This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 2 years ago34 comments4 people in discussion
Having committed the grevious sin of not seeing a request to "take this to the talk page" before removing a fictional source from the history section, please allow me to make ammends by saying it here:
The Alexander Romance is not a historical source. If you want to put a fictional source in a section about the 'history' of heterochromia, this is intrinsically misleading. As it is worded now, it is still intrinsically misleading. Why on earth a fictional detail about one person only merits such attention is a mystery, but perhaps the real issue is why that section is labelled as "history" rather than "3 bits of random trivia".Endlesspumpkin (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, fictional depictions of historical characters don’t belong in that section. I don't think historical examples ought to be listed in there either since there's already a separate page for notable people with heterochromia. Maybe the Aristotle reference could be folded in elsewhere? CaribouFanfare (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Poor logic. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Care to explain how? Consensus seems to be otherwise. CaribouFanfare (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Please see my extensive argument below. Urselius (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This article is a disaster and I don't really want to touch it. That said, there seem to be enough examples that are verified that there's no need to mention a historically-dubious example. The gallery and the history section should be merged into something with more prose and fewer photos, and the "Misattribution" section should probably disappear as part of that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Charmingly expressed! You would then propose that all mention of Elizabeth I's alleged life-long virginity be expunged from all scholarly works? This is the basis of your argument, that anything dubious as fact needs to be supressed. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you an administrator? Urselius (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Let me contextualise the development of the article and why I introduced a historical element. I personally know two people, one with complete heterochromia, and one with sectorial heterochromia. When I first came across the article I was horrified, it essentially said that heterochromia was principally the result of clinical syndromes, caused by genetic abnormalities, with rather serious health implications and also the result of 'inbreeding'. Knowing that the vast majority of human heterochromia was entirely benign, very rare, and not the result of inbreeding, I wanted to make the article less potentially traumatising to anyone with heterochromia who happened to come across it. I consider that this was a humane and laudable thing to do. I therefore added information to that effect, with much delving in obscure journals to obtain relevant citations - rather a lot of work to be dismissed as 'a disaster'. In addition, I sought to contextualise and normalise to some extent, the condition, by adding historical references - these were originally in the lead, another editor created the section that houses them now. In this context, I thought that the reference to Alexander the Great being described as having this ocular condition was useful, as he is a very well-known figure. In my opinion, the absolute historical accuracy of this assertion is unknowable, but this is entirely irrelevant, it is sufficient that an ancient source mentions it. Much as the miracles ascribed to the relics of saints may not be factual, the mere recording of them renders them valid in the encyclopaedic treatment of any saint. Urselius (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I would also add that the Alexander Romance, while not a 'serious' history has immense literary and cultural value, being historically translated into Coptic, Ge'ez, Byzantine Greek, Arabic, Persian, Armenian, Syriac, Hebrew and most medieval European vernaculars. Urselius (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Proposal. There is some information available about cultural references to heterochromia - such as being able to look into the 'spirit world'. As the major objection to the inclusion of Alexander is on purely historical grounds, I propose that the section be renamed 'In history and culture" and that I research some other cultural and literary examples, as the reference to Alexander is more literary and cultural than historical. Urselius (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems like you took people editing this a tad personally. A historical section should probably focus more on the development of knowledge of heterochromia: what did Aristotle say about it, apart from mentioning it existed, and giving it a name? (any non-western sources that could be added, as well?). No one is disputing that the Alexander Romance has some cultural value, but, if you know much about the scholarship on Alexander's appearance, you know it's not treated as a historical source by the vast majority of scholars, which is very much how it's (still) framed here. Even saying 'no other source mentions it' suggests that this is actually a historical source for the claim. If you insist on using it, perhaps contextualise it - note that two divergent editions of the text exist, and that the description of his eyes is immediately followed by a description of him as having sharp, snake-like teeth. I think that should give people sufficient context for how they should treat the source. One only needs to google listicles of people with heterchromia it's very obvious that most people do not realise that the Alexander Romance isn't a reliable source, so if we care about presenting sources acurately, this is clearly something that requires more care than one might initially think necessary. If you want to expand it to 'culture' you could include the explanation that the description was in all likelihood part of an effort to make him seem super-human: part of mythologising him and making him seem superhuman. In general I would advise against using medical articles (especially ones from the last century) as sources for history. Doctors are notoriously bad at understanding how they should treat historical sources, and thus contributed to much disinformation about such things. Given that there's already a separate page that lists famous people with the condition, I'd suggest that a 'culture' approach should focus on what it was taken to represent in various cultures/how it was utilised in literature, rather than listing who had it.
If you have read why I started editing this page you might appreciate my sensitivity on the subject. You make some useful suggestions. The inclusion of the first recorded mention of a, for want of a better term, 'medical condition' is quite standard. For this reason alone, Aristotle should stand. The existence of lists on Wikipedia does not invalidate select inclusion within relevant articles. Personally, I dislike having to jump between articles all the time. Alexander having odd eyes has become part of popular culture, there is a reconstruction of his appearance on Youtube at the moment that depicts him thus. This should be addressed in any encyclopaedic treatment, if only because 'it is out there'. Urselius (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Everyone here wants to make this article better. Please try to keep that in mind and assume good faith. As to Alexander the Great, though, do you have other citations for him being popularly depicted with heterochromia? Some more sources could tighten up that section better than adding more historic information, I think, if his inclusion is important to you. As is I'm worried the line "it is used to emphasize the otherworldly properties of the hero" and the addition of Pliny the Elder equating heterochromia with the evil eye unintentionally serve to increase stigma instead of reducing it. CaribouFanfare (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Endlesspumpkin wanted the addition about Alexander's otherworldly attributes - re his mention of 'pointed teeth'. I was merely accommodating that. The pressure from Endlesspumpkin was for more material, as the section was very limited. There are remarkably few useful references to heterochromia concerning history and culture, I think that one scholarly reference is sufficient to cover a couple of sentences. The inclusion of Pliny is only stigmatic if you believe in ancient Roman superstition, or its descendants. I tried to find a credible source for Native American beliefs but could not find one. Urselius (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think User:EndlessPumpkin was pressing for more material—I was under the impression that we’d both prefer removing that section entirely but were trying to find some compromise since you wanted to keep the Alexander Romance reference in. CaribouFanfare (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I provided another reference for Alexander, as requested by yourself. I am unsure as to EndlessPumpkin's desires, as he/she stated that one of the motivations for removing the section was that it was too short for a stand-alone section. In general, I do get tired of people rocking up to things I have spent some effort on - just look at how citation dense the section is - trashing them in various ways and then I have to scurry round producing endless cited examples. It is wearying in the extreme. Urselius (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
You can't be sensitive to criticism even when it's a page you've invested a lot in. No one is trying to criticise you personally, even if it feels that way. If the reason Aristotle is there is because it's the oldest reference you can find to heterochromia, then that needs to be stated. Aristotle having commented on something is not in itself, noteworthy. Citation density and citation quality are two separate things, but the 'density' of the citations in that section isn't abnormal for what I'd expect to find in a section dealing with history/literature/culture. And finding the necessary citations can indeed be tiring, but it's necessary and expected. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I have now read the Alvar Nuño article used a source for the following statements: "The Roman poet Ovid ascribed the 'double pupil', interpreted as being heterochromia, or possibly a different condition, to the witch Dipsas. The Roman jurist and writer Cicero also mentions the same feature being found in some Italic women. Pliny the Elder equated this feature with the concept of 'the evil eye'."
The article is about a folk-condition of 'double pupils', and explains that the 'double pupils' (a condition that does not actually exist) was associated with the ability to cast the evil eye. One scholar, Kirby Flower Smith, in 1902, argued that this should be interpreted as heterochromia, but "this theory was refuted some years later by W. B. McDaniel..." The article is just mentioning that this one scholar suggested it was heterochromia, and that others have disagreed (the article author favours McDaniel's approach, too). McDaniel's suggestion is that it was Coloboma Iridis (which, without reading the articles of Smith and McDaniel, does rather make more sense). Based on this I would suggest that the use of the passive needs to be revised in the above quote from the article -interepreted by whom? If there's only one scholar from 1902 arguing as such, then the current formulation is, I would argue, misleading in the priority it is giving to that interpretation above the others that reject it.
There is a general uncertainty, which is discussed in the reference, as to what ancient Greek and Latin terms related to the eye meant. The possibility, stated in the reference, that the terms referred to heterochromia, not only complete heterochromia, I might add, is sufficient if a caveat is included, which it is. Melanistic spots can occur on the iris, a form of sectoral heterochromia, that can mimic a second iris, as can coloboma, so the condition is not entirely folkloric. Urselius (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
There is some uncertainty, and a minority opinion. You have represented that minority opinion as if it is more than the opinion of one scholar. You have not provided the evidence that it is. The condition that they are referring to is folkloric. The fact that you can find a real life condition that is similar is irrelevant. At this point maybe it would be best to get someone else involved. It's evident that this is not the kind of material you're used to dealing with, and yet you're positioning yourself in such a way that only your interpretation of an article can be the correct one. This is not a good faith attempt to improve the article. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
You are labouring under a misapprehension about how Wikipedia works. In the manner of Elizabeth I's virginity, an assertion does not have to be factually correct and does not need to have unambiguous support to be included. As long as an assertion has support from a reputable secondary source it is valid. If the source gives caveats and asserts uncertainty, this should be reflected, but an in-depth treatment of this is not required for a single sentence or several. Indeed interpretation of the intention of secondary source material is essentially 'own research'.
Please stop with the passive-aggressive nonsense. And please stop going on about Elizabeth I's virginity. Caring about whether you're accurately representing your sources is not a misapprehension about how wikipedia works (or should work). The source you have used, does express caveats. The author of the source and McDaniel, who they cite, express those caveats. The very source you are using contains twice as many opinions of scholars who don't think you can call it heterochromia as do think you can call it that. There is nothing to interpret here. This is just fact. You are giving more weight to the source that supports what you want than those that do not. Here: "The Roman poet Ovid, in the Ars Amatoria, describes the witch Dipsas has having 'double pupils'. Kirby Flower Smith has suggest that this could be understood as heterochromia, though other scholars disagree.". This is an accurate summary of what your source says.Endlesspumpkin (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I suppose: "It's evident that this is not the kind of material you're used to dealing with, and yet you're positioning yourself in such a way that only your interpretation of an article can be the correct one", is not passive-aggressive? 'Pot calling the kettle black', I would suggest. The article concerns heterochromia, therefore things concerning heterochromia are more relevant than other things. In an article on cheese, an assertion that popular folklore suggested that the Moon was made of green cheese, would not require a detailed description of what it is actually made of, a mere mention that this is untrue would suffice. Urselius (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not. I maintain that it seems very clear that this is not the type of source material you are used to dealing with. That's not in any way an insult. There's nothing insulting about not being familiar with a type of source material. You've been consistently aggressive throughout this whole ordeal. The sentence as it stands now misrepresents the source you use. How historians and scholars have interpreted ancient sources is not a matter of popular folklore. Unless you have a reasonable objection to my proposed emendation, I will change it.Endlesspumpkin (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Ten minutes or the full half-hour? As aggressive as removing an entire article section, that had obviously taken some effort as evidenced by the citations, without first advertising your intention on the talk page? As aggressive and dismissive as that? Urselius (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
You're still taking that personally. It was a tiny section, and no, it wasn't obvious it had taken any effort at all, which is why I was happy to remove it. It was three unrelated facts, without any context. And removing material that you don't think serves to better the article in any discernable way is neither aggressive nor dismissive. Wikipedia doesn't function on the idea that you need to check every edit first incase your edit hurts someone's feelings. You've not objected to the change, so I'm going to make it.Endlesspumpkin (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this sentence: "Greek mythology contains a tradition that the Thracian Thamyris (son of the nymph Argiope), who was famed for his musical abilities, had one iris black and the other grey." If the earliest source for this claim is, as McDaniel seems to suggest, Eustathius, then it cannot be claimed that this is a tradition contained in Greek mythology. Thamyris is a mythological figure of Greek mythology, but Eustathius is writing a commentary on the Iliad in the twelfth century CE. However, it seems that Eustathius didn't say that Thamyris had one iris black and the other grey. The word he uses is ὀφθαλμός - eye. McDaniel seems to think that in this case it very probably is referring to the iris, but the sentence as it stands now is false in this claim, too - the source does not say that he had different coloured irises. It seems this might also be the case with Anastasius, too, but I don't have time to check the sources on that right now. I'll see if I can find some more recent sources that discuss this material, too, though if Alvar Nuño is having to draw on McDaniel and Flower Smith for an article in 2012, there might not be much. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The reference baldly states that the Byzantine author was working from Greek mythological tradition. The reference uses the wording "one iris black and the other grey". Urselius (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The actual greek is in the footnote. You can check it. I have shown you the word that is used. There is nothing to dispute here. The source for the claim that "Greek mythology claims" is an article which refers to a twelfth century writer, Eustathius, writing a commentary on the Iliad (actual greek source material). There is nothing to dispute here, the source simply does not say what you are claiming it does. "Eustathius reports that there is a tradition" is emphatically not the same as "Greek mythology contains a tradition that..." The reference is discussing whether it could be the iris that is being referred to. So what's actually the case is this: a scholar has written an article, in which he quotes a 12th century commentator on the Iliad. That commentator reports that he knows of a tradition in which a character in the Iliad has one eye grey and the other black. Even in McDaniel's translation of Eustathius he uses the word 'eye', not iris. McDaniel then discusses whether this wording could be taken to refer to the colour of the Iris. This information - from the source you are using - is in no way reflected in the current wording of the sentence. I'm sorry that this material is just not as simple as you want it to be, but as it stands, this sentence is straight-up lying. There is no source that reports that in Greek mythology there was a tradition that Thamyris had one iris black and the other grey. It's really not hard to correct this, and yet, it currently feels like you're the only person allowed to edit the actual page. So here's what I'd suggest: "The twelfth-century scholar Eustathius, in his commentary on the Iliad, reports a tradition in which the character of Thamyris has one eye that is grey, whilst the other is black. McDaniel suggests that this should be interpreted as heterochromia." This would be an accurate reflection of what the source actually states. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, OK, that's fine. But your assertion that 'eye colour' when applied to humans means anything other than iris colour is pure sophistry. Urselius (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
No it's not. It's clear from the sources you provided that there is speculation that it refers to the pupil and conditions that would make one pupil appear cloudy (grey). This can be explained by something as simple as cataracts. You could have simply asked what other alternative explanation there could be rather than just jumping to accusing me of "sophistry".Endlesspumpkin (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
From my recent addition on Anastasius, it seems that to the Late Romans/Early Byzantines a description of dikoros, 'double pupil', could encompass complete heterochromia. Urselius (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Great. That doesn't contradict anything either of us have said.Endlesspumpkin (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
It does suggest that to the ancient mind terms which in the literal sense mean 'double-pupil' could alternatively mean complete heterochromia. This has, I think, implications on the interpretation of the 'double-pupil' in the Roman texts being entirely without a physical basis. Urselius (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
It suggests that by the Early Byzantine period it could be used in that sense. It does not suggest it could be understood that way in earlier sources. Indeed, some of those sources make it very clear it cannot be understood that way.Endlesspumpkin (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I had not spotted that the translation of 'dikoros' used in the article in relation to Anastasius was incorrect: in ancient Greek, koros (as in dikoros) was form of κόρη (kore or kori) meaning eye pupil, not eye iris, the eye pupil could also be termed γλήνη. This was the understanding I had when pointing out the description of Anastasius as 'dikoros', meaning 'double-pupiled', being equated by Malalas with complete heterochromia. Urselius (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
"... Three true colors in human eyes that determine the outward appearance: brown, yellow, and grey...
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
OK, if this statement is indeed true, can someone please post an explanation as to how BLUE eyes occur? And GREEN, if it is not blue + yellow?
Old_Wombat (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The amount of melanin made by body decides the eye color. The least melanin makes blue color and most make brown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennoliver12 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Lead image
Latest comment: 7 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Per suggestion of @MarioJump83 in his edit summary, I'm bringing this to the talk page. I think it would be best to use this image of Max Scherzer as the lead image of this article as opposed to this image of a cat. This is a condition that occurs in humans and nonhuman animals. I can't think of a reason not to use an anthropocentric lead image. This is an encyclopedia designed to be read by humans after all.
Take, for example, the lead image on the Rabies article. That is a condition associated more strongly with nonhuman animals yet the lead image is of a human with rabies. The lead images for bone fracture show a human's broken bone even though nonhuman animals certainly break bones. The lead image for cancer shows a human's CT scan even though nonhuman animals certainly get cancer.
The Max Scherzer image is as clear a photograph of as distinct a case of heterochromia in a human there is on the Commons. I can't see why it shouldn't be used. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I think this image should be better used instead:
I oppose using Max Scherzer as the choice, since I don't think we should use a photo of American baseball player lest we will be more US-centered already (a systematic problem in English Wikipedia). I have already gone ahead and used this picture. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
His nationality has nothing to do with anything. I'm confused as to why that should matter. You don't have to know or care who the guy is; the article isn't about him. While there's nothing wrong with the image you've proposed, I think the Scherzer example works better because it's a clearer contrast, like the current cat image. Would it make you happier if we used a closer crop of the eyes? That way he's unidentifiable? Like this? Again, I don't see what difference his identity makes but let me know if this is for some reason better.
I agree that it should be about image quality, not nationality - which is irrlevant to this issue. I also suspect many readers have no idea who Max Scherzer is, and don't care either whatever his nationality.Sbishop (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I feel like this image is a good compromise between the two; the contrast is greater and it's not of a(n) (american) personality. The Blue Rider 21:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
21:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
