Talk:Light skin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

New estimates for development of light skin in European population

The article states "[...] as populations migrated away from the tropics between 125,000 and 65,000 years ago into areas of low UV radiation, they developed light skin pigmentation as an evolutionary selection acting against vitamin D depletion." New evidence suggests europeans might have had dark skin until as late as 7000 years ago. Please see http://www.livescience.com/42838-european-hunter-gatherer-genome-sequenced.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.200.132 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's Carles Lalueza-Fox et al.'s archaeogenetic work at the La Braña-Arintero labyrinthine cave in the Cantabrian Mountains. I've adjusted the statement to reflect their findings. Soupforone (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Also it is possible that the "blue eye" allele is a misidentify trait. the oldest population in Spain is the Basque culture and this group include decedents of this Iberian hunter-gatherer isolate. Seeing as blue eyes did not exist in Spain or Western Europe before the emergence of Germanic-Speaking Baltic tribes (such as Angles, Saxons and Goths) it is nearly impossible for a different population to have had blue eyes also in Europe and in a recent times. It is also possible that this Mesolithic Spanish culture was not an Africanized or Dark Skinned population as well: the paradox is that a brownish or tan skinned people (maybe 5-10 x lighter then Central or West Africans) may be considered Dark or "African" simply because they dare darker then peach and pink skinned Europeans today. The most accurate possibility is that this "blue eyed, brown skinned, brown haired ancient Spanish population" really had light brown or hazel eyes, black hair and olive or pale brown skin.

Disregarding sources

Meganesia, with this edit, why are you disregarding sources (or more specifically, WP:REFNAMEs)? You should not be leaving previously sourced text unsourced like that without solid reason. Also, make sure that you are sticking to what the sources state, no WP:Editorializing/WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Meganesia, regarding this revert by Soupforone and this and this edit by you, yes, there is a need to revert you when you are engaging in WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis (which is a part of WP:Editorializing), and are deleting things without a valid explanation. The WP:REFNAMEs you removed should be restored unless you have solid references to replace them. And you should not be marking edits like this as WP:Minor. We go by what the sources state at this site, not our own personal opinions. And if you continue to refuse to explain yourself at this talk page, especially if you opt to WP:Edit war, you should expect to be reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, bear in mind that this is an adjunct to the human skin color biology page, not random pageantry. Light skin isn't something subjective - it can and has been measured via spectroscopy and other reflectometer devices. It is also genetically controlled by specific alleles, certain mutations of which are essentially exclusive to the native populations of Europe and East Asia. Soupforone (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Light skin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Growing evidence between light skin and Neanderthal genes.

See: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that certain keratin alleles found in modern humans may perhaps have originated with Neanderthals. Soupforone (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as how Northern Europeans with Blonde hair are recent mutants of a Mediterranean group that is likely North Arabian or other Middle Eastern in origin, many "White" features are newer mutations that occurred 6-10 thousand years ago from newer emergent populations. Because only less then 4% (and often around 0.5 to 2%) of Neanderthal DNA exists in Eurasians, it is notable that Uralic Siberians or Samoyedic tribes have the most DNA form this other specie of human. Samoyedic tribes or Northwest Siberians likely brought these genes into Europe through the East Baltic and North Euro-Russia regions and mixed with Northeast Europeans that mixed with other clans in Europe. This explains why many Northern Europeans and especially Finnish and Hungarian people have more "Neanderthal" traits. Basic on what traits can be isolated, these include pale brownish skin with freckles, almond-shaped eyes and flat broad faces. The image of a red or blond haired, tall person with big bones and heavy muscles and pale pink skin or peachy skin and blue or light green eyes is a false image... Researches and others speculated that Nordic Europeans had the most Neanderthal DNA and also that these traits are paleolithic.

The most interesting and gruesome reality is explained by this theory. The basis is that ancient Cro Magnon people (proto Aurignatians) spread from North Egypt into Arabia and Turkey and then into Iran and (southern) Europe and very quickly replaced other paleohumans (different species) in those places. Just like how some modern Niger-Congo speaking Sub Sahara Africans contracted AIDS from Chimpanzees and one species of Monkey, Humans in Eurasia may have had Neanderthal DNA viral transplanted into their genome via eating H. Neanderthalensis meat infected with transmuting viral bodies. Cannibalism surely occurred and it is quiet possible that Neander Man was not the one eating Homo Sapiens.

Unless you've got a source to support those claims, it's just your say-so and as such, of no encyclopedic value. Kleuske (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Picture choises to "Light-skinned people" examples

The text under the first image in the article, says; "A group of light-skinned Europeans", however as there are only women in the picture, shouldn't it rather say "A group of light-skinned European females"? Next, the picture underneath it says; "Light-skinned East Asian people". But again, it is once more only women in that image, too. All in all, there is only one male subject in the whole article, which comes across as a bit... unequal?

Sincerely - Okama-San (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This same thought has occurred to me, too. I have moved the image of the Tatar man up, maybe it will help with gender representation somewhat.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to change the caption. I also don't see an exceptional need to add more pictures of either gender. Not a strong opinion though, but I do oppose changing the caption. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 11:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


Late reply on my behalf as I forgot about this topic and only recalled it when checking my 'contributions'. However I made a temporary solution by replacing the wording in the first picture that previously said "Light-skinned Northeast Asian people" to saying "Light-skinned Northeast Asian women".

Regarding the second image which reads "A group of light-skinned Europeans" I haven't changed the wording yet, as there does seem to potentially be a guy in the farthest back, but as he is basically just a blurry face in the far back while all the rest in front of him are women (what was the photographer thinking?), the wording "A group of light-skinned European women" might nevertheless be better. Any thoughts on that?

That being said, the captions could still definitely be changed to a pair of far better and descriptive images equally depicting both males and females and as such also better fitting the gender-neutral terms "Asians" and "Europeans". - Okama-San (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Map

I need a further clarification about the revert. Didte (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this. The big issue is that the original image is actually legible and therefore usable. The one you keep putting one is not in English (Wikipedia requires we try to use English whenever possible) and the legend tells us nothing. It might be useful as a historical document but doesn't help anyone understand anything about the subject of the article. Why do you think it's preferable to the original one? SQGibbon (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
All previous attempts to re-create the map of Renato Biasutti had contained falsificated extent in Europe, Asia and Africa. Only the map I added is based on his original image. I am going to replace with English legend the Italian language on the image. At first I thought it not relevant as Roman numbers from I-VI may be universally understood.Didte (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead image

@Bonesaud: Putting a image of a girl band performing isn’t the best illustration. The reason given for re-adding it (“The original reasoning for removing part of the article that had been there for years was unjustified. The European women have makeup on as well, and no one applies makeup to their legs.”) does not apply. I did not mention makeup, the image has not been there for years and I removed a freshly added image, not part of the article. I did remove that image, since a picture of a girl band performing isn’t particularly illustrative for this page. Also, the image, a screen grab from YouTube, isn’t a very good one. Kleuske (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kleuske: The image was there for more than 2 years, from 22 March 2017. The picture was removed on 20 May 2019 with the reason ("One photo is enough in the lede. Besides, these women have makeup on and it's hard to tell whether they are light or not. A few some more olive-skinned."). This person has also tried to unsuccessfully remove the picture with the same reasoning as before, as well as making multiple personal opinion edits that go against the sources. If you think the picture is low quality I could probably find a better example, but I don't think the image which was part of the article for 25 months should be deleted with the above reasoning.
and then it was removed. Why it was there in the first place, is anybodies guess. It shows a girl band, which has no bearing on the subject at hand in any way, shape or form. Why this image? Why not any other? Why not light skinned men? The image is small, not very high quality, and does not illustrate the subject well. I don’t care how long it’s been there or when it was removed. Removing it was an improvement. Putting it back isn’t. Kleuske (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
given all that, please explain why you’re hellbent to get this particular image in. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
You still haven't explained how the image showing a "girl band" is relevant. The only purpose of the image is to show their skin color. Them being a "girl band" has no relevance. "Hellbent" is a rather escalative word and seems to describe your actions better than mine, but I think it is more relevant for you to explain why you are so persistent to remove an image that was part of the article for so long. Your main reasoning that it shows a "girl band" doesn't make any sense.
It does not illustrate the topic well, because it does not actually show the topic in more than a few pixels. The image being there for a given amount of time is not an actual argument. Also, please sign your posts. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
”The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central.” relevant policy, Wikipedia:Image use policy. Kleuske (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Article is too Eurocentric

The article is too Eurocentric. Include some more examples of non-Caucasian light skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.36.93 (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

4 out of 5 pictures in this article is now non-European. That's diverse enough, as far as I see. —Srid🍁 16:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hanel & Carlberg graphic...wrong on blue eyes (sort of)

The Wikipedia graphic comes from this 2020 paper in Experimental Dermatology [1], showing an origin for blue eyes in the Middle East at ~42,000 bp. The key passage supporting this:

"Homo sapiens arrived in Europe from Near East some 42 000 years ago. Like in their African origin, these humans had dark skin but due to variations of their OCA2 gene (causing iris depigmentation) many of them had blue eyes"

Hanel & Carlberg are therefore basing their date and place of origin for blue eyes upon the following: (1) 42,000 bp being the split date between the earliest sapiens in Europe and the Middle East, and (2) iris depigmentation in many of those first Europeans right from the start.

In the first place, there are problems with taking a split date for populations and using it to pinpoint a specific mutation in time and space. (Not least when that split date will have been based on the Oase remains whose lineages did not survive and were not closely related to later Europeans.)

But the more crucial claim is that Anatomically Modern Humans carried alleles for blue eyes right from their first appearance in Europe. Hanel & Carlberg supply two sources for this striking statement: Fu et al. & Reich (2016) [2] and Günther et al. (2018) [3]. I am familiar with both but, on re-reading, still cannot find the basis for the claim. Am I missing something, or did Hanel & Carlberg misread their sources (or even make it all up)?

In the absence of evidence to back up their graphic, I would be inclined instead to place the origin of light eyes in relation to the (R1b-bearing) Villabruna Cluster, formed by a population movement out of the Middle East which mingled into Europe beginning at ~18,000 bp (leading to widespread population replacement from ~14,000 bp). Fu et al. in fact state that "a derived allele [of HERC2] that is the primary driver of light eye color in Europeans appears nearly simultaneously in specimens from Italy and the Caucasus ~14,000-13,000 years ago".

This means there is still a good possibility that light eyes could have originated in Anatolia or the Transcaucasus or even the plateau of Iran, during (or soon after) the Last Glacial Maximum. Gnostrat (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Re-write On Incorrect Light Skin Origin in Genetic Associations

Requesting a correction or a re-write on the inaccurate information regarding the SLC24A5 gene, as that is not the first, nor the only gene of influence on skin pigmentation, nor is it the earliest. The BNC2 gene predates it and has been found to influence light skin pigmentation. Crun31 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

[1]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

"Pale"

An IP editor is attempting to force the use of "pale" instead of "light" through the page. The name of this page is "Light skin" so "light" is obviously the preferred term to use. "Fair" is sometimes used in sources (eg [4]) so might be an option if variation is required. A quick Google of "pale skin" shows is generally only used to indicate illness or a temporary variation from an individual's normal skin colour, so it's not really justified to use as the go-to adjective in this article, Tobus (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

“Fair skin” is not appropriate

To use “fair” to refer to light skin is to ascribe positive bias to light skin, and it is not appropriate to only allow the use of “fair” to refer to light skin and not allow “deep” to refer to dark skin despite being in common usage.

I’ll refer to the editors this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia 2A00:23EE:1720:74FD:F42C:C804:7E52:A860 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
  • Why it should be changed:
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

2A00:23EE:19F8:84EF:ECBF:7A51:E461:A95B (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(15)01259-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867415012593%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#relatedArticles 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_skin

The use of “fair” in the “Light skin” page is of racist usage used as positive bias towards light skin, while “deep skin” was not eligible for use in the “Dark skin” page despite common usage in society.

For the fragile “editors”, I’ll refer you to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Note that "fair" is only mentioned once in this article, and is specifically qualified as having differing meanings based on region. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

White skin was formed in Ancient Europe

Where is the middle west, south and north. It would have taken a much colder climate than what the north eastern African area was offering during the last ice age. Much further north into ancient Europe is where white skin was created. 2600:1700:4020:5F00:B930:D525:435C:3C61 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Complete and utter lies. You have no proof to show. 2607:FB91:1624:4F1C:AC39:5F71:7FC4:FC0C (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Find better images?

I remember there being entirely different images years ago on this page, better than what is currently used. 2607:FB91:1624:4F1C:AC39:5F71:7FC4:FC0C (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Light_skin/Archive_1&oldid=1222763244"