Talk:Human skin color/Archives/2009/July

Confusing pictures
For some reason Jóhanna appears to be paler than MacNiven in the pictures displayed. I have already changed the picture of Berry for the same reason, and I would fix this myself, but there isn't any other picture of either Jóhanna or MacNiven on Wikipedia. If we can't find free pictures of them in which MacNiven is paler, maybe we can use a different person altoghether for one of those two examples? -- A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 10:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is too much empathsis on finely distinguishing the most subtle differences in skin tone with white and light skinned people. I think we should focus less on that, and more on the other skin tones, especially the darkest ones. --Panehesy (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We're just reporting Fitzpatrick's 1975 classification (and there already is a disclaimer about what you say). Per WP:NOR, we shouldn't invent our own classification; but if you can find an already published scale with finer divisions in the dark end of the spectrum, that's fine. (And this scale was designed "For practical purposes, such as exposure time for sun tanning"; so, there's no point in making distinction beyond the level "so dark that they wouldn't even burn in they stayed the whole day in the sun without any protection whatsoever". FWIW, I am somewhat paler than Zidane (but much darker than Federer) and haven't used sunscreens for ages; my father is paler than that, and sometimes he burns even with a sunscreen. So, from this POV, there is more difference within the group III than between IV and VI. Also hair and eyes: everyone from the darker half of group III onwards will have dark hair and eyes, but there's much greater variation between group I and the paler half of group III. But I digress. ) --A. di M. (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, the images in groups I-V are already somewhat darker than in the source. According to the test I'm type V (although I am somewhat paler than that gal in this period — have been too busy studying recently to get suntanned; and when I do spend much time in the sun, my hair gets somewhat less dark than hers). But she is much paler than Berry and probably even than Zidane. --A. di M. (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about reporting on Fitzpatrick's 1975 classification. And the declaimer is insufficient to warrant a POV on the article. You don't say "I am going to inaccurately describe the content of the article" as a disclaimer, then do so. Furthermore, you went out of your way to make sure only one black person is indicated, while you have 4 white people. Why? IN regards to sun tanning, darker skinned people tan also. I showed distinctions from the darkest to the middle, I made no effort to go beyond the darkest person on there. This nonsense about suntanning through the day is unrelated to the article and is ignored. The differences you see in Group III is not objective, it's based on your own subjective opinion. You're describing your personal experiences which is not a basis for contribution. So we cannot even use your digression as it does not address the objectivity. I do not know if I need another scale to balance against the obviously inbalanced scale, I will talk to an ADMIN to find out. --Panehesy (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The images are original research and unencyclopedic. This is not a place to highlight ones favorite stars. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the images. The result of using such images is quite predictable. Some users will be saying so and so isn't pale enough or isn't olive enough to be representative of the scale. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never intended to use my personal experience for the article itself. (FWIW stands for "for what is worth", and by using small type I intended to show that these statements shouldn't be given too much weight.) But see WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. If you don't like FitzGerard's classification, feel free to find another one, provided that it has been published in reliable sources. But don't make up your own classification. (Also, I don't know what you mean by "nonsense about suntanning through the day": if neither Mandela nor Seal burn in the sun, it makes little sense to distinguish between the two in a scale measuring the risks of sun exposure, even if Mandela is visibly paler. As for "no objective difference in Group III", I think most people in Italy are in that group, and yet there are obviously visible differences. Maybe that's not evident on the chart, but the difference between level 10 and level 15 of Von Luschan's scale are striking if you see two people of these colours near to each other. ) --A. di M. (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but in all fairness, it doesn't matter. You gave it much weight by putting so many pictures and detail in it and trying so hard to work through it. Instead of treating it as a fringe theory that it is. Just put a link to the scale instead of all of that work. The article is not a referendum in supporting the Fitzgerald/Fitzpatrick classification, and therefore it should not be given so much attention. All people will burn in the sun. The darkest person is still in danger of melanoma and that has been cited recently as a problem. It makes perfect sense because Fitzgerald's classification has nothing to do with suntanning or the danger of overexposure. He needs his own article because honestly, the one citation doesn't even describe the relevance. Finally, your wording is somewhat offensive. You speak of obvious differences between the skin color of Italians, yet speak also of the "little sense" it makes in distinguishing the two. Does it sound offensive if I say "it makes little difference to distinguish the slight variations among the Italians if they both burn in the hot sun anyway"? The differences between a 10 and 15 may be striking to you, but to me, the difference between Mandela and Seal are far more striking. This is an example of how a POV of one perspective is given more undeserved value than another all things being equal. We cannot do that here. --Panehesy (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction, Fitzpatrick's classification does deal with skin cancer, what it does not do however is make the racial links that are found in the article. In fact, Fitzpatrick describes the type 5 as being found among some blacks (which is omitted in the article here). It would seem logical that Type I and II found among whites, type III found among bi-racial people. Type IV and V found among blacks. That's neutral and closer to Fitzpatrick. The way it's interpreted however is very prejudiced and biased. [| Virginia.org] has a type, where by the time you're at type III you're still at "Cream" white. But this may be more of an indicator of the majority population and their necessary concerns about sun safety and their lack of understanding that all people must be safe in the sun, even darker colored people. --Panehesy (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Skin Tone Variability
The skin tone variability section is very skewed to a POV that is not objective. If you look at the basic skin tone from the lightest person in the scale to Hally Berry, there is a lot of focus on a small variation there. Yet from Hally Berry to Michael Jordan, there is an enormous jump exceeding the entire gamut previous. This is the result, clearly, of a racial point of view regarding "black" people who are uniformly lumped together without regard for their variation. It is unacceptable and non-scholarly to focus so much on the skin tones between whites to such a degree that the contributors here cannot even agree on who is the lightest, yet on the darker shade, you take one example, showing absolutely NO variation from the median hue to the darkest. Hally Berry is lighter than the middle ground complexion between the darkest and lightest. --Panehesy (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed it so the variation between the darkest four is varied as the lightest four. Although still, I find quite a bit of missing gaps in the darker hues. The fact is guys, there is a mental preoccupation to equate the darkest European (at least in this article) with the midground of the entire human race. This is not so. Unless you find some really dark Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards, you're perpetuating a racist legacy of keeping the European white people "pure" and unblemished by darkness, while simultaneously trying to fit a very unbalanced view of the entire human race in a manner as to give the white 50% of the measure. This is not scholarly, this is simply ethnocentricism. --Panehesy (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Or let me put it to you another way, the Von Luschan's scale as applied here is very biased towards expressing the delicate variations among whites while ignoring the much greater varations among blacks and others. If even they made an equal effort for blacks and others that would be at least an attempt, but that is not even attemtped. I look at the scale, and I see such minute detail in the lighter shade that it's almost comical in it's attempt to distinguish one tone from the next. While the last 6 or so darker tones make great leaps (relative to the light ones) from one shade to the next. This is not observably objective.

Simple question: Can anyone really see a gradual difference between 1 and 14? I can't. I can see variations but it averages out between 1-14. Now look at the last two dark shades. You can easily see how it jumps from dark brown to blue. Where is all of that delicate variation there? There certainly are humans who exhibit those variations in between. Yet they are not counted. That is due to a racist interpretation of human variation. I.E. It's assumed to be noticable in whites, and not blacks. Well I can see the clear difference here, and I can see it elsewhere.

--Panehesy (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Skin Colour and Perception Section
The Skin Colour and Perception section appears to be original research, and should be removed from the article, or referenced and (possibly) integrated into the rest of the article. twilsonb (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)