Talk:List of people with heterochromia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of people with heterochromia article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion recently. The result of the discussion was keep.
Please note
An image is not a reliable source regardless how clearly it appears to show the characteristic. Text explicitly stating the fact is the only reliable source. Addition that lack such sourceing are prone to removal.

Contents

[edit] David Bowie

Bowie DOES NOT have heterochromia. Both his eyes are blue. His supposed green eye actually just have a permanent dilated pupil, that gives the ilusion of a green eye. Just look at a big picture of his eyes and you´ll see that his iris are botl blue, but one is barelly visible thanks to his over-dilated pupil (and in fact, he has sight problems.)DinobotTM2 03:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and re-added David Bowie to the list because although he was born with two blue eyes, an accident has caused his left eye to change colour (including a permanent dilated pupil.) As for your comment on him having two blue eyes, that is not true, refer to these photos № 1 № 2 № 3 If you also read the heterochromia article, it says that it can be aquired by injury. Bowie is also famously known for having two coloured eyes. Please don't remove him off the list again. --Speakslowly 02:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Heterochromia can be caused by injury, that´s right, but Bowie is not one of them. The different colors of his eyes is an optic illusion caused by an over-dilated pupil, like said in his own page here. The way it is written now is actually the truth about him.DinobotTM2 02:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I originally had the injury sentence in there long ago, but someone removed it. As for it being an optical illusion, not true. His left eye is obviously not blue and if you pay close attention to the photos you can see that although his pupil is dilated, it does not cover the entire eye. What is visible of his left eye is clearly brown. If his pupil were so dilated that you couldn't see the iris, then I'd say that he does not have heterochromia and instead a big black pupil that gives it the illusion of a dark eye. However his left iris is very much visible and very much not blue, but brown. David Bowie has heterochromia. --Speakslowly 04:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In reference to Speakslowly's linked pictures which purport to prove that David Bowie has Heterochromia, there are some problems. The first photo has quite clearly had its colors altered - one eye is deep, dark blue-green, the other is a rich, reddish brown. His normal eye is a pale blue-green, and the injured eye sometimes appears to be a *very* slightly darker shade of the same color. The third photo is actually a collage of different photos, taken under different lighting, and as each eye is represented by a different photo, it follows that they will look slightly different (and the blue eye on the left has almost certainly had its colors altered, as well, the small lines around his eyes are tinged with the same shade of blue which clearly shows that the color levels of the photo were drastically adjusted). The second photo clearly shows that both eyes are almost identical in color, any difference is entirely negligible and can be easily attributed to the injury. David Bowie does not have heterochromia (he has said so himself) and should definitely be removed from the list. --Katiebuffalo 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Right now, we've got two reliable print sources saying that Bowie has heterochromia, and none saying that he doesn't. If you can find any contrary evidence, such as the interview you mentioned, please add it to this page and we can remove him. Otherwise, he needs to stay. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
here is one article that specifically states that Bowie does not have heterochromia, and that the difference in his eyes is due to physical trauma. The specific condition is called anisocoria. I am removing him from the list again, as it is obvious that he does not have heterochromia.--Katiebuffalo 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a blog like that one isn't considered a reliable source for our purposes (please see WP:RS). Do you have a print source or an interview, something like that? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another article indicating that Bowie has heterochromia: [1]. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this counts as a reliable source: [2] ilovemrdoe 22:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • If it were Bowie's site, it would, but because it's a fan site, it regrettably doesn't. Anybody can start a fan site and write anything they want on it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • An anonymous IP just tried to remove Bowie on the grounds that this article states that he does not have heterochromia. This is incorrect; the article states that he does, while the opinion that he does not was offered by a reader commenting on the story ("Iridius" from Seattle, WA). Accordingly, I have reverted the removal. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Three links for the same-color-iris theory in decending order of reliability: The Biography Channel says his irises are the same color (Click the word "Curious" under his picture). Salon also says that the difference is due to pupil dilation. CMT mentions it in passing. Clearly there's a lot of misinformation on the Web, and I for one won't be completely convinced either way until I get a good look myself. Nevertheless, I'd call these references very strong evidence against Bowie being listed here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.199.226.117 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm not sure that it works that way. I've seen the "dilated pupil" thing before too, but it's entirely possible that Bowie is unlucky enough to have both conditions, since facial trauma can also cause Hemosiderosis. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That said, if someone could find an interview with Bowie where he says, "No, they aren't different; that's just a silly rumor" or something to that effect, I'd view that as pretty clear. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
David Bowie in interviews has consistently said that the eye was injured in a school fight with a friend and the pupil simply is permanently dilated. If you look in many of his photographs you can see that there is a big difference between the pupils when the other one has narrowed. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. I could go on endlessly listing references from various sources.--Lord of the Isles 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's fairly well established that his eye was injured in the manner you describe, and that the pupils are dilated differently, but since heterochromia can be caused by ocular trauma, it's possible that he has both a permanently dilated pupil AND differently colored eyes. Only a few of the links you provide mention eye color, and none of those meet WP:RS. As such, I have to return to my prior position: we need one of those interviews that you mentioned, where Bowie states that he doesn't have heterochromia, or that his eyes aren't different colors. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's OK if it's not online, and I can help you figure out how to format the reference, if you need. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The following article is by a geneticist at Stanford University, if you doubt this sites validity you will find the link to the Homepage of The Tech on the Stanford University site. It says that the pupil dilation is the cause of the colour difference (if you read down) [13]--Lord of the Isles 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That looks like a pretty good source. Dr. Alizadeh seems reasonably authoritative to me, and it explicitly rules out iron deposits from altered blood flow as a possible contributing factor. At a minimum, I think it's enough to put a qualifier on Bowie's entry, and maybe more (we should probably see what other people think, to make sure it's a good consensus on the issue). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If the ultimate decision is that this source is good enough, we may also want to think about leaving a note about Bowie's situation after the bottom of the list, to prevent confusion. Good idea? Bad idea? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My two cents - the new source isn't super fantastic - it quotes a post-doc in a non-peer reviewed format. But to me it is as strong as either of the two references given in favor of his having heterochromia, and a bit stronger than most of the sources given above asserting that it's just pupil dilation. So it boils down to comparably strong sources in both directions. I say either remove him from the list given a lack of source consensus or add a note such as: "The different appearance of Bowie's eyes has been attributed to both heterochromia REFs and pupil dilation REFs." Debivort 02:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to wade in here. I've heard from his own mouth that they are not different colours. It was on a UK TV interview, chat show style I believe not press style, within the last ten years, probably a little less. It's not a lot to go on I know, but if there are any fans out there who are willing to sift through their collections or google/youtube those types of interviews and sit through them all then please do, as this shit here is ridiculous. I am approaching this topic from the point of view of someone who's often exasperated by the whole 'public knowledge is FACT' thing, rather than a Bowie fan, so you can appreciate that I'm reluctant to do the leg-work myself (as charming as he is, I'm sure). But, he said it, I was a little shocked (as everyone KNOWS that David Bowie has different coloured eyes) and have always held it in reserve as a good example of modern mythology...
    We aren't allowed to use YouTube clips themselves as references, but official transcripts definitely qualify under WP:RS. If you (or anyone else) can figure out which program it was and what date it aired, we might be able to leverage that into a good reference with a little legwork. I know that it's frustrating to not be able to include something that you personally feel to be true because of policy, but look on the bright side: If you CAN track down a reference to Bowie saying (or writing) that he doesn't have heterochromia, it'll be pretty much bulletproof from that point onward. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiefer Sutherland

66.38.193.34 keeps adding Kiefer Sutherland as an example for celebrities with heterochromia. Photos will suggest and prove that he has the same eye colour in each eye. Done. He does NOT have heterochromia.--Speakslowly 17:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Walken

It keeps being added that Christopher Walken has heterochromia saying that he has one blue eye and one hazel. However photos will prove that his eyes are the same colour. [14] --Speakslowly 02:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've never noticed it before. I've just flicked through about 40 odd photos on the IMDB and only saw one that looked vaguely heterochromic, and even then it was blue in one and bluey/green in the other, if indeed it wasn't a trick of the light. I don't think any of them were modified in any way other than cropping, as they were mostly paparazzi shots, unlike the picture you've linked to above.
Regardless of photos, there are numerous publications indicating that Walken has heterochromia. I've added a second reference to his entry on the list. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wentworth Miller

Why was he taken off? I've read several times in interviews him saying his eyes are two different colors from birth. Is this another condition? I'm just confused as to why he was removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.6.205.235 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

Because it's obvious in photos that both of his eyes are the same colour. [15] --Speakslowly 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, no, he wears contact lenses to make his eyes look the same color... he has one hazel eye and one green eye. He should be re-added to the list—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.7.249.104 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC).
Wikipedia policy is that all "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". I added sections to this article for people to post photos and/or references to help conform to WP:V. If you have a reference for your assertion that meets the guidelines at WP:RS, please post it so that we may include Miller. -AED 20:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
He does not wear coloured contacts, if he did the hazel eye would look fake under the coloured plastic on photos. Like AED said, find proof. --Speakslowly 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Pesci?

Should he be added? His article says he has one green and one blue and I found sources agree with that. Although it's hard for me to tell by the pictures.--T. Anthony 21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that indicates he has heterochromia, reference it here and in his article. If you can't, it shouldn't be here or in his article. -AED 21:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jared Padalecki

Why was Jared Padalecki taken off from the Sectoral Heterochromia section? His eyes have distinctively at least two colors № 1 Awff7 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Having yellowish pigment around the pupillary border is common in hazel eyes (see Eye color#Hazel for an example). It is not the same as sectoral heterochromia. -AED 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Characters?

There are some fairly well known fictional characters with heterochromia - Yuna from Final Fantasy X is an extremely good example, as well as Asuna from Negima! It might help to add characters as well that obviously show this trait. Yuna is really recognizable by video gamers and the like. 71.37.106.244 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Technically, fictional characters aren't "people", so they don't belong on the list. If you'd like to start List of fictional characters with heterochromia, though, go right ahead. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Or Suiseiseki. DESU! - 2-16 11:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Urumi Kanzaki from anime/manga Great Teacher Onizuka is heterochromatic too.
--87.5.87.168 (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demi Moore

Her IMDB bio says one eye is hazel, the other green. It's hard to tell in her photos since the colors are so similar, but they do look dissimilar in some closeups. Has anyone come across more reliable info on this? Krumhorns 09:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Gazette

I have concerns about whether this article qualifies as a reliable source. For the bit about Bowie, it appears to be drawing its information from internet sources of questionable provenance, which in my mind throws the rest of the graf into question as well (if he just used Teh Google for info, rather than confirming directly). That's why I had removed it as a reference for Seymour as well in my most recent edit (since she's already listed in one that's more reliable). That said, I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm good points HBWS - To what extent do you think our evaluation of what appear to be legitimate reliable sources constitutes original research? If we discount a citable statement because we have investigated the topic enough to dismiss the source, is that original research? I don't have a very strong opinion about this, so if there is a policy that can address it, I am happy to fall in line with it. Debivort 18:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
In the general case, we're required to evaluate the reliability of sources all the time per WP:RS, so I don't know that there's any philosophical reason not to do so in this case. An objection would have to be based on the specifics of my evaluation of this particular source. There IS some degree of editorial oversight at the Post-Gazette, which is one of the main determinants listed at WP:V, but on the other hand this might fall under the heading of "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (within WP:RS). That section says that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." Basically, I think it's a tossup, which is why I wanted to pull it for now and open a discussion here, to see what other people think. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me, but is this page even necessary?

Heterochromia is VERY common. If you want to post on the famous person's page that they have heterochromia, that's fine, but why make an entire page about it? 24.159.60.51 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Personally, I think there's value in having a list of people with the condition, possibly as a way to help explain it to someone who's unfamiliar with its nature. As for whether it's fairly common, that's a subjective determination, but after a year's worth of looking I've only seen properly sourced mentions for the ten people on the list. Maybe it's more common to claim that a celebrity has heterochromia than it is for a celebrity to actually have it? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- For whatever it's worth, left-handedness is certainly more common than heterochromia, but Left-handed includes a list of famous left-handed people. -- 201.19.40.176 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it needs an article, it is more suited to being a category really.--Lord of the Isles 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with having both, if you feel like creating a category. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a list of people with heterochromia, a category would also be a list of people with heterochromia but has the advantage over an article of imposing an order on the list. An article is all fine and good when there are only several names on it, but how about when it comes to dozens or even hundreds - it's liable to end up not in any particular order and with duplications. It's also more at risk of people who are not notable being added to the list, if they are notable enough to be considered mentionable then surely a separate article on that person should be in Wikipedia. Having both a category and a separate list would be pointless duplication, it is a matter of it being one or the other.--Lord of the Isles 13:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Some people prefer category organization, and some people prefer lists, and it's not like anybody's hurt by having both for a particular data set. One advantage of having a list for something like this is that it's easier to police, in terms of people making uncited additions. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If there are uncited additions to a category this can be policed as well, it is not unreasonable to expect that differences in colour of the irises of each eye would be mentioned with a source in the Wikipedia article on that person (it is after all quite a noticeable condition) and that those who have an interest in a particular person may well be more likely to know if they have such a difference than someone who doesn't, indeed may have no idea who they are, who may well know far more about heterochromia as a condition.--Lord of the Isles 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
True, it can be policed both ways, but since there's no way to watchlist a category, it's easier to miss an unsourced/false addition there. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Watchlisting a category works just the same way as watchlisting an article, the edit page is identical and there is the watch\unwatch option at the margin.--Lord of the Isles 15:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And doing that will tell you whenever someone changes the text on the category page... but it won't alert you when entries are added to (or removed from) the category, the way a watchlisted list will. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Have created category [16] in the hope that it will replace this article ultimately. Have added some people who are not disputed as having the condition--Lord of the Isles 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The five who are in the category at the time I write this all look fine to me. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gracie Allen

From Gracie Allen: "Gracie was said to be sensitive about having one green eye and one blue eye (heterochromia) ..." - However, there's no cite given for this. -- 201.19.40.176 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • People have tried to add her to this list before, but no one has ever provided a citation. A lot of other bio articles for various people (Elizabeth Berkeley, Mila Kunis, Jay Crawford, etc.) also claim that they have heterochromia, but unless it's independently sourced, it'd be irresponsible to attach them to this list. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander the Great?

Can anyone verify this? There is only 485 pages if you search (heterochromia "alexander the great") on Google, so there is a high chance that a few people made this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.75.52 (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two references provided for him (one in an opthalmology journal, the other in a book). If it feels fishy to you, all you need to do is go to your local library and see whether the posted sources talk about Alexander the Great's eyes or not. That said, I added the book one myself, and it very clearly states (with internal attribution to a scholarly journal) that he did. Feel free to double-check, though, if you don't want to just take my word for it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jens Pulver

doesn't professional mixed martial artist Jens Pulver posess this trait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.27.78 (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarkyn Lockyer

Rumors circulating that this AFL player has the above condition. I can't find any articles to quote, but in my opinion he does. 144.134.209.104 (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC) (Tarkyn 24)

I'll keep it in mind, thanks, and if I see any references I'll add him to the list. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)