Talk:Olive skin

people with real olive skin
Why put pictures of people with sun-tanned skin who don't have natural olive skin? there should rather be put people with true natural olive skin... Gisele Bündchen and Cristiano Ronaldo have nothing to do here Nh (Nh) 18:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.245.211.111 (talk)

origin of term
The term olive skin came from the idea of olive oil which is quite yellow in colour,not the actual olive itself, which is green.
 * Interesting... I always assumed that the olive in olive skin referred to black or brown olives, since it would be very odd to see someone with green skin tone. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

??? Yellow? There is surely some sort of stereotyping involved here. Show me a photo of a healthy person with naturally "yellow" skin. Every case I've ever seen called "yellow" is not. We need to use literal, objective definitions here, not old stereotypes and labels (unless clearly explained as such).136.181.195.29 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have a naturally yellow skin tone. Its extremely olive, and I have to add yellow pigment to my foundations in order to match. As for your stereotype comment, I'm not Asian so saying "yellow skinned" doesnt have to be a stereotype, it's just factul in some cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B129:3AD7:C49F:1C31:95EB:18CC (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree true olive complexion would be brown to black since there are know known green people and yellow means jaundice. Over the years there have been various attempts to hide eye witness descriptions of Hebrews & Israelites. I wouldn't be surprised if the term "olive skin was transferred to attributes of a lighter skin people who entered the middle east after the Greeks conquered and intermarried the people of the region and they became lighter in skin complexion.  I believe once it did describe the brown to black people who truly have olive complexions.

Photo
I think it would be useful to have a photo of the aforementioned skin tone. Any contributors? Karatorgai (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article included a photograph, but it has been removed. 18:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Map?
The new map Image:Worldskincolormap.png lacks a source, which is not good.

Also, I don't see any discussion here of the revert war, which is worse William M. Connolley (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * unfourtanetly me and the other editor made no effort to resolve the issue in a civil matter--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The source, if I'm not mistaken, is the "Geographic Distribution of Environmental Factors influencing Human Skin Coloration, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125:292-302". Hope this helps. Cheers 89.243.56.221 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, that is the source claimed. But the "updated 2007" is suspicious... clearly this isn't being uploaded from the paper. I find... http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/skin-colour-map-indigenous-people to be the source. Having the real source throws up a couple of problems: the authorship does not seem to be that claimed, so the work-of-US-govt license appears to be wrong (I'm not a licensing expert; to my eye that page implies they wouldn't mind you using it, providing a correct ref is given (they provide examples) but the ref we're using now is wrong). And this isn't a map of actual skin colour: its the colour predicted by a certain model. I don't see any support at all for The 3rd and 4th lightest colors are representative of lighter and darker shades of olive skin William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ws/O: please use this talk page to discuss your differences over exclusion or inclusion of the map. Any more reverting without discussion will be frowned upon William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly think a map which deals with global skin color distribution is relevent to a page on erm... a skin color. [WP:NPA removed. Last warning]. Obahliskh (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have asserted that the map is PD on grounds that are unclear to me. Please expand. Also please deal with the question of whether its a map of observations of model results William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You yourself found the source.
 * Using the graphics and referring to them is encouraged, and please use them in presentations, web pages, newspapers, blogs and reports.
 * For any form of publication, please include this link:
 * http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/skin-colour-map-indigenous-people
 * Please give the cartographer/designer/author credit (in this case Emmanuelle Bournay, UNEP/GRID-Arendal) and give full recognition to the data sources used in the graphic
 * Obahliskh (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the same as it being PD William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But it is still allowed to be used on Wikipedia per the permission given. Obahliskh (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't clear. Simply declaring it PD isn't good enough. You may need to go to the trouble of contacting the author, or asking the wiki permissions experts William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You have not sorted out all issues that i raised and administrator above did, please stop pov pushing adding maps that give no info on olive skin is useless particular when there is no sourced key to identify olive complexion,This article is a targeted article pertaining to olive complected skin not a general skin color article also please seek a consensus to add controversial content to wikipedia articles,also i have no problem with the inclusion of the map if you can point out from the source for the map in which it explains the distubution of olive complected people, the map you are adding would be best served here Human skin color not in this article in which you already added there--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you drop the "pov" stuff and stick to the point of substance: which I take to be: does this map actually provide useful information about the distribution of olive skin tones? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The map itself does not come with a key aligning names to the colors. However, it would be possible to simply display the map with a caption underneath backed up by another source, stating something along the lines of: "World map showing indigenous skin colors. Olive skin tones tend to run from the Mediterranean/Middle East to Asia1".
 * 78.151.108.65 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

there is a source there stateing the distribution of olive skin ,i dont know how that would work in pertaining to the map in question which is a general skin color map, we also have stear clear of sterotype and go with what sources say the source there now says that olive skin can be found in all regions of europe middle east and north africa also because olive skin is not a singular skin tone it various i mean take peneleope cruz for instance who was added to the article by another editor is on the very light side of olive complextion scale and would be more in line skin color wise with another non olive skin european rather than with a dark olive complected person from say Saudi Arabia and idea--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

distribution
none of the sources sited describe a small population in scandinavia with this skin tone it just says it can be found in this region as well ,also i just changed the middle east which is a geo political terminology which may leave some meditreanean countries out, to a more purely geography terms the meditreanean includes north africa,southern europe,and west asia also the source there sites it can be found in other parts of of asia, check your own source and work to a compromise i did not elinmate any of your points but sections can be re written in a better manner articles are ever evolving--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the middle east is a better term, *sigh*. All Mediterranean countries are included in the sentence: This type of skin is mostly associated with the Mediterranean - in Southern Europe and the Middle East. The middle east is no more geopolitical than the idea of "west asia", considering that there is technically no non-political division between Europe and Asia.
 * 1) Your version erased the original meaning of why the asian skin tone was mentioned. You phrased it in such a way that it was read as to suggest that it was as infrequent in those parts of Asia as in Scandinavia; where it is not. The skin tone is found only rarely in Scandinavia, as indicated by the very source in there, which shows the main countries it is associated with, and then those parts of Europe where it is lesserly found.
 * 2) Please learn to use our language properly. Sentences begin with a capital letter, and punctuation is followed by a space.
 * 78.146.109.200 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

the source sites it can be found in all ethnicities(there is no need to mentions numbers be it big or small unless sources make specific reference) and scandinavia is mentioned offhand to show range of the skin tone which fits outside the sterotypical range and its at the end of the paragraph which of course puts less of an emphasis on scandinavia without taking to much liberties with what references say also the term Middle East can leave out most north african countries better to be more geographic specific--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * also other parts of asia is mentioned before scandinavia and the way you put it did not have much as an emphasis on other parts of asia either and there is not a strong asociation of olive skin with east asians for instance in general society just as there is not one with northern europeans with olive skin but sources say it can be found in regions outside of the meditreanean which is southern europe west asia and north africa--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"This type of skin is mostly associated with the Mediterranean - in Southern Europe,West Asia and North Africa - although similar skin tones can be found in other parts of Asia and in other regions of europe such as Scandinavia"

above is the way i put together the paragraph from sources notice the emphasis on the mediteranean which you had added than it states what the mediterranean is west asia north africa and southern europe than it goes into places where it is less frequent such as other parts of asia than where it is even less frequent such as northern europe what is the issue the only thing i want left out is "small population numbers" statement because it is uneeded and is poorly written to overly emphasise a pov and use the direct geographic regions of the meditreranean region in which the term middle east may leave out certain north african countries--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not address my points in any way. And again, please try to use some degree of literacy - it really would help your case. 78.146.109.200 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

i addressed every issue you stated or point out what i did not address and please no personal attacks my speedy typing is plenty ledgable unless your being silly and trying to combine several paragraph edits i made to this talk page as one singular read, i did indent also many editors who dont want to compromise tend to change the subject to such petty things such as talk page grammar--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * point out what i did not address; I just did - all of it.
 * And it is not an attack - I am telling you to use Wikipedia's own formatting style on talk pages - it's not something I am telling you to do simply for my own preferences (although one must admit that looking at your grammatical hodgepodge drives horror to the eye). 78.146.109.200 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

okay i tried to compromise but your more interested with gramatical talk page issues rather than the subject matter your bordering on bad faith in oppostion to my good faith attempt to resolve this, i made some request and you came back with nothing but sarcasm and snide remarks. i will ask you one more time i am willing to come to a compromise if you will come back with an idea to clear up both your concerns and mine in reference to this portion of the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * your trying to overly de emphasize scandinavia when that was put there to show olive skin tones ranges outside the sterotypical range of the skin tone according to sources and as i said middle east is considered by many a eurocentrist political term but mainly the hard term middle east leaves out algeria for instance which is a controdiction to the first sentence that it's mostly associated with the meditreanean--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am trying to show that olive skin is not the typical tone in scandinavia.
 * And no, have a look at what the middle east is:
 * 78.147.30.206 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

is scandinavia in the meditreanean?

also you just confirmed my point with the middle east ,north african countries outside of egypt are not always included in the defintion of the midle eat that is what i stated earlier--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, oh yes, Scandinavia is obviously in the Mediterranean. Jesus, no wonder our education system is failing these days.
 * No, the middle east, as evidenced by the map, does cover all the forenamed areas. However, that is not my problem with what you are putting into the text. You keep POV pushing that Scandinavia is as equally associated with olive skin as the band across Asia.
 * 78.147.30.206 (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

duh well if scandinavia is not in the meditreanean than how is it being shown that its common in scandinavia--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see your point. Anyway, I back the compromise you instated on the page - hopefully this is finally some middle ground. 78.147.30.206 (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

okay great--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, oh yes, Scandinavia is obviously in the Mediterranean. Jesus, no wonder our education system is failing these days."
 * I don't know where to begin. Anyone who states that Scandinavia is obviously in the Mediterranean is a prime example of the failure of our education system, since Scandinavia is not even close to being anywhere near the Mediterranean.  The Scandinavian Peninsula is shared by Sweden and Norway and, in a wider sense, the region called Scandinavia also includes Finland and Denmark and even Iceland.  It's northern Europe -- and the countries in Scandinavia, being so far to the north, are often referred to as the Nordic countries.  While you might find the extremely occasional person living in the Scandinavian who has an olive complexion, it wouldn't often be found.  In fact, the vast majority of Finns, Swedes, Norwegian and Danes are known for having very light complexions and a fairly large percentage of blonds.  The Mediterranean countries are in southern Europe, northern Africa and western Asia -- the countries that surround the Mediterranean Sea.  The Scandinavian countries (except for Iceland) are north of the Netherlands, Germany and Poland.  Mediterranean?  Not even close.Toddabearsf (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Pics
The pics being added must conform to the sources not our own pov it seems User:dindongacid believes that in his own pov that Victoria Beckham olive skin is the result of only a tan but ronaldo's is not can you please explain you're rationale on the talk page--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous sources that explicitly state that Victoria Beckham:
 * uses Fake tan
 * sun tans
 * However, the article you linked to about Ronaldo talks about a certain period, when he tanned - after the picture provided in the article was taken. All celebrities will have pictures of when they are tanned. The difference, is that for Ronaldo, this was a one time thing, whereas Victoria Beckham's was a long-term thing, which is why her skin tone is considered non-natural. I am going to remove the picture of Victoria Beckham altogether. I do not see what it contributes to the article, and would be more suitable at sun tanning anyway. Dingdongacid (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay dingdong acid i see what you did and i agree with just removing her and leaving ronaldo as is--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Victoria's Beckham skin isn't olive skin, because it's a sun tan. But what happened to the Cristian Ronaldo picture? (talk) 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Though in the future i would ask you to take to the talk page first before constantly changeing or reverting edits by other user that could be considered WP:Own --Wikiscribe (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you being serious? It's obvious you've heard someone use the WP:OWN term before, but have never really even checked what it means. I can't be bothered with you - you're a sockpuppeter that has been blocked numerous times, and who continues to disrupt, accuse others of sockpuppeting to conflate his opposition (to the point of accusing a checkuserist of being me!), and then saying that reverting you equals ownership. Also, after looking at one of your proven sockpuppets' contributions, it's obvious that you are capable of using legible English - so please do so. Dingdongacid (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dingdongacid i added an atypical person because we already have a typical person with olive skin from southern europe ,im not trying to be snide but wikipedia is not about WP:truth it about sources,now in my own opinion i think there should be no pics because it's all to subjective and WP:Random let me know what you think--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The pictures are helpful. I'm not so sure that with the current size of the article, having two is ideal, but it doesn't cause too much trouble. I have no issue with adding atypical cases - but my point is that they'd be more helpful once the article had grown. Also, have you read what WP:RANDOM is? Dingdongacid (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay the pics will stay but maybe we should move them to the bottom of the article in a gallery type format ,because i think it will look better instead of pics strude all over the place also in case you,me or other users want to add more pics ,let me know what you think--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My fault that is not a policy i can't find the policy i'm trying to cite about pics for aticles there are a alot of policies it gets hard to keep track of them all--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has only two images at this time so they seem better placed as they are right now. Wikipedia discourages  galleries  per WP:NOT also.—Sandahl (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God! Giselle Bündchen and Cristiano Ronaldo displaying their suntan on the pages of Wikipedia with references to some trivial sources. Is this The Sun or Daily Mirror? LMAO Behemoth (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Spaniards and Southern Europeans
I read here some old comments among Mediterraneans, etc, lumping together Southern Europeans with other Mediterraneans, etc. It is all the same kind of stereotypes based on the deep ignorance of many people, if not wishful thinking. Spaniards and Southern Europeans in general, and there are always exceptions like in all places, have virtually of the same skin pigmentation as other Northern Europeans. Of course if one visits Spain in the winter and sees with an objective eye they will see this fact at once. In the summer people like to tan. It is the official sport. Still the former can be seen as well. On the other hand the sun shines strongly and tanning is common for anyone who is outdoors, and southern Europeans love being outdoor, again, when it comes to natural skin pigmentation without the effects of tanning, they are as light skinned as any other Europeans. See the only objective and scientific study carried out in the 21st century about skin pigmentation. Here you can find information about the Spanish, as Southern Europeans, and many other nations.

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/faculty/leontis/chem447/PDF_files/Jablonski_skin_color_2000.pdf

But if people are too lazy to read it here is a summary. The link is to a page that is controversial but the summary is good. In fact you can check it in the original paper if you are diligent. I include it here for those too lazy.

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2006/01/skin-reflectance-of-selected-world.html

So, this is reality when confronted to science, nothing more, nothing less. (You can also find in the thread the typical comments by idiots who seem shocked before facts) People should start getting an education on this issues. As you can see as well, skin pigmentation in areas of the Middle East and North Africa is very close to the one found in Europe, althoug Europe, Spain included, present the lightest.

Another piece of ignorant comment is about the "Celtic" type or people. Spaniards, as modern genetics has shown have one of the most "Celtic" genomes in Europe.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

The funniest thing is about olive skin is Latin America, as coming from the people who emigrated there. It comes from the Native Americans. This article is another example of US influence ignorance. A shame for Wiki again. Kun.

It is about time people begin to use Wiki to spread knowlegde and

Nudge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.212.11 (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Greeks & Italians
When people are talking about olive skin tone they are talking about Greeks & Southern Italians only. --Nikoz78 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Totally not true...and what a way to stereotype all Greeks and southern Italians, stereotypes that are totally ridiculous for this day and age.Galati (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Galati entirely as many native Greeks and multi-generational Southern Italians I know are pale or pale olive skin toned many with golden blond hair. Genetically for User:Nikoz78 's information Southern Italians share many genomes with Scandinavians, so please do not use ridiculous stereotypes here this an encyclopedia not a gossip rag. 33L71488 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

the article needs to be remade
the old one makes no sense

first off ronaldo and gisele do not have an olive skin tone. why put those pictures up? second olive skin is not defined just by a yellow undertone to the skin. there is many celebs whos skin appears 'yellow' but it is clearly not olive.

this article is best left as a stub as there is really no studies into what actually gives someone an olive skin tone. the only thing thats fact is where people have it. there is so many skin types in the world that its impossible to simply give a description of it having a yellow hue or green hue.

all it needs is a picture or 2 of people with light and dark olive skin. Simply type 'arab man' or 'italian woman' into google images and there is plenty to choose from. I am unable to upload one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.76.77 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why on earth should this article be remade, it should be DELETED...its only leading to stereotyping of people which is totally outdated to this day and age.Galati (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Galati

Horn Of Africa
Carleton S Coon is used for historical reference ....Because the source (That you have removed, that you also seem to be using in your argument in adding the Coon reference,that is classic  Synthesis and original research. Just because the long standing reference that has been there says that Olive skin is a trait showed by some white people(and names regions and it does not state Horn of Africa) does not mean we include Coon in the article because he  states that Somalis Ethiopians etc can be Caucasian that does not mean they have Olive skin.That is bone structure madam or sir not skin tone.Somalis are an Equatorial African people BTW--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source you are using is refering to a make up site. Not reliable at all and the site is self published. And the 'make up' site does not state the regions wich containts olive skinned peoples. And you said that the people of Sub Saharan Africa can't be olive skinned, those factors are not relevant. And BTW not all people that live on the equatorial line are dark... ;People of South America and the people of the Indonesian isles. Can you give me a source that states explicit that the people only from Europe, Middle East, South/East and Central Asia? Neither of the current sources are reliable for an encyclopedia. Blogs and commercial sites are not fit for this site to use as an strong source. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Abyssinians are of a dark olive colour, with long hair ; yet the adjoining people, and the people under the same latitude on the west side of Africa, are negroes."-The Edinburgh encyclopædia, page 668. "The majority of the people[Eritrean] have complexions ranging from dark brown to black, but a substantial number have lighter, olive-colored skin."-Africa by Pierre Etienne Dostert, page 79. Here are more sources. Wich says explicit that the people of the Horn have that trait, but it says too that there are small numbers wich have a much more darker skinn colour. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No sorry Von Luchion scinetiffic scale has the horn of Africa ouside of any olive skin tone zone,and in a very dark zone,your sources are archaic again this is not the caucasian race article,sources up there now is commercial(not a personal blog) not a great source but until  a better one can be found,that will do since this is not an article about a living person --Wikiscribe (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are using a source that is not mentioned in the article, but okay. This type of source can't turn 'archaic', will the skincolour of the native peoples change? But the scale of Von Luschan is 'archaic, it was only used until the late 20th century. So you should search for an other source this one is truly obsolete. And about the commercial sources; Wikipedia shall never use those websites as reliable and neutral sources. And it is nowhere mentioned in the site what the geographic distribution of the olive skin colour is. PS: Saying 'unconvincing' is not a strong argument and it's not NPOV.86.80.208.136 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem removed the source and replaced it with a citation needed tag for an uncontroversial statement...but Sub sahran Africa...that controversial please to not add it again and archaic references about Horn people being "Caucasian" won't do--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the source you have provided is outdated, that theory is dropped by the acedamic world. And again the sources I gave are not archaic, the quots were not about caucasian or not but about the skin colour. Let me show you again:"The Abyssinians are of a dark olive colour, with long hair ; yet the adjoining people, and the people under the same latitude on the west side of Africa, are negroes." and:"The majority of the people[Eritrean] have complexions ranging from dark brown to black, but a substantial number have lighter, olive-colored skin." What is the issue here? Also obsolete? And let me say it again the source you gave is not legit, do you have an other? Wich explicit says; the people of the Horn are not olive skinned? And remember you are not in a position to agree new content. Only with a concensus not by a will of a single person. Or is this a case of Ip-user discrimination? Thinking that I'm less reliable? 86.80.208.136 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources:
 * One Olive skin is found on people from lots of different ethnic backgrounds. People with olive skin may come from Mediterranean countries like Italy, the South of France, Turkey, or Spain; from Mid-European countries like Belgium, France, Latvia, Estonia or Germany; or Scandinavian countries like Norway, Finland, or Russia.
 * Two People with olive skin tone are typically from Mediterranean, Asian, or South American regions.
 * Three This spectrum spans skin tones from light beige to olive or deep tan. More likely than not, you're in this category if you're of East Asian, Latin, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern descent.
 * Four What is the Olive Skin Color? [...] you need to look at the complexion of people from the Middle East and Asian regions. You would find many people from the Middle East, Asia, Mediterranean and South America regions having this sort of skin color and there are some variations present in the olive complexion as well.


 * Along with the Von Luschan's chromatic scale, the sources above, and common sense, it is clear that the Horn of Africa does not belong in the list of regions with Olive skin tone being the typical skin color. I do not know why the IP is so persistent about adding the Horn of Africa to the article (but looking at his history, maybe it is because he is from there and is ashamed of being called dark-skinned or black?). Someone963852 (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Von luschan scale is not legit in the first place. And 'common sense' is not a valid source. But looking at your history I see someone who is violating the Wiki rules and is pushing is own POV wich is undue. And I'm from the Netherlands if you would like to know. I have the sources wich adds the Horn region too. Because you think they are dark skinned they should ashame of their skin colour, that makes you a racist editor and therefor you could be blocked(again, as you have been blocked multiple times) Your credibility is zilch,
 * 1. you are also using commercial sites as sources
 * 2. the link is broken
 * 3. Also a commercial site, you dont have a valid academic one?
 * 4. And again you use a commercial site, you should visit the Wikipage: Verifiability

And If I truely was someone from the Horn that your last sentence is a sign of personal attack(Wich also lowers your credibility). Could you comment on the sources I gave? And don't use the previous argument of Wikiscribe, as we know that that info could not be obsolete.86.80.208.136 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to break it to you, but removing non-neutral POV/ original research/ and unsourced claims is not "pushing a POV." I provided many sources (which you can open because you called them commercial sites) with the common theme being Olive skin is common to those regions bolded above. What makes you think those "commercial sites" won't work? Plus, there aren't any reliable and valid academic sources on the "Olive skin tone" because that skin tone is not in the topic of research. Let's see you try to find some.
 * Your out-dated and unreliable site is not valid, as per the reasons listed above by Wikiscribe. If you can't provide multiple, credible and reliable sources that state the Horn of Africa is in the Olive skin tone region, then your nit-picking, POV pushing should not belong in the article. Simple as that. Someone963852 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The von Luschan scale is actually still in use in cosmetic circles, though it has somewhat fallen into disuse in general anthropology. Going by it, however, the olive skin zone would mainly be restricted to Southern Europe and parts of the Middle East and North Africa. It would not include South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa. Those are brown-skinned areas for the most part, though one can certainly find individuals in those regions with skin coloration approximating the olive pigmentation levels. Soupforone (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're going by the von Luschan scale (which you are), then Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Central Asia would fit the olive skin criteria, as listed in the above sites also. South Asia (such as India) would not, however. Someone963852 (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Someone963852

First of all I did not gave you a site but a quote(you have read them?). You can see them by scrolling up. You are just ignoring the fact that the sites you gave are merely a commercial one. This is a biological/anthropological issue and make-up sites do not fit in the criteria for reliable sources for this case. Perphas it is when you want to buy a skin lotion, but I think that is not the case here. You say I don't have any 'valid academic'(wich I actually gave if you scroll), but where are your valid academic sources? If you have it I will drop mine with ease. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you find "valid" academic sources, since you are the one trying to add the Horn of Africa in the article? (By the way, your other source is not valid, and the reasons are stated above by Wikiscribe.)
 * We could go back and forth repeating the same thing, but if you can't find multiple, credible and reliable sources stating that the Horn of Africa is in the Olive skin tone region, then it will not be added. The dispute ends there. Someone963852 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I gave some sources why are you not commenting on them? PS: Removed the image because it is hiding the comments. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you actually read what I wrote, I already did comment on them. Someone963852 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you actually actually read what I said about it's so called outdated status you wouldn't need to respond in that way. But the discussion is over. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No Pics
No arbitrary pics of famous or anonymous individuals who in the editors POV may  have Olive skin. Unless it can be verified by a reliable sources having to do with this field of study and even with that a sizable consensus among editors should be adhered to since this is about skin type and or color,which means it is a controversial subject,so with that said I will be against the addition of pics due the sources are generally poor and the pictures would have to cover the various shades of skin tone with people which is pretty difficult to do.... this has been an issue in the past.--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Skin color (olive/brown/white skin) doesn't need to be cited as being a particular color (we can universally and unanimously agree on colors -i.e. what is brown/white skin, this apple is green in color, not red; etc.). Shades (of olive or brown skin, or of colors) just means variance in lightness/darkness; it does not mean a different color or hue.(Desigirl233|talk) 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Again all you added was unsourced original research plus you are blatantly using sock puppet accounts to edit war.--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Overhaul this article or just DELETE IT
This article when I came upon it was and still is a misleading mess, and a misrepresentation on a number of levels. Olive skin is wide ranging within the mid-range of average Caucasians therefore as it ranges from very pale with blue and green undertones to darker mid-tone with green and yellow undertones the image should be representative of various tones of olive skin not show two women of the same tone.

Also olive skin is only on the Fitzgerald scale under III therefore this article should not be bringing in levels IV and V. There appears to be an attempt to have olive skin encompass what is essentially dark brown or black skin, and while dark brown and black skin may have greenish, yellow and blue undertones they fall into another range category entirely.33L71488 (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I undid your edits because I feel like this needs to be discussed beforehand. I think there might be some credence to the idea of just deleting it. Concepts like these are not really very encyclopedic when there's no real consensus for what it is anyway.★Trekker (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just come to this article. Surely the truth is that "olive" is a term used to describe skin colour and the article should be about what the term is or has historically been used to mean, rather than arguing ove what "is" or "is not" "real olive skin"?  If the term has been used in some technical/anthropological sense, then put that in too and what it officially meant in that usage, but otherwise, surely it's just a colloquial term descibing skin colour and should be discussed as such rather than all these silly about who does or does not fall into the "olive sin colour geographical range"?  I came here to check on what's actually meant by "olive skin" because I'm doing an illustration of a character described by their creator as having olive skin and I'm never quite sure what people mena by that, and I find this dog's breakfast.  Oh well, Nikosz78's comment did remind me that it's mostusually applied to Greeks and Italians, so I'm just going to go and ask DuckDuckGo for photos of Greeks and Italians and pick from that.Wombat140 (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

reply
My theory is that one of these three positions is true: — Soap — 19:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Olive skin doesnt exist. Its a steretoype like "red skin" of Native Americans, that survives because of its association with a cultural trait ... the growth/cuiltivation of olives in the Middle East where those people live.
 * 2) It exists but its dietary, due to retention of carotene in the skin from eating spinach and other things. greeks living in coldf climates & eating mostly meat would thus take on the red/pink complexion of other Europeans.
 * 3) it exists and it's a true skin color, caused by genes, and not due to carotene. we'll just have to wait for more gene studies to see if this is possible, let alone true.


 * Have you ever seen a green person? If you have, please attach picture because probably that person is not a person and comes from Venus.
 * Obviously option 1. Magne Mag (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

what the fuck
The white face in the photo is never realistic !! There is no white skin like book paper !! what the fuck??? Arovry (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

White people painting the rest of the world in color.
I am Spanish and work in a school with a 70% immigrant population. I deal with people of all colors every day, and I have never seen anyone with green, golden, or purple undertones, hues, shades, or reflections. It simply doesn't exist on this planet. There is no green melanin, and Mediterranean people don't have chlorophyll in their veins. It's a pure invention. These divisions of people by the color of their skin stem from the apparent need of white people, particularly those from Northern Europe and Anglo-Saxon backgrounds, to make a clear distinction between themselves, the genuinely white-skinned ones, and those who are not white enough or not white at all: the redskins, yellows, blacks, and those with olive skin. Because being white is of utmost importance, and everyone must be put in their place.

But yellow skin doesn't exist; it's a pure invention by Linnaeus (a Swedish scientist) when he created his human taxonomy. Asians are either white or have dark skin ranging from various shades of brown. In no case are they yellow, unless they have liver problems. And redskins don't have red skin; it's another Anglo-Saxon invention, probably originating from the bloody scalps they obtained from them as proof of their elimination. As for Southern Europeans, a color had to be found to make it clear that they are not white enough. Since they are people who use olive oil, the color olive was assigned to them. And since olives have green tones, suddenly our skin develops an entirely imaginary green undertone.

In summary, olive skin doesn't exist. There are no people with green tones. It's something that only exists in the imagination of people who share a toxic cultural prejudice prevalent in Anglo-Saxon countries.

It's a racist term, and I request that this entry on Wikipedia be deleted. Magne Mag (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have been told I have “olive skin” and I always thought it was simply a compliment, like “sparkling eyes”. I wasn’t aware it was an insult. 101.98.136.6 (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if those who tell you that you have olive skin intend to insult you; they possibly do it unaware of the term's ultimate significance. The point is that it originates from a toxic perspective on race. Let me put it this way: when they label you with olive skin, they are assigning a color to you. Olives are mostly green, so you start to be seen as green in the eyes of other people. You are not green, but unavoidably, people will start visualizing you as green. It's the same mechanism that leads people to see an imaginary yellow color in Asian individuals or a red color in Native Americans. Nobody in Asia is yellow, but after the repeated concept of yellow skin, people start seeing others as having yellow skin.
 * They might tell you, this is a cosmetic concept, or the "olive skin" is about green undertones, not an actual green colour, but the sad truth is that colour perception depends on the way your brain interprets light. Two persons can see different colours due to unconscieus bias. And as a result, all of a sadden, you start been seen green, as a consequence of this supposedly cosmetic concept.
 * In the end, it all comes down to the need of attaching imaginary colours to those not white enough, from those who feel they are white enough, and consider that this is something of paramount importance. But, people are just more or less dark, more or less brown, and any other colour is just a fabrication of a sick cultural prejudice on race. Magne Mag (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Olive color
Enough is enough with the word play! Olives are 2 colors, black or green, so how do you use olive to mean tan or brown? Show me an olive one of those colors! It’s time for the truth to be told, period. 2601:643:8280:B9A0:8155:9E34:E555:B155 (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)