent they are, proof of being rumors would help. The photo at the top of this portion looks legitimate at first glance, but as mentioned a source stating that was an unaltered image would be invaluable. 75.101.123.180 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Violet / Periwinkle eyes

Here are some valid pictures of the eye color that seems to cause so much controversy: File:Human Violet Eye.JPG (violet), File:Violet Eye.JPG (violet), Tamilnadumahabalipuram5zc.jpg (periwinkle). The name is somewhat misleading given that the purplish hew is probably circumstantial, but nonetheless it is a distinct look. Whether Elizabeth Taylor ever actually had violet eyes, as some claim, I do not know, but here is a picture which portrays her eyes violet: [4] — the Man in Question (in question) 05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither one of those pictures looks to be anything but blue. Same with the picture of the priest that keeps coming up. It's all perception. I've seen all sorts of blue, from very pale (but still very blue) to grey to dark blue. Looking at a rainbow, could you not very easily say that blue and indigo are just shades of the same color? It just seems that people are going out of there way to call something that's blue, violet. And as far as changing eye colors... I've never heard where it was reversible (in the context of mood changes) but I have certainly heard of aging (up to 1-2 yrs old) and certain medications that IRREVERSABLY change pigmentation (usually turn them brown). Lime in the Coconut 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All those pictures look like blue eyes to me as well. I would think that something as non-debatable as visible color would not be "all perception." I mean, something is red or it is not; it is not as though opinion plays a role in that. But I guess that for some colors...it does/can. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rare genetic mutations can even lead to unusual eye colors"

"Rare genetic mutations can even lead to unusual eye colors: black, red, or the appearance of violet."

I deleted this sentence from the article because where it is not redundant, it is false. I have previously removed the category of 'violet eyes' a few months back due to its scientific ridiculousness and realized I missed this particular gem of a sentence as well.

Rare genetic mutations? What mutations? What are they called? All ocular genetic mutations have been broadly accounted for and this is not one I've encountered. Please find a scientific citation for this quote before returning it to the article. Albinism causes red eyes, however that's already discussed under eye color chart, and is extremely rare enough not to warrant its own sentence next to "Eye colors can range from the most common color, brown, to the least common, green." As for black irises, they are either a dark shade of brown, or are enlarged pupils mistaken for irises. And as everyone who realizes that fantasy novels and photoshop programs do not provide evidence for violet/purple eyes, a genetic mutation which causes the "appearance of violet" is non-existent.

If we want to start adding something as intangible as "violet" into this article, let's also being to add "honey-dew brown," "sky blue," "midnight dawn," and "forest green." Sorry for the sarcasm but I see people are still debating on violet/purple's existence. That's the problem of Wiki when anyone can edit these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.11.242 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you. Thank you for keeping this article in check on these matters. And, yes, the purple/violet matter was recently debated above...but only because a person insisted that the pictures they found were/are proof of its existence. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes! :) Hello again. I think people will continuously come to this page to debate on the violet/purple issue - especially since there's still a few links out there that point to Wiki as sourcing the existence of violet/purple eyes. Soon it should die down. (Fingers crossed.)

For anyone referring to Elizabeth Taylor's 'violet eyes': http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/sugarpinkkisses/manyeyecolors.jpg That's a collage on Google Images of her eyes taken at various times during her career. I think that should put an end to citing her as proof. --174.3.11.242 (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What about purple eyes?

Someone should try to add something on purple eyes, I know only .08% of the population has them, but they should still count —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.50.229 (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC) funny crap i've read in my life guess a elizabeth taylor fan told you this fairytale then so they can go on about her speical "rare" eye colour

Just read the previous section on the talk page. Many editors claim violet eyes are a myth, and no one has been able to find a reliable secondary source in favor of them. Some people have tried to find images, but it invariably leads to original research in trying to decide whether it's "really" violet or not, which is exactly the danger in primary sources; it's not helping. But if you heard this .08% from a reliable source you can cite, by all means do so. 173.48.248.79 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Violet Eyes

What about violet eyes? Like Elizabeth Taylor's ones

Read above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Violet Eyes again

I removed the section discussing Violet eyes for various reasons, first and foremost the section was horribly written and I fail to see how violet eyes, as descriebd per this section would not fall under the category of red/albinistic eyes - which often times do not appear totally red due to the presence of some pigmentation (see the image next to the red section, which is clearly a mix of red and blue but distinctly not violet in color at least at that distance). The source of the information appears to be an alleged ophthalmology fellow who offers no information to back up their claim other than their supposed professional affiliation. Further, upon searching through scholarly articles in science and medicine, I have been unable to locate any studies that indicate a "rare mutation" that causes violet colored eyes exists. While I have no objections to a section on violet colored eyes in the article since the concept seems to be somewhat significant culturally. But, I oppose the inclusion of "facts" about their existence without any citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.202.180 (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You were right to remove the section, per above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One editor very recently added a section on it this way, which is more appropriate than any other section we've had on it. It clarifies that it has to do with albinism. Thus, I tweaked it to this. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

blue iris and a thin band of yellow around the pupil

I have seen people with blue eyes but ive also noticed that some people with blue eyes also have also yellow and brown around there pupils (has eny one else noticed this) (and if so what does it mean, there are people with blue yellow eyes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooo123 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My eyes are like this. I think it's just varying degrees of "blue". Since "grey" eyes have no brown pigment, and blue eyes have a little, it would make sense that you could see a little yellow/brown in the "blue" iris of an eye. Lime in the Coconut 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think these people have central heterochromia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.120.42 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

my eyes are like this too......and the yellow ring changes sizes too, and as it gets bigger, it turns green. my eyes change color over a range of light blue-dark blue-green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.40.131 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

blue and yellow eye colouring link

here a link to a eye with yellow and blue eyes http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Iris_%28Blue_eye_cose-up%29.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooo123 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My Eye Color

Hello, i´m a german and i come from Baden-Würtemberg. I think my eye color is light-mixed with Green and a admixture of lightbrown. But what do you think about the definition of my eye color?

http://www.bilder-hochladen.net/files/f1cm-1.jpg

--Theodisk (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You have "mixed" eyes. They're hazel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.72.124 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My official eye color with the DMV is Hazel, but my eyes don't go from brown to green. They go from a silver to green. I didn't see where the article mentioned there are two types of hazel. I tell the examiner to choose. It entirely depends on mood and ambiant light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.227.185 (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Eye colour and intelligence

Blue eyed people are, on average smarter than brown eyed people. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-476244/Why-blue-eyed-boys-girls-brilliant.html, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/21/sciencenews.aidaedemariam, and http://www1.whdh.com/features/articles/healthcast/BO60374/. 110.32.147.87 (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

These articles are all from August 2007. What additional research has been done in the nearly 3 years since? 87.113.17.89 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Searching through the first few pages of Google for multiple related sets of words gives only these three. 110.32.142.38 (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sociological privileges. Studies like that show afro-american and hispanic people less smarter than euro-american (and asian-american more smarter), but it don't have genetic motivation. Eugenia sucks. In 2010, so much more. Lguipontes (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your baseless, straw man, irrelevant knee jerk response is the thing that sucks. Stick to the topic. 110.32.137.200 (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

me childish eyes ;)

on the other night the 9th i think on july....my mom was surprise that me eyes weerre grayyyyy!!!!!!! :0. my eyes are usaaly light blue.... can u tell me y that happend (by e-mail)

laurel5161@comcast.net

laurel 7-11-10 —Preceding

Gray eye oddity

Why is it that gray eyes are also found within "Fucking ass county" populations? I saw it in the artical, and it struck me as weird.

unsigned comment added by 67.175.1.52 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial

It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Eye color, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:

You can edit this page. Click here to find out how.

at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. Anthony (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per my post below, I feel like many of the editors of this article have absolutely no background in genetics and can't comprehend some of the more basic terminology. People are throwing definitive terms like "dominance" around without even understanding what these concepts mean. I think that access to editing this article should be restricted. Making a contribution to a largely medically-oriented article such as this demands a background in the topic and some relevant experience contributing to the development of such topics. -- mcshadypl ^TC 04:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

my eye colour

i got a problem in clssifying my eye colour , is it actually hazel , amber or is it just light brown. it turned once green but i would like u to see for urslef http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/1253/dsc00036n.jpg reply to me via email atomic_fox1@hotmail.com or u could just comment here

Gray eye "myth"

I'm sorry, but I have never seen a person with gray eyes. Every person I've encountered who has claimed to have "gray" eyes has always had an ambiguous or indistinct shade of green or blue. Never the actual color gray. Look at the color gray. It does not appear in human irises. I lump it in with violet eyes. Even the pictures on here of gray eyed people are actually blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CenobiteCreepe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I haved gray eyes from my birth to my 2nd year old (and my hair was sandy/dirty blond, like the Berber guy of Wikipedia). Yes, gray, real gray, I can say first grayish blue and later grayish brown to you. Now I have dark dark dark brown eyes (and hair). I lost my freckles too. Well, I'm mixed-races. In details, White ethnic Brazilian + Portuguese Brazilian x Most non-Mediterranean Euro-Brazilian + Black~maroon Brazilian with non-Mediterranean European and large Amerindian ancestry. Lguipontes (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My mum has grey eyes. It is hard to tell the difference between blue and grey - but it is there. Blue eyes are lighter and brighter, whereas grey eyes are purely grey. My mum is Russian, and gray is a common colour there. My eyes are amber - (no I am not one of those people with hazel eyes saying it) they are not a gold bright colour but they are on the darker side - amber eyes have lots of shades, from gold to orange.--Element Freedom (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

True gray eyes do exist. I have several photos of them on my computer. If you need proof, let me know. Violet eyes, however, do NOT exist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.72.124 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Put "myth" in quotes, indented responses. Amazing this individual turned the induction of ihr experience into a deduction: I've never seen gray eyes, therefore they're a myth. They're actually fairly common, unlike say complete heterochromia or violet. And yes, like the other respondents I've known persons with actually gray eyes, the article currently shows a case, and googling will show a number of obvious true cases as well as some that may be what CenoBiteCreepe referred to. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Restricting editing privileges?

I feel like many of the editors of this article have absolutely no background in genetics and can't comprehend some of the more basic terminology. People are throwing definitive terms like "dominance" around without even understanding what these concepts mean. I think that access to editing this article should be restricted. -- mcshadypl ^TC 04:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blue eye colour in southern europe

There is absolutely no evidence that blue eye color in Spain and Portugal is derived from migrations from Northern Europe! This is total POV of apparent racialist ("nordicist") origin! 79.168.235.248 (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the mutation that causes blue eyes in humans occurred in Europe for 9000-5000 years ago and is located in a single gene — all people of blue eyes (I'm not sure if that includes gray and green) share some ancestor. This includes the Iberians, and also all North Africans, South Asians, Middle Easterners and Central Asians within this characteristic.

I really don't know what's wrong in saying that we have a common ancestor. Especially because, in the Caucasian ethnic groups that have no clear eyes and hair, the physical traits are different and the hair have another complexion (Arabians, for example, not usually have straight hair). For me racism starts where we began to say that some are better than others (for me, now I have dark eyes and hair and always had non-Caucasian descent, the situation gets worse, lol).

Exceptions are albinos and new genetic mutations that cause blue eyes (I've seen pictures of native women from Africa and eastern Asia, but thought to be a photographic montage). Lguipontes (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's talk about shades and science.

I look over this article, and some of the entries under eye color chart just seem pointless to me. Now, I don't actually study eyes or anything, so anyone who is knowledgeable in the subject can feel free to correct anything I put forward.

My basic observation would be that eye color falls under 3 colors: brown, blue, or green. The inner iris can have its own color(such as yellow, brown, green...), and the outer part of the iris is generally considered the primary color of the eye. Though the eye can have strands of color running through it in both the inner and outer parts. For example, someone with a blue outer iris with some yellow around the center of the iris would be considered blue eyed. Most all eye colors fall under some combination of the above in different shades(aside from rare cases like some people with albinism appearing to have red eyes).

What I don't understand...is why shades of eye color or specific combinations of eye color are being given their own distinction. I'll go over each one...

Grey: From what I can see, it's faded blue. It is not actually grey in color, and as a matter of fact I have never once in my life seen a person with actual grey eyes. An internet search also turns up nothing but people with light blue or faded blue eyes. Why this is being labeled as "grey" seems nonsensical. We don't have a section for "black eyes" with pictures of people with really dark brown eyes, so I see no reason to say people with faded blue are "grey". A simple look at the pictures of "grey" eyes in the article is enough to see that they're clearly blue.

Amber: Mix of brown and green. It doesn't help that amber and hazel are not clearly defined. Both "amber" and "hazel" are just a different combination of green and brown and I'm not sure they really need a separate distinction considering that neither of them is clearly defined in the first place and both of them are frequently confused for the other.

Case in point: The first picture is of a fairly even mix of green and brown, and yet the caption states they're "amber/golden green-brown". There is nothing remotely golden or yellow about that eye color, and in fact if anything the first picture should probably be under hazel and not amber, and hilariously enough the picture is even labeled as "Hazel_eyes.jpg" and yet is put under the amber section.

The second picture is kind of bad quality so it's hard to tell, but I'm pretty sure it's either a light brown eye or an eye with a light green outer iris with a darker brown inner iris. Either way, the eye is exposed directly to light with the caption stating that the eye is "orange", when it clearly isn't. Exposing your eyes to light changes the shade of it, and I do not see the second "amber" picture as being orange, but just a light brown. If the eye was viewed in normal lighting, it would not look "golden" or "amber". My eyes are dark green, and when in lighting they turn a much lighter green. Yet we don't have two sections in this article for "Forest Green Eyes" with a picture of my eyes out of direct lighting, and a section for "Leaf Green Eyes" when my eyes are in direct lighting. Orange eye color is non existent, and thus I would say that "amber" eyes don't exist either and are just a specific combination of green and brown.

Hazel: Usually described as some combination of green and brown. Why it requires its own distinction is beyond me. We don't call blue eyes with yellow near the pupil to be "Sunburst" eyes or something, so why a combination of green and brown needs its own name seems odd to me. And if we're going to include a green and brown as its own distinction, why not any other mix having its own section or name? For that matter, hazel is a really broad distinction as an eye can be primarily brown OR green and still qualify as "hazel".

Violet: Doesn't have its own section anymore, and not a combination, but I find it funny nonetheless that people insist that violet eyes exist despite the fact that not one credible source can be cited, nor can one reliable picture be presented with someone with natural purple eyes. It was in the article for a while but I don't think I even need to talk about this one. The fact that something as silly as this remained in the article at all is sad.

In short, I just feel like this particular section of the article has more of a fantastical approach than a scientific one. Grey is just faded blue, Amber is just light brown or a combination of brown and green, and Hazel is just a green or brown combination of sorts. If they're going to have their own distinctions(and mind you, sometimes very misleading ones like "grey"), then why do other eye combos not have their own sections? I could see perhaps having one distinction for an eye that is a mix of green and brown since green and brown combinations are such a common eye color, but I don't see why both "amber" and "hazel" are considered eye colors if they're technically indistinguishable or that amber is possibly just a light brown.

Hazel eyes are a combination of lots of colours. Amber is orange/gold/brownish - no green or grey or blue. It is not light brown. Light brown - when in light is just brown. Amber is golden. Hazel appears to be many different colours therefore the "colour changing" eye myth became. Grey (true grey) eyes are darker than blue but definitely grey. Any eye with more than one colour (not shade) is HAZEL. Amber only has AMBER.Element Freedom (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have several problems with your assertions...

1. Where does it say ANYWHERE that hazel is "any eye with more than one color"? I don't see anyone refer to blue eyes with an inner yellow iris as hazel. Anything that contains blue, to my knowledge, has never been referred to as hazel. It is ALWAYS some combination of brown and green of different shades. And to my knowledge, there are no eye colors outside of brown, blue, or green, or some mix of those 3. The one exception being that the inner part of the iris can be yellow in appearance. So I would think hazel being some combination of brown and green would be accurate.

2. Orange eye color does not exist. Gold eye color does not exist. These are artsy names being used to describe eyes that are clearly just different shades of brown. None of the "amber" eyes in the article are anything but a light shade of brown. Brown is not orange, and very light browns in sunlight are not gold. If you can, I'd like to see you provide pictures of someone with truly gold or orange eyes, as I'm fairly certain people are either misidentifying brown as orange/gold, or are simply making things up much like violet eyes.

3. I assert that "True grey" doesn't exist, and I would challenge you to provide a photo of even a single person who has an eye that is truly grey in color and not some shade of blue that just looks faded in color. None in the article are actually a grey color, they're blue, and a google search turns up nothing but varying shades of blue eyes.

On Hazel I think most people would agree hazel is by definition a combination of brown and green, possibly [albeit less commonly] with flecks of other colors such as "gold" or blue. But as to why it requires it own combination: in my opinion, for two major reasons. [1] Because it is commonly designated as it's own color. My driver's license lists my eye color as "HAZ", for example. So does my ophthalmologist. Clearly, hazel is commonly considered to be a color unique from brown and green alone, and I feel that this is enough to merit it's own paragraph and picture. If society says something exists, in my opinion that's enough to merit a mention in the encyclopedia. (Hm, I suppose that statement could come back to bite me.) Society hasn't given a special name to blue-eyes-with-some-brown. Auburn hair has a separate page from Red hair and Chestnut hair (excessive, perhaps. But there is a precedent, anyhow.) [2] Because hazel, unlike somewhat more questionable colors like violet [in my opinion likely to have been a dark blue] or grey [which personally I'd assert exists but could be reasonably considered a pale blue] undoubtedly exists. There exist countless pictures of it. It is visually distinct from brown, and also from green. And if my personal experiences are anything to go by, it's pretty common. To use the blue/brown eye as an example again, I'd assert that those eyes seem to mostly appear blue. Or brown. But not something that is neither. Hazel also includes a range of colors, much as the designation "blue" does. Two of my family members also have "hazel" eyes, but one has eyes much darker than mine and the other has brighter, lighter eyes. Therefore, hazel exists, is not an overly narrow definition, and is statistically significant.

I'm rambling. Apologies. Furthermore, I am well aware my support is largely anecdotal, although not, I would argue, valueless. I'll just say one last thing: I'm going to stick my neck out and say amber eyes are either hazel or brown. Alex60466176 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't knock grey eyes. My own eyes are very assuredly grey. I've examined various photographs of my eyes (including from different years), and the color in my irises have about the same levels of red, green and blue channels in them. I compare my eyes in a mirror to what I see in the photographs, and my eyes really do look like that. I'm the only grey-eyed person of anyone I know face-to-face, and most of my extended family has brown or amber eyes. Both my parents have brown eyes, and all four of my siblings have brown eyes, but my eyes are strikingly grey. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gray/Grey eyes definitely exist. If they didn't, the section on them in this article would have been removed by now. Saying they are a faded blue is funny. I mean, what does the editor above think gray is? It's like saying the color pink doesn't exist because it's a faded red. The point is...the fading makes these colors different colors. It's the same with orange and yellow, or gray and black. We've all seen a black piece of clothing fade to gray a bit. We don't call pink a faded red. This is the same reason we don't call gray a faded blue or black. This article -- "Are gray eyes the same as blue in terms of genetics?" -- which is included as a source in the Gray section -- should help people understand the relation between blue and gray eyes. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thumbs up* for Alex, Gilgamesh, and flyer. Of course hazel is considered a distinct color because it is SO common, and the levels of brown and green are about equal, making the eye neither brown nor green. Blue eyes usually contain trace amounts of yellow and the eye still appears predominantly blue. Other mixtures just aren't as common as hazel, and if we made up a name for each of them, we could go on forever making up names. 141.164.72.124 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As for gray eyes, they DO exist! I've found several pictures of them, and I have them if you would like to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.72.124 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 141.164.72.124 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I submit that this problem is threefold:
1) Color is “defined” two ways. Qualitatively, where we basically describe “what it looks like” (eg: blue), and quantitatively, where we basically state data (eg: 476.81nm). Except for science, we almost always use the qualitative method. Most people have no concept of how they relate, and don't care to.
2) Both definitions are infinite. Obviously, the qualitative method gives near-infinite definitions: “what it looks like” is subjective, and is further complicated by that fact that you can describe a color however you want (hence “catalog" color like “gold” which may refer to yellow or to brown). The qualitative method is less subjective, but even then, we end up with infinite colors, which is not helpful. And of course, this method is rarely used anyway.
3) Inconsistent usage. This is major. When it comes to color-in-use, we flip between the two methods (“what it looks like” vs. “what it is”). For example, a beer bottle can look amber when backlit, dark brown in sunlight, and black indoors, but it's the same bottle. It is the same color; only the lighting changed. But it's almost always going to be called brown. Why? Because vernacularly, beer bottles “are” two colors, brown or green. So it's a brown bottle, no matter what it looks like at the moment (ie: what the lighting's like). Another example: grab some black socks, black pants and a black shirt. Chances are, they're not actually the same color, they're different shades. But they “are” all black. Why? Because for the most part, we don't acknowledge shades of black. There's pretty much only “black.”
Whereas with eyes, we tend to try to describe exactly what we're seeing in that moment and lighting condition, and we allow for shading in eye color. Not to mention artistic license: amber traffic lights, amber eyes and amber gems are not the same color, but we use the same word; violet eyes are allowed to “exist” in novels and flattering actors' bios, even though they're generally understood to be apocryphal.

So. The bulk of the problem is imprecise terminology. “Grey eyes exist” is a semi-broken statement— what is the definition of “grey”? Same for “are these eyes grey or pale blue?” Broken question— what is the difference? And then the discussion goes off the rails because we end up mixing the “what we see” idea and the “what it is” idea.
Personally, I define grey as a shade of black, hence, it doesn't have “color” (ie: it is achromatic). Under this definition, a “true” grey eye would be one that looked exactly the same in a color photo as in a greyscale photo. I have yet to see eyes like this (and for other reasons, doubt they could exist), therefore I agree that eyes we call grey are “actually” very pale blue. Under this definition, grey eyes don't exist. HOWEVER, we generally allow, vernacularly, that grey eyes exist.

Clearly, what we need is one widely-accepted standard.
Alas, there isn't one. (Perhaps that's worth noting in the article?)
The problem is acknowledged:
“Surprisingly there is no widely recognized classification system for eye colour. An added difficulty when trying to devise an international system is that subtle differences in colour description exist between languages (e.g. hazel vs. auburn). […] We present a nine-category grading system. Categories in this novel schema include: (i) light blue; (ii) darker blue; (iii) blue with brown peripupillary ring; (iv) green; (v) green with brown iris ring; (vi) peripheral green central brown; (vii) brown with some peripheral green; (viii) brown; and (ix) dark brown.”
Classification of iris colour: review and refinement of a classification schema.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21176045

(Interestingly, grey is not acknowledged in this scheme. Neither is hazel.)
67.180.72.62 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Light Eyes in the Middle East, India and North Africa

I have visited several countries in this region(Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Seria, India) and I've noticed that a considerable amount of the population, especially in Jordan, had "light" eyes(hazel or lighter). I did several visual surveys over the course of a few years, and about 30% of the population in Jordan had light eyes. Green and hazel were fairly common(about 23%), while about 7% had blue eyes. The other 70% of people had light brown or darker eyes, with about 50% having medium brown. This article usually claims that green and hazel eyes are common in Northern Europe, but rare in the Middle East. It's actually the other way around; they're pretty common in the Middle East but fairly rare in Europe; most Northern Europeans actually have blue eyes.

In Egypt, blue eyes were much less common than in Jordan. They were rarely seen. However, green and hazel were common eye colors. They were such a striking feature on most people because they often had tan skin with their light eyes.

The eyes of the people in Jordan were very startling shades of green and blue as well; they weren't nearly as dull in color as most of the light eyes I see here at home in America, in people of European descent. The misconception that people from the Middle East and North Africa have predominantly dark brown eyes is a result of bias and ignorance. Dark brown eyes are actually very rare over there; I've discovered they're only common in some South East Asian, Native American, and African populations. 141.164.72.124 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that some of the eye color pictures on the page are not the best examples at all. The amber and gray eyes could definitely be improved; even the hazel could be a little better. The current hazel eye is brown and grayish, rather than the typical brown and green. The amber eyes look hazel, and the gray one almost looks blue. 174.69.108.52 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We've had plenty of people putting their own personal pictures in, sometimes without any regard to whether or not the colors are the most accurate for the sections they are adding them to. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

gray eyes photo needed

The paragraph talking about gray eyes is illustrated with a photo showing blue eyes. It needs to be replaced. The actual gray eyecolour does exist as I myself have dark gray eyes without admixture of any other colour.83.10.98.69 (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dividing up the Blue section

As I stated to Alphasinus on his talk page, I'm not sure why he insists on dividing the Blue section up like this, but there is no need to split the section up like that and give the eye color blue more prominence than the other eye colors. It comes off as WP:UNDUE (the more prominence aspect, not the viewpoint aspect). Further, most of the sections are extremely small, which only further showcases that no division is needed. It also encourages people to add more to the sections, ignoring the other eye colors and continuing to give the eye color blue more prominence. This is why I reverted Alphasinus. That, and because of dubious changes made by others. I am more than willing to listen to Alphasinus's rationale for why the Blue section should be divided, and I will bring other editors in on the matter as well if need be, as I am not interested in getting into a WP:Edit war with him over this. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The current version of the blue eyes section is in my opinion messy structured, which makes it more difficult for a viewer to digest the information. I understand that it gets more prominence but one should consider that the part is more varied and contains a larger diversity of sources than the sections about the other eye colors. Please dont revert like this.Alphasinus (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Alphasinus, the structure can be fixed without dividing the section. I am definitely open to your restructuring it without the division. Sure, that section currently has more detail than the other sections on eye colors, but that does not mean the section requires division. If there was so much material there that it needed to be divided up, I would understand. But with the amount of material there now, there is no need for the splits. I didn't revert you hastily; it was with consideration in comparing it to the previous version and wondering what your reasons were. Also, the other sections can be expanded too, and I don't feel that we need subsections for those sections once they are expanded as well...unless there is so much material that they need division. If you feel the Blue section must be divided, and with the material there now, I would much prefer there only be two subheadings. Not four. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it ok if i divide it up in 2 sections then? Alphasinus (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be okay with your Distribution and Genetics headings. The United States subheading, for example? Definitely not needed, and it's not a good idea to start dividing the detail by country. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Genetic Update

The genetic paragraph in the introduction is somehow outdated and with wrong data. EYCL1,2,3 are MIM codes not genes. Current knowledge in eye color inheritance defines only two genes OCA2 and HERC2 (see White D 2011 PMID 20944644). OCA2 contains most of the SNP affecting eye colors. I was about to correct this paragraph but even thought I am a physician and molecular biologist I am not an specialist in eye color inheritance. Perhaps this subject would be benefited by some discussion by knowledgeable members. If no discussion takes place I might contribute with a new version of this paragraph (hopefully better). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialsef (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as you are correcting the information with WP:Reliable sources, like the one you have displayed above, I have no problem with you fixing the information. We are not required to be experts in order to do this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There, :D Dialsef (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

Hmm, reliable source links eye color and intelligence

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-476244/Why-blue-eyed-boys-girls-brilliant.html Usable?

IP, the source says, "It is just observed, rather than explained... There's no scientific answer yet." That alone tells me that something as controversial as this -- saying that because some highly-intelligent people have blue eyes, blue eyes are an indicator of whether a person will be more intelligent or not -- shouldn't go in the article. I would certainly rather have better sources for this than the Daily Mail source. Preferably something from PubMed or a science journal, but I would still say it shouldn't be in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/21/sciencenews.aidaedemariam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.139.34 (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Scattering in the clear fluid

There's a serious problem with this article. Eye color depends on two factors: the pigmentation of the iris, and the scattering of light in the clear fluid between the iris and the cornea. This second effect is mentioned briefly in the sections on blue and hazel eyes, but is not explained in any detail and is not even mentioned in the introduction. This is really a fundamental point that any discussion of eye color should treat in detail.

There is never any blue or green pigmentation of the iris. People whose eyes look blue or green have greyish or light-brown pigmented irises respectively. It is the Rayleigh scattering of ambient light in the fluid in front of the iris that adds the blueish tone to produce the corresponding eye colors. Rayleigh scattering is also the reason for the blueness of the sky and of opalescent glass (see [5]).

This explains something I keep seeing people ask about in this talk page: why blue, green, and hazel eyes appear to change color. This has nothing to do with mood, age, etc., but simply with the lighting conditions. In low light, for example, blue eyes will appear grey and green eyes will appear brown. Also, the distinction between green and hazel eyes is not sharp, because of the subtle interplay between iris pigmentation and the scattering of light in the fluid in front of the iris.

I distinctly recall a very nice online illustration (perhaps even here in Wikipedia) about how the various possible eye colors resulted from the combination of pigmentation of the iris and either Rayleigh or Mie scattering in the clear fluid. Does anyone know which illustration I'm talking about? I can't seem to find it now on Google.

Time permitting, I will try to improve this article to clarify this, but help would be appreciated, especially because good sources on this are not easy to find on the Internet, even though the explanation of blue eyes in terms of Rayleigh scattering is mentioned, for example, in p. 87 of Hecht's Optics (4th ed.), a standard undergraduate textbook. - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making the article more accurate. It's odd that there aren't a lot (or a good number) of reliable sources discussing this aspect of blue eyes, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wilon's disease

Harold Schmits at TEDMED acutally talks about Wilson's disease, regarding how copper effects the eyes and dogs, if you type in Harold's name and TEDMED you can see videos of his talks regarding this topic

--12.31.160.200 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange Color changing eyes

I would like to point out that my eyes change colors constantly.I also notice how my eyes seem to have an Outer Ring and Inner Ring.The outer Ring seems to change colors allot and the inner one usually stays Green or Brown.Is there a name for this?76.117.242.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

First image— "close-up of a human iris"— shows a blue eye

The very first image in this article (Iris_close-up.jpg; captioned "close-up of a human iris") shows a blue eye. I'm not sure this is ideal, as the subject of the article is eye color, and the most common human eye color by far is brown.

Considering that a human iris chosen at random is much more likely to be brown than blue, and that the article is about iris color, it doesn't seem appropriate that the first image of "a human iris" is of a blue one. (And it's a fairly unusual blue eye at that, what with its partial ring of brown.) It strikes me as being something like illustrating an entry on buffalo with an image of a (very rare) white buffalo— it's arguably misleading. Furthermore, I think it's important to avoid the appearance of Eurocentricism. (To put a finer point on it: it's a bit like illustrating "human hair" with an image of a blonde. Most human hair is brunet.)

I notice that the current image shows excellent detail of the structure of the iris, so the image does have that value. However, since the article is about color rather than anatomy, I'm not sure that overwhelms the color issue.

Two suggestions: 1) use a different image, of a brown iris (eg: Brown_eye.jpg, which shows similar detail), or perhaps 2) use a black-and-white image to obviate the color issue.

67.180.72.62 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Violet eye color

I was very disappointed to see that there are barely any facts about people with violet eyes. Most of the reasons are because of Alexandria's Genesis, which Wikipedia doesent even have a page for. I wish someone could add on and talk about this disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.65.81 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Alexandria's Genesis is not real. It is, in fact, a Daria fanfiction dating back to 1998. It has no basis in truth, as the author herself (Cameron Miquelon) has said: http://33avenuemiquelon.com/2011/12/16/alexandrias-genesis-meet-the-creator-behind-the-fallacy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.0.118 (talk) 08:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

To the original IP and anyone who sees this section, the issue over violet eyes is addressed in the #Mythical "violet eyes" section; subsection after subsection is up there about it. An editor combined all the sections about it in one spot, and this section should probably be moved up there as a subsection of it as well. Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information Found on this Article

I have deleted out two statements of misinformation. Please note the changes.

1.) "99% of Estonians have blue eyes." This comment is incorrect and non-factual. In Professor Hans Eiberg's research, 99.5% of the people that participated in the study had blue eyes. This does not mean that 99% of the total population of Estonia has blue eyes. See the link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-one-ancestor-helped-turn-our-brown-eyes-blue-776170.html

2.) "In Iceland, 89% of women and 87% of men have either blue or green eye color." This statement is also incorrect. A study was conducted over risk factors for malignant melanoma in the Icelandic population. In this study, questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of the Icelandic population. Out of the 50% that responded back, 89% of the women and 87% of the men had light-colored eyes. This is not representative of the entire population of Iceland. See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743504001859 for the full study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.162.134 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In the source used in this article[6], it's Hans Eiberg who is saying "In Estonia, 99% of people have blue eyes. 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."

For the green eyes information, the source used for it is a high-quality source.[7]

If the information in this article is worded wrongly, then reword it using WP:Reliable sources. There's no need to remove this information completely. 108.60.139.114 (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you did leave the Denmark and Germany information in before I reverted you and that it's the blue eyes and Iceland information you object to. 108.60.139.114 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Although the source for the Estonian comment is a very accredited researcher, I would hesitate to include in the article directly that this has been determined by fact, rather than personal opinion, until direct research was shown on the subject in question. I was unable to locate any data directly correlated with these statements on blue eyes. This does not mean that it does not exist, but I would want to verify the statements' credibility before such a post was made.

Pertaining to the light-eyed individuals of the Icelandic study: Yes, the source is quite credible in my opinion, at least. However, the study is not implying that the small group that participated in the study is indicative of the entire region. The source that was included in your previous post is to the same published study.

As stated in the study: "The overall participation rate was about 50%. Seven percent of women and six percent of men had red hair color. Blue or green eye color was reported among 89% of women and 87% of men."

I don't really see the benefit in rewording material in this section. If the material is reworded to a more appropriate representation of the data, it will no longer be very relevant to the section of discussion it has been placed under. I don't seem to have the time or the patience required to edit misleading information from Wikipedia articles. I do, however, think it important that individuals be able to look through this article and get an accurate representation of factual information without having to extensively search scholarly articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.162.134 (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you've made a convincing argument to remove the information. I won't object again to you removing it. I'm only looking after this article and was just making sure your changes are for the best. 108.60.145.58 (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, someone complained about the same Estonia eye info in the #Map section higher. 108.60.145.58 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"A common cause in females with heterochromia is X-inactivation, which can result in a number of heterochromatic traits, such as calico cats." ? < in last paragraph of article 98.24.214.200 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment about 99% of the population of Estonia having blue eyes seems very dubious to me as well. Considering that about 40% of the population of Estonia has its origins in other parts of the Soviet Union, especially Russia, this would mean ethnic Russians would also have to have rates at almost the same high level. It seems possible the USA Today journalist misunderstood a comment about ethnic Estonians as referring to all Estonians, in the geographic sense. 96.46.200.95 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed "Green Eye" Photo

Updated article with photo of my green eyes. An eye consisting of "mostly brown with a hint of green" does not satisfy the requirements of a "green eye". It's either green or it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.61.179 (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was this edit reverted? Like the original editor, I have truly green eyes, not "kinda green", "sorta green" or "brown with some green", or "hazel". Why is a mostly brown iris being used to represent a "green" eye and why was the edit reverted? Why is any picture of a green eye on WP lacking brown pigment being censored? Axatax (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Blue Eyes vs. the other sections

The blue eyes section is great and has a lot of information. But the other sections are seriously lacking. Especially brown eyes, I mean, as the most common eye color, shouldn't it have at least a bit more information. The article draws undue attention to blue eyes, and one might go so far as to call the editing and research Eurocentric. ΔΡΦ (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've considered the Blue section to be WP:UNDUE for some time. Ever since it was divided into subsections. See #Dividing up the Blue section. I had to compromise with the editor who divided it just to keep him from dividing it up into multiple sections. I wouldn't state that it gives off a Eurocentric vibe, but I've never liked that division. As for detail, all of that is allowed without being undue. We just need someone to expand the other eye color sections, although there isn't much more to state about "red" or "violet" eyes. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I took away the unneeded division and moved the other genetic material closer to the forefront again. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead pic

IMO, the lead picture should be a composition with eyes, prefereable the complete pair or a single eye, with distinct eye colour and from distinct ethnic groups, that is eyes from whites, but also Asians, Africans, and Native Americans. This in a similar fashion as the articles from American cities. --Pedro (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been meaning to state that I agree with this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Black Eyes?

I've seen eyes that do not have a visible pupil in my time. They look black. What color is that, most likely? A really dark brown? Do true black irises exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.0.118 (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just a really dark brown. True black eyes do not exist, which is why the article does not address it. Although, it's sort of funny that we do address violet and red eyes, which don't exist either. Those with such eye colors who have albinism still don't truly have those eye colors. If you look in the #Scattering in the clear fluid section above, even true blue or green eyes don't exist. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Blue-Grey Eyes

I have looked and looked, my eyes are Blue-Grey. Is this possible? Or is it just another color im seeing. My hair is also Dirty-blonde, if that helps with the eye color. XxXxARTICxXxX (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Eye color can appear to be a combination, such as blue-green. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Do Color combinations (succh as blue-grey) make the eye any stronger? XxXxARTICxXxX (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Photo removal

There was a photo of an iraki old man with gray eyes,obvously done with photoshop,if you take a closer look,you could see that. Anyway,you can check the previous versions of the article to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.23.148 (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no proof that the File:A grey eyed Iraki, Granite faced.jpg image that you removed is Photoshopped. I do not feel that upon looking closely at the image...it can be confirmed that the eye color is a Photoshop job. Some people with gray eyes have gray eyes due to old age, and the eyes can look like that. The image was also removed in August for the reason mentioned in this edit. Whatever the case for removal, there is supposed to be a valid reason for removal. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like maybe he has cataracts. —Tamfang (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may be the case with him, Tamfang. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the colon that Flyer added to my comment; I was replying to the OP, not to Flyer. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the pictures at 'Spectrum of eye colour' seems to me to be upside-down.

Does anyone else think so? 203.97.123.30 (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not jumping out at me ... —Tamfang (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Which picture is the IP referring to? I take it that you don't know either, Tamfang? Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The picture at the left-hand end of the second row seemed odd to me. It seemed to bulge a the bottom instead of the top and seemed to have short lashes at the top and long lashes at the bottom. After playing with two mirrors to reveal a pair of eyes and then to invert that pair, I think the eye looks marginally more natural inverted. However, the image is labelled "Left eye", and the photographer should know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.123.30 (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Blue eyes in USA

I find the part of this article, very weird at best:

2002 study found that the prevalence of blue eye color among Caucasians in the United States to be 33.8 percent for those born from 1936 through 1951 compared with 57.4 percent for those born from 1899 through 1905.[13] Blue eyes are continuing to become less common among American children, with only one out of every six or 16.6% of the total population, and 22.3% of the white population having blue eyes.[40][41]

First there are no indication in the article of the whites in America have just 22,3% of blue eyes...also, I'm curious how he can know than there were just 57,4% of baby born in 1899 through 1905 with "blue eyes"...

For the article itself, first there are just one study, so I think that not enough to really know the pourcentage...specially if that used like a propaganda tool like the NYtimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/world/americas/18iht-web.1018eyes.3199975.html

"By mid-century, a person's level of education -- and not ethnicity -- became the primary factor in selecting a spouse. As intermarriage between ethnic groups became the norm, blue eyes began to disappear, replaced by brown."

Since when the interracial marriage have been the norm in the USA ? Minority have a better education or econimical situation than whites in USA now ? I really find this article extremely biaised against whites... still today interracial marriage are the minority in the USA, specially among the Whites peoples.

I really find this study, extremely doubtful, specially the lack of reference, just onely one, really not clear study done by an University in Chicago...imo that not very clear, and shouldn't be cited for an wikipedia articles.

Also the map is a joke, to have the same poucentage in north Africa of blue eyes than in Balkans or in the South France, Spain of Italy.

That would be nice if you edit this part of the article, because of the lack of the real study for the pourcentage of blue eyes in USA (to have just one source, specially if it's not from a huge study, it's not enough). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showbird13 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

To learn how the study reckoned the distribution of eye color among US Whites of different generations, I suppose one would have to read the study. The abstract ends with this:

Conclusions : A cohort effect in blue eye colour prevalence was found for the US white population. A secular trend of decreasing assortative mating by ancestry is the likely explanation.

...meaning that in 1936–1951 Americans were less likely than in 1899–1905 to prefer mates from the same ethnic group, and thus matings of blue eyes with brown eyes became more common, resulting in more heterozygous children (brown eyes) at the expense of homozygous recessives (blue eyes). I find that entirely plausible.

Note that the claim is not of interracial marriage (White with Black) but of increasing marriage rates between White ethnic groups, such as Whites of Baltic Sea ancestry (blue eyes) with Whites of Mediterranean ancestry (brown eyes).

(I notice that the Globe/NYT article mentions "blue-eyed blondes such as Marilyn Monroe", but her eyes look brown to me!)

The map does not say North Africa has the same frequency of blue eyes as all of the other regions marked in dark brown, only that it's less than 20% in all those places. One could make a map with finer distinctions, but it would be harder to read.

Can you suggest ways to make the article clearer on these points? —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxx

I don't know for examples to give some numbers, where they have practiced this study, with how many americans, how they will abble to find the numbers of blue eyes in 1900....For example, for to find this difference between two generation, he have supposed make a comparaison with among "his elderly patients in the nursing home"  !!!! That absolutely no sense, specially if this study don't have indicated how many nursery he have visited....of course we should read this study, but that don't make this study the reference for a wikipedia article, specially with the vague nature of the study...

From the article:

"At first he thought blue eyes might be connected to life expectancy, so he began comparing data from early 20th-century health surveys."

I was not aware than in the early 20th century, they indicate the color of eyes...

And for the others eyes colors ? For him grey-blue eyes or brown blue eyes, it's the same things than blues ? Or he make these colors different ? In this article, that seem just brown vs blues.

For interracial relationship, the articles don't make reference of interracial wedding between Europeans, but more with others races, again that don't make any sense, first Germanic peoples are the majority in USA, and I don't talke the WASP in general, baltic peoples etc...in France we have more "mediterranean" peoples than in USA, but we have more blue eyes ?!!! The supposed recessive blue eyes don't work like that...if there would have more mediterranean peoples in USA than Germanic or more or less numbers, that could have worked (and again, lot of mediterranean have blue eyes)...but again genetic are more complicated than that:

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask162

Also technically, there are a weird "style", for a lack of better term from the original articles, who seem to imply "blue eyes will die and they deserve it"...despite than 16%, that always made 48 millions peoples (so more than in 1900), and that beauty reference have changed ? What they have to do with this supposed scientific articles ?

"But in the past decade those standards have begun to change, and Madison Avenue has taken note. The look advertisers want today favors honey-colored skin, brown hair, and green or brown eyes. The most successful models are coming from Brazil.

``Advertisers want the idealized form of the general population," Ford said. ``Someone with perfect features but who the everyday person can relate to."

Since when the USA have became the brazil ?

For the articles, they don't give any indication of 22,3 % among whites peoples, just 16% of the global population of USA, where are the wikipedia articles have found this pourcentage ?

That remind the hoax about the disappearance of blond hairs:

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

"The disappearing blonde gene refers to false reports that a scientific study had estimated that natural blonds would become extinct, which were reported as fact in reputable media such as the BBC and the Sunday Times between 2002 and 2006. Claims that blond hair would disappear have been made since 1865.[1] According to the erroneous reports, the World Health Organization, or other experts, published a report claiming that people with blond hair "will become extinct by 2202".

The story about the report was a hoax—neither the WHO nor any reputable expert has issued such a report. Those who commented on this alleged report were asked by the WHO to retract.[2]

The extinction claim is based on a misinterpretation of recessiveness in genetics. In reality, unless blond genes are positively selected against, blondeness will not disappear.[3]"

This article have been a reference for a long time, that for that now, I'm little suspicious with scientific article without clear reference, or with a minimal scientific analysis.

File:Westernparadigm blue eye color map.jpg

Distribution of light-eyed people in Europe

For the map, if you look it, you will see that in the Marocco, there are a clearest part, so there are supposed to have more blue eyes than in the south of Spain, or in the all Italia....that simply a joke (and I'm maroccan berber).

For Monroe, I think she have dark grey eyes, but it's hard to say, she has very dark eyes...but sometimes they look like grey, but I can agree with you, she is not really the symbolic blue eyes girl...and you can see yourself the serious of this article with this reference lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showbird13 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC) --Showbird13 (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware than in the early 20th century, they indicate the color of eyes... Which "they"? Likely the survey used many sources. Police records in an English-speaking country certainly would list eye color. Perhaps the eugenics fad caused medical records also to note it among other features that we now consider irrelevant to medicine.

Did you say blue eyes are not recessive?

Thank you for wasting our time by bringing up the wholly irrelevant disappearing blonde gene hoax. Reduction in frequency of a recessive trait is not the same thing as extinction of a gene (or rather an allele). —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that you're not the first to complain about the map's inaccuracies. I'm sure we'd all love to have a better one. But is there any reason to doubt its broadest point, that blue eyes are concentrated around the Baltic? —Tamfang (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yes "maybe they indicate the color eyes", but we are not sure except if we have another source about that, because I can't simply to trust one study...that pretty vague imo, a minimal reference should be important.

For wasting my time, no, I don't have said that it was the same thing than in this article, I have done simply a parallel, do you think it's an coincidence if in the same article about the recessive "blue eyes", they talk about interracial wedding (and not between europeans), and golden skins and made comparaison with brazilian model ? Again what do you think it's their point when they talk the low pourcentage of blue eyes ? Disappear, no, but recessive yes, but the difference is not important in the context of this article.

Yes the blue eyes are recessive, but have you seen my link ? If it was between "europeans", the blue eyes could appear with 50% chance, that don't explain how we have gone to 58% of population to 16%...again most whites americans are WASP, Germanic, Irish, Russians etc...the mediterranean whites is an minority in the USA, in France we are more mixed but with have more blue eyes ?, The blue eyes couldn't recessive at this level, that pure legend...so how we have such a change ? For the article they talk interracial wedding, and I'm pretty sure, with the brazilian model example...that they think wedding with latino, black, Asians are today the norm, but that simply false.

For the map, I don't know for the blue eyes concentrated around the Baltic...I have read somewhere that could from a easy mistake, that they don't count in the same way the blue eyes in various countries...I mean in some countries to have grey eyes is qualified like blue (in France, we don't talk about "grey eyes"), maybe in some countries, greenish blue eyes, grey blue or brown blue eyes or dark blue eyes, or peoples who have blue eyes who change time to time (with the age etc...) etc... are not counted like pure blue eyes...that could explain the big difference.--Showbird13 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If we start with a population where 57.4% are homozygous for blue eyes and the remainder are homozygous for brown eyes, then 57.4% will have blue eyes. If each group is endogamous (and both groups breed at the same rate), the ratio will remain steady. If they begin mating at random, the proportion of blue eyes will approach .574×.574 = .329, which is higher than the 22.3% quoted above but of course there are other factors affecting the US White population. —Tamfang (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

xxxxxxx

Your example can work if these two populations has the same numbers, but the WASP, the Germanics etc...were and still are the most numerous whites peoples in the USA...it's for that your example (or this study) can't work, the blue eyes peoples should have a greater numbers, again south europeans peoples in USA were and are a minority, and they have also a good part of blue eyes among them, I don't see how these "study" can have this weak numbers...How could you explain why in France, we have supposed to have far more blue eyes than in USA if we trust this study (that really a joke) ? despite to have far more important mediterranean presence and lot less Germanic, Baltic and Nordic peoples and that French peoples are far more mixed?--Showbird13 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My example clearly specifies that blue eyes are (initially) a narrow majority. If you are incompetent both at mathematics and at reading English, there's not much I can do. —Tamfang (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have read your comment, but you don't have explained the difference France/USA for example, your demonstration is mediocre ar best (and to use basic mathematic for to explain that is really ridiculous), I quote you:

".329, which is higher than the 22.3% quoted above but of course there are other factors affecting the US White population."

What are the other factors ? How could you explain that you have lost 10%, because you know, 33% is very different than 22%...and why "the remainder are homozygous for brown eyes", so for you no green, grey, hazel eyes...again see the link I have posted, it's more complicated that "brown vs blue" or "blue is mathematically recessive", it's for that I have used the example of France.

Look if you can't be polite during this discussion, I think we can stop now (sorry for to have wasted your time).--Showbird13 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it might help if one of us were polite ...

One other factor affecting the US White population since 1905 is the changing pattern of immigration. I don't remember if I had something else in mind as well. Another (small) factor is that children with one non-White parent may be counted as White.

You ask why in my simplified hypothetical example "the remainder are homozygous for brown eyes", disregarding green etc.? Because it's a simplified hypothetical example.

What is the frequency of blue eyes in France? —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sorry to have been rude, I'm not fluent in english and sometimes my words can be a little harsh because my lack of vocabulary....

Yes, for your example with a non white ancestors, like you say, it's a small factor (but really, really small), and it's not because one of the parent is non-White that the futur generation will don't have blue eyes, specially if they mix with others whites peoples, that don't explain, imho, the huge difference of this supposed scientific articles.

For the example of France, we are supposed to be mixed with different europeans populations ,not just since 1905, , but since 500 before BCE (mix between in majority celtic and latin, and lot less germanic than the USA), if we trust the maps posted, french peoples are supposed to be around 40-60% blue eyes (for the record, there are no really such division between north and south like in the map)...if we take the example of the article, that should be impossible...I will take another example, and you will understand my problem:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22934464/#.ULOEG2eMr-U

"People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research. "

If blue eyes are so recessive, how blue eyes have been abble to continue to appear after this single ancestor ? Because if we trust the 22% of Whites peoples in USA, that make "blue eyes" extremely recessive and that among europeans populations, so with lot of blue eyes genes, to go to 57% at 22% in just 100 years, I don't see how "blue eyes" could have survived to 8000 years around all the brown eyes....22% that make the USA, despite to have a majority of Germanic peoples, to have less blue eyes than the southest part of Europe...

also from this wikipedia article :"A study taken in 1911 found that 53.7% of Jews in Galicia in Eastern Europe had blue eyes"...so among a mix semitic (so dark brown eyes)/Europeans like the Jewish eastern europeans, we can still have 53% of blue eyes...that should be impossible according this study.

It's my main problem with this article, first there are the curious style of the article, the lack of others studies about blue eyes in USA, the fact that this article have been simply copy/paste in various internet website (so no others interviews for this "study"), and the fact we don't have such evolution among others europeans populations, despite that most of them have lot less Germanic peoples than in the USA.--Showbird13 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pheomelanin?

Is pheomelanin vs. eumelanin not involved in green eyes vs. blue eyes (and/or light eyes vs dark)?

My impression is that redheads (who produce primarily or exclusively pheomelanin) have the greatest tendency to green eyes.

And logically as pheomelanin is red-colored and eumelanin is brown/black, which one is present in the iris would seemingly make a (dramatic) difference in what light is getting reflected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.10.104 (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Blue Eyes and Low-Light Color Acuity

I know the Left hates anything about ethnic differences that are not "merely skin deep", but...

There are studies showing that blue-eyed individuals have slightly different color perception.

If I'm not mistaken the phenomenon is increased ability to distinguish color (vs. gray) and/or distinguish between colors (if I'm not repeating myself), at low light levels.

Japanese manufacturers apparently take this into account in designing TVs for Western markets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.10.104 (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Anatolian Turks

Turkey have the highest percentage of green eyes in the world.

Some Fun Facts on Eye Color: You probably knew that brown is the most common eye color worldwide, but did you know that green is by far the rarest? In fact, less than 2 percent of the global population possesses green eyes. As a country, Turkey has the highest percentage of citizens who have green eyes, at 20 percent. There are a number of countries – generally located in Asia, South America, and the Middle East – where green eyes are almost completely absent among the population. 77.2.6.104 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Intellectual capabilities of the masses and color perception

I dunno when the lede took its current form, but does now make clear that all human eyes internally have different shades of brown tissue and that the perception of color is due to the scattering of light on that tissue. This obviates much of the discussion above which seems to be oblivious to the distinction between subjective/perceived and objective/intrinsic properties. The deniers of various observed shades should consider this distinction and look at the article on structural color. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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)