Talk:Albinism in humans

So, what, if any, IS the relationship between blondism and albinism then?
I have skimmed the article and the talk archive and have only found all sorts of irrelevant remarks about the subject of race, which (let's not forget that regardless of whether races exist or not, the phenotypical variations and the regional-ancestry-correlated morphological phenotypes – or groups of similar phenotypes – that form the basis of any racial classification do damn well exist) is completely unrelated to the undubitably real phenomenon of blondism – or light-hair-eyes-and-skin-in-Europeans-(that's-not-albinism)-ism, for want of a better term –, but no insight on the issue that I'm sure a lot of readers are wondering about: if H. sapiens sapiens was originally coloured some shade of brown, clearly many people in the north of Europe (to varying degrees) have a condition similar to albinism even if not quite as extreme (low-melanin-ism?), a condition that happens to be inherited recessively as well, so what exactly has happened and how is it related to albinism? Don't dance around the issue, swallow your political-correctness-caused inhibitions and get us the straight dope! Finally! What gives?!

For what it's worth, the German article states:

''Albinism is mostly inherited recessively and in humans worldwide occurs with a frequency (prevalence) of 1:20.000. Clusters are found above all in Africa with a prevalence of 1:10.000 and higher. The light skin colour of the Asians and Europeans is to explain by albinism of type OCA 4, the blond hair and blue eyes of the Europeans by OCA 2 and a further gene.''

So, from this, we learn that first yes, albinism is really more frequent in Africa, it's not simply an illusion caused by the higher visibility of albinism in dark-skinned "negroid" phenotypes, and second, light-skin-ism and light-hair-and-eyes-ism respectively are caused by some type of albinism genes, see OCA2 and the table in the German article. I see no reason to censor or omit such information for reasons associated with misunderstood political correctness. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The relationship is that albinism is usually a single-gene genetic trait causing variable phenotype hypopigmentation and low vision. Blondism is a multi-gene adaptation to low sunlight and low-fish diet lowering skin pigmentation and increasing vitamin D intake, possibly enhanced with sexual selection lowering both hair and eye iris pigmentation without damaging loss of RPE pigmentation levels. In Tanzania, the common OCA2 deletion mutation may be a heterozygous-advantage adaptation, but nobody knows what its actual purpose is. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of this isn't right; people are confusing genes with names like OCA2 and the medico-genetic conditions with the same and similar abbreviated names. Some of the genes that cause some forms of albinism are also "used" without ill effect in the phenotypic expression of the skin tones of Europeans and various Asian groups; others produce red hair, or light eyes, etc.. But this doesn't make these "racial" traits a form of albinism. The genes are named after the condition, not the other way around. By way of analogy, the entire zoological family Canidae is named after the genus Canis (Latin for dog), but not everything arising from that family is a dog; it includes foxes and jackals. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Some suggestions for this page
1)	Expand on the rare OCA forms inherited from one parent (genetics section). What are these rare forms? Does single-parent inheritance mean the parents are homozygous for the trait as well? How do these forms compare to the other OCA forms? 2)	Statistics on albinism prevalence throughout the world would be a great addition to this page! 3)	The hyperlink for OCA2 (genetics section) leads to a page with quite a bit of information on the OCA2 gene. The same cannot be said for the OCA1 link. Does anyone have any information on OCA1? This would benefit the main albinism page.

Quinones-betancourt.2 (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Albinism as biology?
As usual in these cases, we have an article which is 90% medical, and which does not even mention albinism in other organisms until one reaches the very bottom of the article. Albinism is a biological phenomenon, and human albinism is just one aspect of this phenomenon. Medicine is just one aspect of human biology. Biology should not be treated as a subset of medicine. Invertzoo (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the same argument the last time the title of this article came up (it was original Albinism in humans, and the article presently at Albinism in biology was at Albinism; the human article is a later split-off of that more general article. Anyone can propose another requested move if they think they can make a good case for reversing this situation. That said, there is no big emergency; the very top of this page has a hatnote that links prominently to Albinism in biology, and there's no evidence people are getting lost or confused.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand
"The prevalence of albinism in some ethnic groups in sub-Saharan Africa is around 1 in 5,000, while in Europe and the US it is 1 in 20,000.[15] It would follow, then, that there would be stronger selective forces acting on albino populations in Africa than on albino populations in Europe and the US. Rates as high as 1 in 1,000 have been reported for some populations in Zimbabwe and other parts of Southern Africa."

That seems like it should be the other way around. If it's more common in Africa wouldn't that imply there were weaker selective forces there (assuming that the text is referring to negative selection and not positive selection). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "assuming that the text is referring to negative selection and not positive selection" There you go. Maybe OCA2 heterozygous persons have some advantage in Africa, but not in Europe or US. It could also be, that the whole follow is OR. --84.250.122.35 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015
I wish to submit a new link on the external link 4 it does not work

Tomphiri (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to be more specific, what's the link? Doug Weller (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't bother. I assume it's your blog, and we rarely accept blogs, see WP:EL. The blog also contains copyright material from another source, and we don't link to sites with copyright violations. As for the original source, I don't see how the article adds to our article, and it's not by a recognised expert. Sorry about all this but I'll add some links to your talk page to help you edit. Doug Weller (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

✅ - By another - Arjayay (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture Caption Inaccuracy
The caption for this page reads, "An albino boy of black ethnicity". Please note that 'black' is not an ethnicity, it is a racial category. I would suggest a more accurate description, such as, "An albino boy of X ancestry". For instance, if he is American, the caption could read, "An albino boy of African-American ethnicity," or if he is from a country in Africa it could read, "An albino boy of Hausa/Zulu/Etc ethnicity". Please identify this boy's ethnicity and attend to this immediately, or find an alternatively acceptable and more accurate method for labeling this caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.134.120 (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albinism. 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/20090121145742/http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=14122 to http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=14122

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Persecution of people with albinism
I know we have a separate article about Persecution of people with albinism, so I will put the same on the talk page there as well. But it's likely that more people are watching this page here. Therefore, does anyone know about whether people with albinism have it "tougher" in African societies than in European ones? One would think so for various reasons, one being that it is not so ovbivous in a society with mostly white skinned people. Second one being that the sunburn issue is not such a big one. But do we have anything beyond a gut feeling about this? If yes, would be good to add it in the society and culture section. EMsmile (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, just read that article. I think being hunted and murdered in large numbers by gangs of crazy witchdoctors qualifies as "having it tougher".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Albinism Database
Potential source:

Includes stuff we are not covering yet, and their genetic loci. Identifies: OCA1–4, HPS1–4, CHS, and OA1. Actively maintained as of this writing (some pages in it were updated within this week). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  14:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sunscreen info
I found a later version of "Facts About Albinism" (King, et al., 2004) with information on sunscreens and albinism that was missing in the previously cited version. It's already added in the article, for what it was originally cited for. It hasn't been used for sunscreen info or anything else yet. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Pictures need diversity
The extant photos are only showing people of African and New Guinean descent. Albinism often looks different (more yellowish) on people from dark-complected ethnicities, so a European and/or Asian should probably be re-added to the article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2018

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus overwhelmingly favors this well-reasoned move proposal. bd2412 T 01:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

– In the move discussion at Talk:Albinism (biology), while there was clear consensus to move Albinism in biology to Albinism (biology), there were also several comments that supported a move of Albinism→Albinism in humans and Albinism (biology)→Albinism. I am opening this request to discuss that move. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 15:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC) When you do a comparison of pageviews on all the qualified terms (albinism in biology, albinism in humans, etc.), you get the exact opposite result: readers are looking for the general topic. |Albinism_in_humans|Albinism_in_animals|Albinism_in_birds|Albinism_(biology)|Human_albinism  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Albinism → Albinism in humans
 * Albinism (biology) → Albinism
 * Comment Pinging all commenters at all the relevant previous discussions I could find (1, 2, 3, and 4), although I realize many may no longer be active on Wikipedia. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Support – it seems peculiar to have the narrower "in humans" topic as primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – I was never comfortable with the move of Albinism in humans to Albinism in the first place. It was predicated on the idea that every article should be about humans, the way Swimming is, and the animals article is Aquatic locomotion, Running is human-focused with Gait being generic, and so on. But these are cases were we have a separate term.  Some of our medical articles are mostly or completely focused on humans, with a veterinary side article, but they're conditions that affect humans frequently and which people are likely to want to look up for what's wrong with their mom. In other cases we seem to have no coverage at all of the condition in animals, e.g. Kidney failure is 100% human material, with no broader article, despite it being a leading cause of pet deaths; this isn't desirable, but an overall editorial over-sight, a product of who's writing the article and what their interests are (we don't seem to have a lot of veterinary editors).  Albinism is very common in many animal species but only affects about 1 in 18,000 humans. And it's not a condition you can contract like the flu, or give yourself like cirrhosis.  I would think the condition itself, not its manifestation in humans, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Albinism → Albinism in humans, oppose Albinism (biology) → Albinism, see below. Andrewa (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Albinism (the medical condition in humans) is the primary topic in my view, and it has |Albinism_in_biology 120 times more pageviews. jamacfarlane (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's abuse of statistics; when the general topic's name dumps everyone at the page about humans, that that the pageviews will be maxed at that page.  You're reversing cause and effect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but if people were looking for the general topic, surely they would click through to find it, and the pageviews for the general topic would be higher, so the difference would be 3-4 times, not 120, as there would be one extra view of Albinism for each intended view of the article for biology/animals/birds. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (and strongly reject the idea of dab page). There's only one topic here, a genetic disorder affecting many animals including humans. For a while, the article at Albinism was about that disorder, until it was split into articles about human- and non-human forms. Therefore, albinism in humans is a subtopic thereof, not a separate one. Jamacfarlane's point about pageviews is an important one, but the current setup is simply illogical (and, at the mentioned Swimming RM, it was similarly pointed out that Swimming (sport) has much more pageviews; well yes, but still it's a subtopic). No such user (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support making the article about it in just humans the primary one doesn't really make sense, the more fundamental and broad nature makes a lot more sense to fill that role.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 20:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Waddie96 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per few others. -- GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
It seems to me that when people refer to albanism they mostly mean the human condition, that being most newsworthy, cropping up from time to time in human interest stories in the media. Animals on the other hand go by the name albino, to refer to albanism in that context would be seen as rather stuffy and pedantic, while to refer to a person as an albino could be at least mildly offensive, instead we say they suffer from albanism.
 * I see there are two spellings of the term, albinism and Albanism. The first is far more prevalent, and is what is used in ICD10 so I would propose albinism is kept even if other changes are made. jamacfarlane (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

We have two articles:
 * human albinism or albinism in humans, currently at albanism
 * Correction, this is currently at Albinism (note spelling difference I've highlighted above) jamacfarlane (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * albino also redirects there (which seems just plain wrong to me)
 * albinism in nature or albinism (biology)

As I said previously, I think we should disambiguate both articles. This will get most readers to the article they want by the shortest path. Andrewa (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aside from "albanism" not being a word in English (that's a typo redirect), this idea of a meaning/referent bifurcation is pure original research/supposition, not supported by actual facts. "Albino" is simply the older, less technical adjective (albinistic being the newer, more technical one).
 * Albinism: . It's used generically about humans, lab rats, etc.  There is no basis for the idea that it's a special human-referent word.
 * Albino: . Very frequently used in reference to people in the mainstream press. However, the usage is slowly starting to take on the character of a politically incorrect epithet when used this way; the polite term is person/people with albinism or albinistic person/people.
 * That last bit, however, is a reason that Albino and Albinos shouldn't redirect to an article focused on humans, that the main article on the topic should be the generic one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite correct, I did mean albinism, consistently!
 * There is no basis for the idea that it's a special human-referent word. Agree. That is not what I said at all.
 * Very frequently used in reference to people in the mainstream press. Interesting... Your first few hits are all from Africa, the next one is objecting to the use of the term. Then comes a chipmunk. I think this supports the idea that this term shouldn't be restricted to other animals, or to human beings... which is what I was saying. Disambiguate both.
 * Certainly agree that the main article on the topic should be the generic one. But that's not the same thing as saying it should be at the base name. And your evidence suggests otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, no it doesn't. And see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  We do not disambiguate without a reason to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't? Your evidence suggests that both words (albino and albinism) are commonly used in both senses. This is not proof that we should disambiguate, but to say that it doesn't suggest it seems rather strange. It's evidence, and should be part of the decision, not just dismissed.
 * We do not disambiguate without a reason to do so. Agree.
 * And BTW, it seems that we might both have been wrong in thinking "albanism" not being a word in English. It happens. But I did mean to type albinism, you got that much right.
 * The bottom line is just what will best assist readers. With various strong opinions among editors as to what these terms most commonly and naturally mean, it's not a trivial question (and that is a reason to disambiguate). Andrewa (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't suggest what you think it does, because these are not separate topics with a coincidentally overlapping name like Register (sociolinguistics) and Register (music). The one is a subtopic of the other, and we don't do WP:SUMMARY / WP:SPLIT / WP:SPINOFF by disambiguating the name of the main topic. It's the drill-down subtopics that get disambiguated names (via natural disambiguation when feasible). PS: Someone thinking "albanism" is a legit spelling doesn't make it so; the source cited does not include that spelling, nor do any major dictionaries I've checked. It's just a common typo. I did encounter it as a typo in the headings of two ostensibly reliable sources, but they used "albinism" in their main texts, and it seems to have been an error of whoever webbified the articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biology
Albinism genetic disorder 124.107.103.202 (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)