Talk:Color blindness/Archive 1

message: I have tried to get rid of most of the errors in this page (and put in a warning against recreating them, though I don't suppose it will work: people have got it so firmly into their heads that there is a red cone and that people have primary colours).  Can anyone now document:
*the claim that in emergency situations everyone is colour blind? (from first principles, I don't actually believe this, but I suppose it might be true)
*the high frequency of colour blindness in small-gene-pool (basically, inbred) communities? (I am fairly sure this is right, from individuals I've talked to, but we really need a proper reference).
:For monochromats, this is the subject of Oliver Sacks's book Island of the colorblind.  Not the most scientific source, but good enough.  I dunno about dichromats, but it's pretty believeable.
seglea 21:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, would be interested in seeing a reference for the claim that everyone is blind in emergency situations. If it can't be backed up, it should be removed. Edwardian 06:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions, request for references 

message: [discussion started on user talk pages]
Are sure that this picture is a good color blindness test? In each of the green channel, the red channel, and the luminosity channel, the letters are recognizable. Update: my protano(p|mal)ic colleague said that he couldn't really tell whether the picture is green or red, but he clearly sees a two bright letters (the green ones) and two dark letters (the red ones). 
Such a picture should look like more or less monochromatic intensity noise to a color-blind person, while information about the letters "WIKI" is in the color balance. Remember that for someone with normal color vision, green stimulates all three receptors and red stimulates the green and red receptors. Someone who misses the red receptors can still distinguish green from red because of the difference in blue stimulus. Hence, you need to mix in a bit of blue into the red to make the two indistinguishable. More precisely, R, G, and B on a CRT stimulate the receptors in (roughly) the ratios (0.7,0.3,0), (0.3,0.65,0.05), and (0.15:0.02:0.83) - see CIE diagram on the color page. The trick is to find RGB values that will have the same stimulus ratio for the green/blue receptors, so that they look as intensity differences. And then you have to keep in mind that the intensities on your screen are proportional to the RGB values to the power 2.5 (see gamma correction). It's not trivial...
Han-Kwang (talk) 14:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: C.(r',g',b') = (0,0)
Any vector in the solution space can be added to any (RGB) vector without a protanopic seeing the difference, of course with the restriction that (R+r',G+g',B+b') stays within the allowed range of positive values. You appear to have taken (p,0,0) (any value of p) as a solution, but it would look more like p(+1,-0.5,+0.1) (roughly, I'm too lazy to do the matrix inversions now)
Now you can construct an image with random, not too-saturated, colors, and add an appropriate amount of (r',g',b') to all color spots that you want to highlight for a person with normal color vision. Don't forget the gamma exponent to convert between computer RGB values and actual intensities.
Actually, it is probably easier to steal the palette from any other color-blindness test, e.g. here, that is on the web than to calculate the color palette. :-)
On a TFT display, the coefficients are probably different. People with protanomaly instead of protanopia need different colors as well.
Han-Kwang (talk) 12:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: See cone cell for the spectral response curves which I added recently - they are quite surprising -- DrBob 22:38, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that graph before. Do you know what the function for the graph is, or what data was used to draw it? Κσυπ Cyp     13:00, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm not entirely sure I'm suffering of deuteranopia. I was only told by my doctor that I have a red-green deficiency which can be equaly deuteranopia that protanopia. But on this site: [] I see the images "normal" and "deuteranopia" as identical and the "protanopia" is clearly different for me. So I think I'm deuteranopic if these images aren't switched. --hhanke
----
It must have been late when I wrote my previous comment. I'm not sure what I was thinking.Apparently I got so confused by the permutation of the variable names' that I thought that you used the wrong coefficients for the white-point normalization. :-) Also, my earlier remark about protanomalics/deuteranomalics is wrong; you can't test that with a 3-phosphor CRT.
Re the spectra of the receptors: the spectra for a "Standard Observer" are specified by CIE. The hard part is to find a plot on the web. This page provides the raw data (under "Standard observer"). It's weird that these calculated pictures do not work. It can be the color balance of the CRT on which it is viewed (it should be 6500 K). TFT screens have a different color rendering. Maybe it is the display gamma? There was something with Macintoshes having a gamma of 2.2 under certain conditions. Or the standard CRT RGB matrix deviates too much from reality? 
The data in the link I provided give an L-curve that has two maxima, quite different from the spectrum in the cone cell page.
Han-Kwang (talk) 23:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color blindness test 

message: [Continued from previous discussion]
It turns out that the functions in my link are not cone spectra but rather color matching functions (explanation). If I get it right, CMFs are a linear combination of the cone spectra, for some reason practical to use in calculations if you know what you're doing (does not apply to us, apparently :-). The cone spectra we are interested in are called cone fundamentals. Those look more like your DrBob's spectra.
Maybe it's time for an article that goes into the mathematics of color vision?
 -- Han-Kwang (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I want 1.92 γ for my Powerbook G4. lysdexia 14:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cone fundamentals and generating a spectrum 

message: Here is a summary of the points of agreement coming out of this dispute that basically boiled down to: "how should we best explain the experience of a dichromat or other color deficient to a layman trichromat?".   For simplicity all specifics in this summary are stated in terms of protanopia.  Many of these points have been made before, but at least this is shorter than trying to read the whole argument...:
# To a layman, the easiest way to explain a dichromat's experience is in terms of what colors will be confused: "Purple appears the same as blue", "green appears the same as yellow", etc.  These are important points to make to avoid common misconceptions such as that a red-green colorblind person simply sees gray in the place of red and green.  There are additionally two more complicated ways to address this:
## Getting into what a dichromat actually sees, e.g. "only in white, black, blue, and yellow".  This question is a natural extension of describing what a dichromat confuses, and is interesting to many laymen.  However, what a dichromat actually sees cannot be determined with certainty, and the existing data are not easy to explain (especially not compared to the simplicity of the areas of confusion data).  Much of the explanation of the higher perception of color to a dichromat is based on opponent process models.  We can tell that the opponent process argument has merit because it agrees to some extent with personal reports from unilaterally color blind individuals.  But it is more complicated than the standard blue-yellow, green-red opponency model would suggest, and we can not be fundamentally certain that unilateral color blind accounts bear on dichromatic experience (). This is worth getting into once the initial simple description of what is confused is out of the way.
##* One point is that around the neutral point, there are monochromatic stimuli that are colored in trichromats but appear gray to dichromats.  However, as noted above, this does not mean that red-green color blind individuals see only gray in place of red or green.  A better analysis is that dichromats replace much of the hue discrimination of trichromats with color saturation gradations.
## Getting into the details of color blindness at the photoreceptor level: metamerism, copunctal points, just noticeable differences.  This is the nitty-gritty of exactly what will be confused.  Photoreceptors determine what input goes into opponent processes and higher perception.  Much of it can be covered in other articles and linked, but it should be covered.
# We should discourage (as is already done) the misleading association of color names with wavelengths, spectra, or even particular human cones.  We must be careful our language is rigorous when writing in the formal article.  There are three levels of distinction important in the discussion of color transduction:  
## The physical level, in which we talk about frequencies, wavelengths, spectra, etc.
## The high perceptual level, in which we use color names.  At this level we can say that yellow has nothing to do with red and green; it has no redness or greenness to it.  It makes no sense on a perceptual level to describe yellow as greenish-red.
## The photoreceptor level.  This must be distinct from the physical level since information has made a huge shift from a myriad of physical light spectra into simple tristimulus values.  However, it must also be distinct from the high perceptual level, in which tristimulus values are further transformed into opponent process information.  The best language for this level is LMS cones, not the traditional language of RGB cones.  RGB cone terms are too easily confused with the names of actual colors, which exist only at a higher peceptual level.
##*This is the source of many linguistic ambiguities, such as "red and green make yellow".  An accurate, rigorous rewording is that in trichromatic primates (at least humans and macaque as far as I know), a particular ratio of L and M cone stimulation (without "significant" S cone stimulation) will lead to a peception of yellow through opponent processes.  However, the popular idea that "red and green make yellow" probably stems from light mixing demonstrations, in which combining any light spectrum that humans peceive as red with any light spectrum that humans perceive as green will result in a light spectrum that is perceived as some shade of yellow (possibly beige or brown depending on the saturation/brightness).  (This is a direct result of the LM cone argument.)
Summary modified/created by:
# Chinasaur 20:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. Especially point 2. There are essentially no popular explanations of 'color' that keep these things straight like they ought to, and it makes a mess of things (as evidenced even by some of the questions that get asked on this very page. Let's make Wikipedia the first explanation of color not to suck. eritain 05:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's red and green, not blood and hunter. lysdexia 14:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining dichromat perception to the layman 

message: The images on the article's page should be subtitled what number a normal-seeing person sees, and what color-deficient persons see. --Abdull 11:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image subtitles 

message: OK, i'm not colorblind as i've had atleast a couple of different tests online and offline. but the article, especially the 3rd image is dubious. Now it could be my monitor, but the fact is i can make out that the first number is 4, but the second number is where the confusion steps in as it looks like the numbers 1, 4, 7 and not 9. More to do with fuzziness than with color blindness. I suggest that this image is to be improved as a few others i know who are normal have said the same thing when i gave them the "test" on my PC. Other online tests are 100% accurate and they include the ishihara color blindness test.--Idleguy 14:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
: That one's iffy.  If you got that first 4, and can see the second digit at all, you're fine.  The second digit is definitely not clear.  If someone has access to a different image, great, otherwise, I think we just need to deal with it.  Maybe add a note about that one being fuzzy in the caption. -- Dpark 04:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blah, I went ahead and just added the note myself.  If we get a newer image, we can always remove the note. -- Dpark 04:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Either my monitor is pretty bad or the images aren't really great. 

message: "their peak sensitivities in the blue-violet, green-yellow, and greenish-yellow regions of the spectrum, respectively"
This excerpt from "Causes of color blindness" doesn't make any sense. Green-yellow and greenish-yellow? I am not very  knowledgable about this subject, but I hope that someone else can fix this.Apatterno 04:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, that was pretty good nonsense.  Someone trying to correct a phrasing they hadn't read properly, and then being pedantic about the colours.  I've fixed it for now, but I don't guarantee it won't get messed up again; this is a subject on which schoolchildren (and not only schoolchildren) are taught with great confidence entirely bogus information, so it is susceptible to mis-editing by people who believe in good faith they know what is going on, but don't.  seglea 17:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green yellow and greenish yellow 

message: This article originally stated that roughly 1/12 of the population of Pohnpei suffers from achromatopsia; in actuality, it is the island of Pingelap, which is located 180 miles from Pohnpei and is a part of the Pohnpei State, that has this rate. --Marco Passarani 05:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monochromacy rate of Pohnpei 

message: Ah.. were did you read about this?  Color blindness may be a result of many different causes.  But I have a hard time imagining how genetic color blindness may be cured.  Can you cite references? Fred Hsu 02:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a recent AP article he may be talking about. Looks like it's a retrovirus that may be used to treat achromatopsia. --Xanzzibar 04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cure! 

message: The article as is only addresses the classic definitions of color deficiencies.  There's nothing wrong with that, but should it also include other color deficiencies or should they be in a separate or alternate article?  Specifically, I'm thinking of the common age-related color deficiency do to the yellowing of the lens, and also the forms of low-light color deficiency (which I'm not very familiar with). --Ronz 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NooOoo... I didn't suspect that it was colorblindness... ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other color deficiencies? 

message: The article says, in regards to being a  Genetic red-green color blindness affects men much more often than women, because the genes for the red and green color receptors are located on the X chromosome, of which men have only one and women have two. Such a trait is called sex-linked.
.... In turn, a carrier woman passes on a mutated X chromosome region to only half her male offspring.
This is going to sound like hair-splitting but is this sort of... inaccurate?  It is possible for a carrier woman to have no colour-blind male offspring or even 100% of male offspring colour-blind.   It's just that statistically she will have a 50% probability of having a colour-blind son, because it's the chance of which X chromosome will be present in the zygote at conception. That means if she only has one son, it's 50-50 if he's colourblind, so the result would be either 0% or 100% colour blindness in male offspring... you get my point.  I'm pretty sure this is right, but I could be wrong.  If not, could someone change it so maybe kids learning about heredity don't get confused? - spider84 (password problems, can't log in) 220.237.244.200 09:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are exactly correct, and you're not hairsplitting (in my opinion, anyway). I updated the text to: "In turn, a carrier woman has a fifty percent chance of passing on a mutated X chromosome region to each of her male offspring." – Zawersh 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heredity 

message: Conversely, the board game Cosmic Encounter was designed and tested with colorblind individuals, and two of the player colors, a dark blue and a light blue, are difficult to distinguish by normally-sighted individuals.[citation needed]I don't find the above notable.  Isn't such testing commonplace?  More importantly, hasn't this been a recommendation from design and human factors groups for many, many decades now? --Ronz 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article for discussion 

message: Dalton was NOT the first scientist to publish a paper on color-blindness.  Specifically, there is a paper from the 1600s in the Transactions of the Royal Society (in the 1650s or 1660s. I think).  I'll try to find it again and change the article.  David Manthey 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Looking over this article, it appears to have everything that is required of a GA article and more. Da54 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Class 

message: In one section, certain symptoms (e.g. nystagmus) are associated with rod monochromacy, and in another they're associated with cone monochromacy.  I haven't a clue which is correct, but someone should fix this. /blahedo (t) 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monochromacy 

message: I think more should be disussed on the nature of the disability. Why not as apparent as other issues Color blindness can preclude an individual from many careers. I myself realized this when I joined the military and despite the plethora of jobs, i was availed just two. Color blindness can effect education aswell.--66.30.196.201 05:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disability 

message: On the tritanopia vision rainbow flag, there is blue, but that is the disorder with the absence of blue photoreceptors right? Can someone help me out on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyle112 (talk • contribs).
Also in the RGB article there is a neat picture series with a barn, I'd like to see something like that viewed through the eyes of different color blindnesses.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.30.219.118 (talk • contribs).}
DakeDesu: The rainbows are inaccurate. I suffer from a Red Green colour deficiency, and _all_the rainbows look completely different--on top of that I can distringuish the colours in them. Mind you, I don't match the colours the same as you say the colours are, but they are _extremely_ inaccurate views on colour deficiency.
: If it is any importance, I am running version 7 of X.org, running Firefox on KDE() and GLX on Savage Card (CRT Monitor)
: I believe the simulated rainbows are were calibrated so a normal-vision person will see how the a person with that deficiency would see it - so someone deficient in those colors looking at the simulated rainbow would be seeing it twice as off, so to speak. So they still wouldn't look exact. 128.118.31.28 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbow Errors? 

message: There was a treatment for red/green colour blindness introduced a few years ago using a single coloured contact lens - should this be described; not by me I know nothing about it!
Apepper 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is mentioned briefly under Color blindness#Treatment and management, but could certainly be expanded. The specific treatment you describe has been around for at least ten years -- I tried it for a few days back sometime in the mid to late 90's. One of the contacts had a red dot on it. I only have minimal anecdotal knowledge of it, which doesn't really qualify me to write about it either. :) – Zawersh 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment? 

message: "Dyschromatopsia is a symptom associated with the eye. Strictly refers to a disorder/change in colour vision."
This was requested to become an article, however I believe it would be more suited if that sentence above was placed somewhere within this article. I wanted to place it somewhere, but I felt I leave it to someone with better judgement as this is a "Good Article". Then I will make a redirect for Dyschromatopsia into this article. Sounds good?(SORRY forgot to sign) petze 12:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ACTUALLY Dyschromatopsia is A AKA FOR color blindness. Omg how stupid of me..... I will add Dyscromatopsia as a AKA to color blindness and add the disease db on the info box and of course if anyone objects please discuss it with me. I shall also place a redirect for dyshromatopsia into color blidness. OMG i keep forgetting to sign...sorry petze 15:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyschromatopsia 

message: Wouldn't that suck to have that. But wouldn't you not know if you have that condition if you were born with it since you would never know that you're vision is wrong?--Eloc Jcg 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd figure it out over time when the rest of the world gives two or three different names to the exact same color, insisting, "That's not the green one, you idiot, that's red!  That's the green one!" pointing to one that looks identical. --205.201.141.146 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dang... 

message: What happened to the old pictures (last time I chicked war 6 months ago) that had the numbers and a gray background and those who were a certain type of colorblindness couldn't read them? They are much better than the ones we have now, I would know as I am colorblid (as I'm sure many of you are too and also have an opinion, whether it be contrasting to mine), and those who wish to test themselves for colorblindness would find this fun and would get more viewers to the website. --24.225.156.40 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some discussion regarding this above in the section Regarding the Sample Images. – Zawersh 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old pictures 

message: I'm red-green colorblind, and have on numerous occasions found images on Wikipedia whose colors were hard to fully distinguish (like this one).  Have other people encountered this problem?  If so, would a template for such images be appropriate?
--69.118.136.65 19:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a template exists on Commons since yesterday: :Commons:Template:Color blind. I hope people find it and start using it. Samulili (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorblind image template? 

message: If 10% of men have some sort of color blindness, how can only 1.3% of the US population be color blind?  I find it hard to believe that American are that much less likely to be color blind than the rest of the world.  If the 10% number is correct than it should be closer to 5% of the American population. Hichris 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't add up 

message: Just came to read up on this article,, and I see no real problems in it. It gives pretty much a flawless description of the whole thing, has attractive images, and while it doesn't have a whole truckload of references, it has enough reliable ones to justify FAness, I think. How d'you ask for something to become featured? AR Argon 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given a closer look at the article, it needs a quite a few more references, though everything else is practically flawless. Am I the only guy who wants to work at this article? AR Argon 22:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be featured. 

message: Regarding the apple simulation, I find one of the most confusing part of being colorblind, the so called simulations.
I have a deuteranomaly (I think). Yet I see a clearly red apple at upper left of the simulation. The apple looks (in terms of color) nothing like the apple on the right. The text states that the simulation applies to trichromat, which I gather I am. No quite into the technical terms.
Is the simulation wrong, or am I getting it wrong? Cypres 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the possibilities is that the simulation gives you a double douse of color deficiancy. For example, If see greens that are half as bright, then an accurate simulation would appear only to have 25% green to someone with that type of color blindness
24.237.218.205 (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the apples 

message: The article reads: "Anomalous Trichromats are often able to readily spot camouflage clothing, netting, and paint that has been designed for individuals with color-normal vision. For the same reasons a color-blind painter might use too much blue to paint a green foliage landscape, a similarly color-blind artillery spotter would perceive too little blue dye used in camouflage created to match the same landscape."
Wouldn't this same artillery spotter see the landscape as having less blue dye, too?  It seems entirely logical that if he perceives the clothing as having less blue dye than a color-normal person would, he would also perceive the landscape to be that way, giving him no advantage.  I was under the impression that the advantage a color-anomalous person would have would be that the color-anomalous person would be better at picking up on texture and shape cues and not be as used to relying on color, thus not allowing his visual system to be fooled as easily.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.166.155 (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that people distinguish forms mainly on the basis of brightness contrasts rather than hue contrasts.  People who lack a certain type of cone cell can see brightness differently because they are missing the contribution that that type of cell makes. Looie496 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding camouflage spotters 

message: Is there some easy way of getting hold of a good basic guide as to what actual colours these numbers represent?
I've played with spectrophotometers before and I'm still not super hot on how red/green/blue a particular number is, the average layperson reading this will be stumped and the containing statements will convey little useful information. If a person with a certain colour blindness cannot distinguish a pure light of 498nm from white light, what does this actually mean? What colour does that represent, and does it effectively mean they are seeing white "as" that colour? (Same as my seeing the pale orangey-yellow of my cheap 9w energy saving bulb as "white" on the various pieces of paper in the room where I am sat thanks to habituation and expectation, but if I concentrate on them, and compare them to the near-neutral white of the laptop backlight, it's easy to see the error).  82.46.180.56 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much green; I labeled it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral colours given as nanometre figures only... not good. 

message: I looked long and hard at the apple pictures near the bottom of the page. I'm fairly certain the 2 "different" pictures are exactly the same, they just have the color channels changed (the core star and glare are the 2 most obvious identifiers. Even if great care was taken to set up different apples the exact same way, they wouldn't cut exactly the same or reflect exactly the same).74.167.173.21 (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it does says it's a simulation.  It would be nice to know exactly what was done. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're the same picture. The colors given by your monitor are a simulation of what a camera sees, what your camera sees is a simulation of what you see, so I don't see anything wrong with interpreting the color data to simulate what a colorblind person sees. It looks pretty much like the deuteranope simulation created by the Vischeck program: . For protanopes the red (left) apple is much darker than the green (right) apple. You should probably mention this in the article; protanopes will see the image and say "that's not what I see".  -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 00:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple pictures 

message: There's a discussion at Template_talk:Tmbox#Accessibility that might interest some editors of this page.  In particular, it would be nice to know whether the proposed talk page templates (similar to what's at the top of this page) are sufficiently readable for people with colorblindness, or whether a different/lighter background color is important.  Your comments are particularly wanted.  (If this issue in general interests you, then you might want to get in touch with WP:WikiProject Accessibility, too.)
Additionally, an editor has very kindly offered to figure out how to create a customizable "skin" to change the background colors in the templates if this would, in fact, be helpful to anyone.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility 

message: Should we expand the "management" section to include some of the implications for daily life?  I'm thinking primarily of limitations on occupations -- e.g., you can't work in most law enforcement positions if your "red car" or "tan shirt" isn't the same as everyone else's "red car" or "tan shirt" -- but it might be interesting to include limitations in daily life.  I see that map reading is mentioned, but I saw nothing about dealing with one's own wardrobe, which can be a significant concern for some people.  What do you think?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand management? 

message: I've used Template:HiddenMultiLine to hide the answers to the tests. BTW congratulations on finding a test that really exposes my very mild deuteranopia - I have no problem with traffic lights, but in some parts of the Isihara test I see both numbers. -- Philcha (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiding answers to tests 

message: Hi . I am colour blind and am a keen birder.  difficult eh? any tips.? Any way I can overcome the obvious problem of the  red/ green / brown bird on a brown branch, surrounded by green leaves which to me is just a browny green job, if I see it at all, that is. Thanks. 190.152.46.23 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, this isn't a general discussion forum.  This page is for discussing improvements to this article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birding 

message: Does the picture for the tritanopia test actually have a number in it? The first one is clearly 37, the second is possibly 44 or 99, but the third picture doesn't appear to contain a number at all. Yet I'm sure I'm not colour blind.  VonBlade (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tritanopia 

message: I don't like the introduction to this article where colour blindness is expressed as a deficiency.
I am colour blind but I believe everyone has some level of colour blindness. For example take two colours #00FFFF and #00FFFE (see Hex_triplet#Hex_triplet). If you were to put these two colours next to each other say in Microsoft Paint the normal person would not be able to tell the difference between them. The computer can tell the difference as if they were black and white. It may take three or four separations of colour before the normal person can see the difference and may take more for colour blind people to see the difference. Therefore compared with a computer, everyone is colour blind to some extent. Darrenaustralia (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A better example is some insects, which can see a much wider range of colors than any human can.  But really the answer is that color blindness is defined as a deficiency with respect to the human norm, not with respect to some abstract ideal.  If I can interpret your point as being that what I just said ought to be explained in the lead of this article, then I might agree with you -- the lead is a bit too short in any case. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So the average person's ability to distinguish colors is less than ("deficient" compared to) a computer, and a colorblind person's is less than ("deficient" compared to) the average person's.  What is the actual problem here?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the definitions of deficient:  could it be that a colorblind person might take offense at being called inadequate, insufficient, falling short of some prescribed norm, lacking something essential, incomplete, or defective?  Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour deficiency? 

message: ">It should also be noted that even though some people are unable to see some or maybe even any of the numbers in (e.g., red-green) color blindness tests, they might still be able to tell the difference between the colors in their everyday lives.[citation needed]"
Where can you cite something like that?
As for me: when I was about 7th or 8th grade (God, time flies!) we talked in Biology about eyes. Our teacher showed us some tests and, accroding to the result, 4 of us, including me, were red-green-blind (with only one being clinically diagnosed!) 
She explained to us that there are very mild cases that don't interfere with every day life, so some people (including the three of us) can normally distinguish between red and green, but can't when it looks to similiar.
I also know others who say the same.
Now I read this article and wondered why a citation is needed. I know it's true, the author apperantly knows it's true, but how can you CITE it's true? <-- unsigned, was added by 91.62.53.55 at 15:01, 30 November 2008
:There are generally two reasons why people add "citation needed" tags:  either they are being pedantic, or else they are skeptical of the claim and want to see some published support for it.  Unfortunately, personal knowledge doesn't really solve the problem:  there are lots of things that people "know" that aren't actually true. (I'm not saying that this is one of them.) Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This also brings up the great juxtaposition where if you're told a certain colour is red then that's what you call it. It doesn't matter what colour you see, because we can't tell that. So if you see red as blue, and people tell you it's red, then you associate blue with red and nobody would be any the wiser. Hmm. I'm not sure juxtaposition is the word I want. VonBlade (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming back to 91.62.53.55's question, I agree that some people have sub-par red-green discrimination according to the tests, but have no problems with traffic lights - I'm one of them (apart from speeding up when I see the orange). However one of Wikipedia's basic principles is no original reasearch, which is semi-polite jargon for "you can't just state your own personal opinions in articles" - you can imagine what would happen if that was allowed. In addition finding a  reliable source for this point might provide other useful and interesting information, e.g. what % are "normal", what % get around OK but are bad at colour-matching their clothes, what % should not be allowed to drive, etc. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? Really? 

message: Are there any statistics that show the percentage of people with multiple trichromacies? For example, I have Protanomaly and Deuteranomaly and am curious as to how common that is. Are the various color blindnesses randomly overlapping, or are persons with one type of color blindness more likely to have others also?
24.237.218.205 (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Achromatopsia_failure_modes.jpg/600px-Achromatopsia_failure_modes.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLO (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to put this on the page somewhere. 

message: I tagged the section as disputed.  It seems to be a neologism at best.  Sources? --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "White deficiency" 

message: I found this under "types":
There are many types of color blindness. The most common are red-green hereditary this most commonly leads to doom or death!!!! Now that you have read this you have 24 hours to live! ;0
I will get rid of the vadalized part, but we need to watch out for vandals (and no, you will NOT die in 24 hours.)--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason the page wasn't updated after the edit that removed that material.  I fixed it by doing a "null edit" of the full article.  You might take a look at Wikipedia:Purge to learn more about why this sort of thing sometimes happens.  Anyway, thanks for pointing it out. Looie496 (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOOK OUT FOR VANDALS! 

message: many famous people are color blind. We should have a category for this--76.116.105.50 (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable color blind people 

message: i just thought that i should point this out- that where it should say the percent occurrence of Tritanomaly it just says that it is the same chance in males and females. on second thought the source article probably didn't say the percentages and said that instead. 216.246.227.26 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: found the info in the chart in the section "Prevalence" going to fix itWalkerm930 (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  % occurrence of Tritanomaly 

message: :This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Color blindness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
===GA Sweeps: Delisted===
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although many inline citations are present, there are several sections that lack citations and there are many "citation needed" tags throughout the article (some back from December 2007) as well as other cleanup tags. In addition, the lead needs to be expanded (see WP:LEAD for guidelines). Add additional sources from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Although it has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reassessment 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although many inline citations are present, there are several sections that lack citations and there are many "citation needed" tags throughout the article (some back from December 2007) as well as other cleanup tags. In addition, the lead needs to be expanded (see WP:LEAD for guidelines). Add additional sources from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Although it has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: Delisted

message: :"In a study published on September 16 by the journal Nature, scientists say they have used gene therapy to cure red-green color blindness in two adult male squirrel monkeys."
Full article at:  — Loadmaster (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cure? 

message: there is insufficient apparent difference between the red and amber and sodium street lamps and the green can be confused with a grubby white lamp
:Needs a comma to be unambiguously parsable.  I think I know where it should go, but can't be sure. 72.75.67.226 (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a try at it. May need to be split into two separate sentences. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hideous ambiguity 

message: The section Causes, alleges:
:Any recessive genetic characteristic that persists at a level as high as 5% is generally regarded as possibly having some advantage over the long term.[dubious – discuss]
Is this dubious, and then why? Next sentence ends by someone asking for a citation, and such a request is of course valid, but I thought it was common knowledge that unusually common genetical variations that may (with too many prejudicies) be perceived as "defects", usually come with some secondary advantage, f.ex. sickle cell anemia and possibly homosexuality. And humans are not free from a selective pressure, the culture provides us with myriads of survival requirements to be "successful". ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just cite a source, and it won't be dubious any more.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! But the inline template should then be [citation needed]. I'll substitute. Anyone who dislikes, may reinsert [dubious - discuss], but a section named Dubious should then be added and explained in this talk page. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "dubious - discuss"? 

message: Could someone simulate the CIE chromaticity diagram with different dichromacies (with monochromacy the diagram would be a single color)? Totsugeki (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll answer to myself. With this website  you can simulate the chromaticity picture . Totsugeki (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIE chromaticity diagram 

message: The is a section as follows:
"Research published in 2009 carried out by the City University of London's Applied Vision Research Centre, sponsored by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority and the US Federal Aviation Administration, has established a more accurate assessment of colour deficiencies in pilot applicants' red-green and yellow-blue colour range which could lead to a 35% increase in the number of prospective pilots meeting the minimum medical threshold.[34]"
Going to the cited page and reading more than the tag sentence at the start, you'll see the 35% figure is used incorrectly.  The use of the tests would reduce the number of people rejected by 35%, not increase the number accepted by 35%.  Near the end of the article, it states that quite clearly.
Look at it this way: If 10,000 men apply to be certified, approximately 800 will get rejected due to color-blindness.  The better test would let 35% of the 800 (that's 280) in.  The way it is stated ("35% increase in the number of prospective pilots meeting the minimum") would increase the 9,200 currently accepted by 35% to 12,420, more than actually applied!  Jursamaj (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted - I've changed it. If you find anything else like that the best thing to do is to be bold and change yourself with an explanation in the edit summary. Richerman (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information 

message: The article mentions that red/green colour blindness makes it difficult to distinguish traffic lights by colour; in the UK - and presumably throughout Europe the green light has added blue so it looks quite different from the red even if, like me, one is red/green colour blind. If anyone has a reference to confirm this (ISTR hearing it on the radio once) then shouldn't this be in the article?
Apepper 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I heard, the main cue in traffic lights that color blind people were supposed to follow is position - which light is on. --Ronz 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably true, but I can't distinguish red/green LEDs but I can easily tell the difference between red/green traffic lights. Apepper 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The traffic light article has some mention of colors added: "Usually, the red light contains some orange in its hue, and the green light contains some blue, to provide some support for people with red-green color blindness." It is not cited, though. They also have a picture of a traffic light in Nova Scotia that uses special shapes to help color blind individuals. – Zawersh 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me for this possibly stupid question but can't you tell which light is it by its position (i.e. the higher one means stop, the lower one means go?) 194.90.37.111 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the time you can (this is how I look at traffic lights), but this can be hard in some situations, like fog, or with horizontal lights.  At night it can also be very difficult to see enough of the traffic light assembly to know which position is on.  My grandfather also told of one state (which escapes me now) where the lights were reversed.  I'm sure this is no longer the case, though. 76.104.173.177 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic lights 

message: i feel the article should spell colour in english, not american  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.131.107 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ENGVAR. This article is not relevant more to either Commonwealth or American readers, so it could have used either spelling. Since it started using American spelling, we continue to use that because to change it would only lead to spelling wars.-gadfium 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  color vs colour 

message: I used a color blindness simulator to generate a color spectrum in each common type of color blindness. The result is to the right. I made this because I wanted a convenient way to compare hues in different color blindness types at a glance. Maybe it would be useful to other people? Nanobot (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what the copyright on this is? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color blindness spectrum comparison 

message: Have attempted to rearrange per the above.  The causes section approaches the same thing from different directions thus resulting in duplication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDMOS]] 

message: I have changed text:
"Test for Deuteranopia[Note 1]
This image shows a number 49, but someone who is deuteranopic may not be able to see it.";
under picture to:
"Test for Deuteranopia[Note 1]
This image shows a number 44, but someone who is deuteranopic may not be able to see it.",
because in a hard print of my source there is as answer stated number 44.
Since my source is weekly magazine I am not sure which answer is correct so if anyone has a more reliable source to verify the answer please do.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrvatistan (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm completely confused by what you're trying to do. The number in the test on the screen is what it is - how can you have a source for it? The picture in your magazine is obviously not the same one. If you click on the picture you will find in the original file it says "Someone who is deuteranopic might not see this number (49). Please note that the second digit in this number may be difficult to discern even by those with normal vision." If you can't see what it is then don't change it. Richerman (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precise source needed 

message: I was recently reading about Color Blindness on this page: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090916-color-blind-gene-monkeys.html talking about gene research that has allowed red-green color blind monkeys to regain normal eyesight.  I do not have the expertise to add this information to this wiki page, but I'm somewhat surprised that there is no mention of medical research towards this (nor on the discussion page).  Just a heads up in case someone with more knowledge on the subject would like to elaborate or refute these claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.118.151 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent medical breakthroughs? 

message: The section on Misconceptions seems contradictory.  It states "Color blindness is not the swapping of colors by the observer — grass is never red, and stop signs are never green".  And then to the right of this paragraph, we see a picture of how a person with dichromacy sees a red apple ... and it's green.  (i don't have color blindness btw)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.60.31 (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions and compensations 

message: Regarding the illustration named US Flag color blind.png
The article explains that the condition is manifest to the person as ambiguity, not reversal of red and green.  Despite this, the illustration indicates that a red-blind person perceives a green American flag!  This illustration represents a common misconception, not the reality.  Therefore it should not be used to headline the article.  It would be better used in section: "Misconceptions and compensations".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.87.231.80 (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suitability of the head illustration 

message: It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Color blindness, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:You can edit this page. Click here to find out how.at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. Anthony (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Invitation to edit" trial 

message: In the "Misconceptions and compensations" section it said "Anomalous Trichromats tend to learn to use texture and shape clues and so are often able to spot camouflage clothing, netting, and paint that has been designed to deceive individuals with color-normal vision." cited with reference 1, which is about Dalton. I don't know what's going on but the Dalton reference is obviously not right. I've replaced the reference with ref 2 and changed "anomalous trichromats" to "dichromats" as that's what reference 2 says. There is, however, a reference to "anomalous trichromats" here if someone wants to plough through it. Richerman (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's not right here 

message: According to [Color] the three cones color peaks are:
:S: 420nm in the violet sector (400-450nm), 
:M: 534nm in the green sector (490-560nm), and 
:L: 564nm in the yellow sector (560-590nm) bordering on green - greenish yellow, if you will.
Observation: This makes sense in seeing the closeness of red blindness (loss of the greenish yellow channel) and green blindness (loss of the green channel).
Understanding that the definitions of these colors are hazy not sharp edged, is calling them blue, green and yellow appropriate?  SkoreKeep (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye Color receptors 

message: I am confident that I have no form of color blindness, but it is almost impossible to see the "56" in the "tritanopia" color blind test that is on this page. I have showed this picture to several other people and they all agreed that it was nearly impossible to see even for people with no color-blindness, and I also stumbled upon a forum post that used this as a link, and the consensus seemed to be that it was too difficult for them to see as well. The image tag does state that "Image may not be visible on LCD or with excessive screen glare." Considering that many computer screens are LCD nowadays, that just seems rather impractical, and this picture could be misleading to some people. bob rulz (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What image would you use to replace it? Looie496 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we get a better Tritanopia test picture? 

message: I noticed that there was a problem with citation 10 (used only in section: 3.1). I went to the website listed, and indeed the cited facts do not appear on that page. However, they do appear on a different page on the site: http://www.toledo-bend.com/colorblind/cbinfo.asp. I wouldn't know how to fix the citation thing, and I am unable to even try from where I am (a university). So if someone else could look at it that would be great. I also don't know if the source is actually good... but that's a whole other topic.129.82.226.96 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 10 

message: Hello. If color blind people view the image for color blind then ?  A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  color 

message: I have never been diagnosed as being color blind, but I can barely make out only the first of the  numbers in the first set of circles.  I wonder if the reporuction is incorrect or if perhaps the settings on the computer I am currently using are at fault?211.225.34.66 (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you copy the image to this section, so we can be sure we all talk about the same image? Eddau (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color tests 

message: I found this resource useful and interesting, but I can't at this moment figure a way to gracefully integrate it into the article. (71.233.167.118 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources for designers 

message: I came here looking for a survey of what colours animals can see; it turned out to be elsewhere on the wiki, so I linked it. But it occurs to me there's a related topic that should be covered here: species-relative color-blindness in animals. For instance, do we ever find individual dogs that can only see black and white? If any editors have some knowledge of this subject, it would make a good addition to the article. ~ CZeke (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals 

message: or at the least change the heading title.  This section points out possible advantages that color blindness may afford those afflicted with the condition, but makes no attempt to associate those advantages with possible evolutionary influence.  I assume that the author is trying to point out possible associations colorblindness may have on "survival of the fittest" in certain circumstances, but I would suggest that the circumstances described are so limited as to be inconsequential to the evolution of our species.  It is also possible that the author is attempting to "prove" that evolution as an inter-species phenomenon exists 
by his comparison of colorblindness between humans and monkeys.  If that is the case, the argument is far too weak.  It wreaks of personal bias and opinion, and has no business being included in an encyclopedic article.  I will leave it as is for the time being and let others chime in with their opinion.  A2Z (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to Remove "Evolutionary arguments" 

message: I agree that this section be removed, otherwise it needs to be substantially improved and change the title. There is a body of literature on evolution and color vision.  See for example, citation #3. However, even this reference concludes that the reason for the high prevalence of color blindness is still speculative.  
There is a statement about possible evolutionary advantages in the introduction of this article, so this idea probably there is little need to bring the topic up again as an entire section, with so little to bolster it.   Regarding the army anecdote,  I remember seeing an old WWII movie that depicted a U.S. soldier who was color blind and therefore could see enemy camouflage, so I wonder if the story is something invented by Hollywood.  mattelfesso (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename, "Evolutionary Considerations?"

message: http://www.colblindor.com/2010/06/02/color-blind-observers-for-national-defense/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.134.70 (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The missing reference?

message: The caption on the | Ishihara comparison refers to non-colorblind people as "Able-bodied."  I hardly think this is a correct label, and the fact you see the plate properly does not necessarily mean your body is able of anything other than color vision.  Speaking as a deuteranope, other than having a hard time telling my purple climbing rope from the blue one, and the occasional ill-advised selection of a neck tie, I have not run into major problems doing fairly advanced mountaineering/rock climbing/ice climbing, mtn bike racing, back country skiing, or practicing medicine.
Perhaps this should be changed to "normal vision".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.37.77 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That caption doesn't appear in this article; only the associated image does. It's a Commons image, and you can open a discussion about it by clicking here or simply change  yourself (using an edit summary to provide your rationale, of course). A complicating factor is that the phrase "able-bodied" appears not only in the caption but in the actual image, so you'd have to edit the jpeg itself to change the wording. Having a friendly word with the editor who uploaded it might be the best way forward. Rivertorch (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Able-bodied"?!? 

message: Any interest in adding a section on Acquired Dyschromatopsia?  There is some tangential reference such a senile macular and diabetes however there's considerable research into the effects of neurotoxic solvents producing a tritan defect.  Works by Donna Mergler at L'institute du travail in Quebec comes to mind. 
Lanthony's D-15 and Farnsworth Munsel and Munsel D have become an intensive test on defining the range and extent of defect and dychhrom occular independence. Ken Bowman at university of Melborne (Syndey Australia) has produced a quantification system for determining the extent of CV defect.
Let me know if you'd like for me to contribute on this. 
ALB--ALB (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acquired Dyschromatopsia 

message: Were images derived from the gay flag more "correct" or less, but consideration about the perception of an SVG image (with some RGB colours, not real colours) are, generally, nonsense and at least a grave original research. So, I propose to throw away that gay flag (with its non-standard green and azure instead of blue) and its derived images and resort to a table which describes (relative) perception of standard colours, namely: white, red, orange, yellow, green, cyan (RGB cyan, CMYK cyan and spectral cyan slightly differ, but we can neglect it),  RGB’s blue, and some of purple colors (such as magenta). Maybe, violet or indigo would be helpful too for tritanopia. Could we eventually find sources for standard colours? The table could look like the following. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A radical proposal on "rainbow" 

message: The colour perceptions of tritanopes (who see violet as a dark red colour - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Classification), combined with the known spectral sensitivities of avian LW cones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BirdVisualPigmentSensitivity.svg), which show a second transduction peak at short wavelengths,  throws light on why trichromats see violet as like a of mixture of red and blue - IMO, it really is a mixture of the red (LW) and blue (SW) cone signals. The problem with determining the spectral absorption of human cone cells is that they are only measured down to a wavelength of about 400nm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cone-response.svg), so any weak, short-wavelength peak in the transductive part of the absorption spectrum gets truncated in the middle of the peak, and thus confused with non-transductive background absorption, which anyhow gradually rises throughout the range as the wavelength decreases, as shown in the plot. Of course, there would not seem to be any reason for measuring below 400nm, because the human lens strongly absorbs in the UV in any case.
Direct measurement of specific cone cell response spectra would avoid this issue, but that is very difficult to do.
DJMcC (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications of tritanopes' vision for trichromatic violet 

message: Can't see an existing place to put this but perhaps someone who cares about this page might make a space.
http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/topicdocuments/colourvision.pdf
Colorblind individuals have been haphazardly excluded from aviation work for years without any scientific basis.
:deadlink / maybe deep link at Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association of Australia / does arrive at their home page / searched as suggested at home page no luck JSo9-10 (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prejudice against colorblindness 

message: I hate the word blindness. You can call me color blind, but I do know what red or green is. I love painting and differentiate between light and dark red/green shades very precisely. People always mock at us, thinking we would have problems with traffic lights. For most of us, it's only the Ishihara color test which causes problems. I'm not allowed to become a pilot because I'm not able to see these stupid numbers? This is not fair!--89.14.84.180 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blindness" 

message: There is a photo near the end of the article of someone with some head gear. The photo looks interesting, but the caption does not make clear who Neil Argburgesson is, what an eyeborg is, or how this is relevant to the article. Either the caption needs more info or should link to a page with more info. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the last paragraph of "Management". Richerman   (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The only inprovement i can see here would be to lower the picture one line if i am looking a this correctly, then the last line of the last paragraph of "Management".
" Harbisson explained how he could now perceive colors... "   would then show up directly under the pic in question. JSo9-10 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: or move the pic up by two lines, not sure how to accomplish this, so...JSo9-10 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo of Neil Argbursen needs more info 

message: The image of the american flags at the top of the page is a little silly. Can this be changed to something less mono-cultural?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.233.9.72 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This bit is rather strangely written, to whit the middle sentence:
" It is a form of dichromatism in which red appears black and therefore human can see light only from 400 nm to 650 nm. "
I wonder if this was machine translated from another language maybe? :) ... It also doesn't give any hint about the relevance of the wavelength figures, as they have hardly been discussed at all in the text up to this point.
How about:
"It is a form of dichromatism in which the subject can only perceive light wavelengths from 400 to 650nm, instead of the usual 700nm. Pure reds cannot be seen, instead appearing black; purple colours cannot be distinguished from blues; more orange-tinted reds may appear as very dim yellows, and all orange-yellow-green shades of too long a wavelength to stimulate the blue receptors appear as a similar yellow hue."
Or similar? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done precisely as suggested.  (I'm trusting you on the facts here, on the general principle that people who can write clearly usually can think clearly.) Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request - classification: by cause: dichromacy: protanopia 

message: Could these diagrams be removed? They aren't at all correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.80.23 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with them, and what should be the correct diagram?--Vbakke (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  A root of the problem is , modified back and forth for several years, to be chosen as the base of all these *anopia images. Later I tried to start a discussion, but it was dumped to an archive and forgotten. When I tried to fix some previous mistakes I likely introduced my own ones, but was reluctant to fix further due to insufficient feedback. Of course, if one can repair all this disorder, it would be great. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know enough to determine whether the flags are right or wrong. A simple step would be to delete the images because they are WP:OR or WP:SYN. We don't have a source telling us what the images should look like. We do have sources telling us how the 1895 flags and Ishihara plates are perceived. If there is a source for transforming color coordinates for different symptoms, then there could be a WP:CALC argument, but I don't think that is made in the current article. Glrx (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  If we keep them, we need to tie them to the specifications that created them.  A bit of original work is OK in creating illustrations, but only if the underlying data are reliably sourced, I think.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbow diagrams 

message: In the Further Reading section, please change
McIntyre,D. John
to
McIntyre, Donald
(this is the correct name; I've got the book)
JimCaligari (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Glrx (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 9 August 2013 

message: During WWII people with colourblindness were used on occasion to detect camoflage - there are a number of webpages on the subject (but for technical reasons I cannot call them up at the moment). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You likely speak about deuteranomaly – technically it is not a color blindness, and it is rather common condition. Can you make an article about it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Could see much more detail at black and white photos? It is an utterly ignorant speculation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhh, I thought it was self-explanatory, but obviously not. My understanding is that most WWII photography was black and white. Those "not coolourblind" (which may well be deuteranomaly) could not distinguish what the camouflaged objects were in these black and white images - that is, against them, the camouflage was successful. But those who were "colourblind", were not "fooled" by the camouflage, and could see what the camouflaged objects were. Are you saying that none of this is true?
Old_Wombat (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding of IM's criticism is once a black and white photograph has been taken, then any issue about color perception has been removed. There are no colors to perceive differently: everything is gray scale. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that real-life scenes or color photographs to contain camouflage that works with normal vision but fails with abnormal vision. Two pigments can be a color match even if their spectra vary widely. Glrx (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colourblindness in WWII 

message: While Tritanopia is commonly referred to as blue-yellow color blindness, the statement that tritanopes cannot distinguish blue from yellow is wrong.  
If you look at this image in the article:
 
Blue and yellow are clearly distinguishable (blue appears green, yellow appears pink). Tritanopia should more accurately be called blue-green color blindness, since tritanopes actually cannot distinguish blue from green. ANDROS1337TALK 16:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the rainbow flags is disputed; there's a perception issue; see above. That two particular monochrome colors can be distinguished is not surprising; shifting the colors slightly might find an isochrome. The rainbow flag colors were not chosen to highlight abnormal vision. Diagostic tests for symptoms do not used saturated colors. Glrx (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there are no actual yellow cones in the human eye; Tritanopia is the lack of blue cones, and thus everything is seen in shades of red and green.  Based on the image, it appears the red cones are more sensitive to yellow, while the green cones are more sensitive to blue.  I personally think the term "blue-yellow color blindness" was named for the sake of completeness, and for the fact that tritanopes cannot see (NOT distinguish) the colors blue and yellow. ANDROS1337TALK 20:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

text: FYI, I went ahead and made my suggested corrections (WP:BOLD). ANDROS1337TALK 22:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Andros' edits, from his comments above, sound in WP:OR. I'm tempted to revert since additions change some meanings and do not have sources. Several google hits repeat trianopes cannot distinguish blue and yellow. (eg, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605982/tritanopia) Glrx (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a common misconception due to the common name of the condition.  And Britannica isn't any more reliable than Wikipedia.  If you look at the image, blue and yellow are obviously distinguishable.  Remember that the L (red), M (green), and S (blue) cones are not sensitive to any specific wavelength; they cover a continuous range of wavelengths.  The L cones are more sensitive to long wavelengths, M cones to middle wavelengths, and S cones to short wavelengths.  There are no discontinuities in the range of wavelengths that that each cone can perceive, therefore it isn't scientifically possible that a tritanope can distinguish blue from green but not from yellow, since green is closer to blue on the spectrum than yellow is.  Based on the image, the L cones are more sensitive to yellow, while the M cones are more sensitive to blue.  Perhaps if the shade of yellow had more green in its hue it could perhaps appear greenish to a tritanope . ANDROS1337TALK 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tritanopia and blue-yellow distinction 

message: I'm improving the Evolutionary arguments section for a class assignment, and my edits are currently in my sandbox. Before I post it, I was hoping to get some constructive criticism on my additions and edits. Thank you!
Larry.monocello (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When making a request like this you need to give a link to your sandbox. I'll leave some comments on the sandbox talkpage. Richerman   (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

text: User:Larry.monocello who added this is in user:Sanetti's Darwinian medicine class. I looked over what you did and it seems entirely appropriate and useful. You found multiple sources which backed the content you added, you learned the wikitext markup and formatted everything properly, and you took initiative in modifying existing text. Thanks. It seems like you are expecting your classmate to review this further - I expect that to be even more productive.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Evolutionary arguments section 

message: I suggest that we remove all the test and "how things look" images except the Ishihara plates and other public domain images from reputable sites. We don't know how well they actually work and their construction is in essence a form of oiginal research. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have color blindness and all the images look different to me on these "how things look" comparisons, so they don't even work. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test image removal 

message: There really ought to be at least a brief discussion of the point that most mammals are normally dichromats (primates being the exception). --71.62.74.115 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is entirely human-centric 

message: The article states: 
"Should an affected male have children with a carrier or colorblind woman, their daughters may be colorblind by inheriting an affected X chromosome from each parent."
Wouldn't two color-blind people be certain to have color-blind children, or would they have to have the same type of color-blindness? 
Mikevegas40 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color-Blind Male and Color-Blind Female Procreate 

message: I have seen color blind, color-blind and colorblind used. Meriam Webster goes with color-blind. So does Oxford in its American English online version. 
Mikevegas40 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorblind, Color-Blind or Color Blind?  

message: The article should really be renamed to "Color vision deficiency" and "Color blindness" redirect to it. As stated in the article it is more common to be deficient in color vision, but not lacking it! Therefore color blindness (not perceiving colors at all) is a special/maximum case of color vision deficiency.
Using color blind for describing a condition with a broad range is a very unprecise top-level term, derogatory, and perpetuates ignorance.
Thanks for considering the renaming.
:Support The book Ophthalmology by G. Lang also describes it as color vision deficiency and not as color blindness. So I agree, it should be moved.--Michael (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Although colour blindness is the common name used for various colour deficiencies it is inaccurate and perpetuates the idea that all those with a deficiency can't see particular colours, or indeed or any colours. Richerman   (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article to "Color vision deficiency" 

message: The Epidemiology section suggests there is regional variation in the incidence of color blindness. It is not clear whether the information in the present table is for the world or for a particular country or region (and the source from which the table is copied is silent on this). It would be useful instead to have a table illustrating the regional variation, if there is a good source for such information.  --Frans Fowler (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology: Prevalence of color blindness table 

message: 1. Updated a source in the background about statistics of those color blind 
2. Added in a sentence in Anomalous trichromacy section to give readers better understanding of its relevance in comparison to other types of color blindness with a notable source. 
3. Added in a notable source about Ishihara color test
4. Added source to Design Implication section 
JulieEng2000 (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding of 4 Citations to help credibility of article  

message: For the sake of pluralism please remove the U.S.A. flag and put another more appropriate image, since this is a scientific topic I consider that no political 
topics, imaginery or symbolism must be used. Thanks. 
I recommend the image of the reference https://www.flickr.com/photos/entirelysubjective/6146852926 , which is creative commons free and shows better the different color blindness problems. 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 
190.193.41.99 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Problem 

message: How are colorblind people like me supposed to understand the difference between the pictures of apples? The pictures showing how a colorblind person would see the apples are intended for people with normal vision. For me, I can clearly see the left apple is red and the right one is green. And the pictures beneath show them with brownish tones. Am I even considered colorblind? I know there are different types (I'm talking about the red-green one), but are there degrees of color blindness? I have no problems with distinguishing red from green except that I fail to see the numbers in those pictures, which have no practical use in everyday life. --2.245.220.72 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are degrees of color blindness, and yes if you can't see the numbers then you have a form of color blindness indeed, but probably not severe enough as to interfere with your life. For more info you can probably read this site, it's very interesting http://www.color-blindness.com/ --Krystaleen 03:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorblind people who read this article 

message: Are these novel enough to merit space? Any experts?
Possible text:
More recently, spectrum-notching eyeglasses have been developed http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/idUSnGNX6QwFtP+1d5+GNW20140226; like tinted glasses, they cut out some spectral frequencies, but in a narrower, sharper-edged frequency range http://enchroma.com/technology/how-it-works/.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HLHJ (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Related: The Avegant Glyph team a non-VR DPL-based HMD claimed similar results with their display.  00:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  spectrum-notching eyeglasses 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Color blindness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080515103432/http://www.digitalspaceart.com/articles/ColorBlindness.pdf to http://www.digitalspaceart.com/articles/ColorBlindness.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070205055320/http://healthlink.mcw.edu:80/article/999211295.html to http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/999211295.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The one question I had coming to this article remains unanswered. Orthotox (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Animals?

message: Quick question: is there any form of colour blindness that involves only seeing black/white?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.43.32 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Achromatopsia which is talked about under the title Total color blindness - but to be precise they perceive black, white and shades of grey. Richerman   (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  black and white 

message: Why is there a request for a citation about the statement, "Should an affected male have children with a carrier or colorblind woman, their daughters may be colorblind by inheriting an affected X chromosome from each parent.", in the Red-Green color blindness section? If both parents carry the red-green mutation, then there must be as a matter of pure mathematical fact be up to a 1:2 chance of producing a color blind daughter. The male can only give the mutation X, and the mother recombines her 2 X chromosomes, and the mutation may or may not be passed along in the X she gives. It's not a straight linear probability because of recombination. On average in a large population and many children  it will yield a 1:2 probability. 173.24.40.128 (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious citation request? 

message: Substituted at 20:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The section on "Frequency of red-green color blindness in males of various populations" could be improved with a little narrative and possible some confidence intervals and a plot.  If "N" in that table is the number of people sampled from the indicated country and "%" indicates the proportion of those with red-green color blindness, as seems implied, then it's a relatively straightforward matter to compute a 95% confidence interval for each country.  I say "relatively straightforward", because there are at least a dozen different procedures that give slightly different answers.  A recent comparison with software is available with the "proportions" and "binom" packages for the R statistical programming language from the Comprehensive R Archive Network.  Fortunately, there is a vignette for the "proportions" package that compares the different procedures.  Without reviewing that, a reasonable approach (if not the best overall) uses the logit transform.  
I'm not prepared to do the research to confirm that these numbers mean what they appear to mean.  However, if someone else can confirm that, I can compute confidence intervals, add them to the table and add a plot, showing the estimates with confidence intervals.  I might also provide a plot to use either in addition to or in lieu of the table.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant reference is available dirt cheap if you want to look; no preview on GBS, sadly. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the section on "Frequency of red-green color blindness in males of various populations" 

message: I am removing a sentence ("This deficiency does not cause difficulty discerning red from green") as unsourced and implausible. It was inserted by 2601:240:8200:ACAF:D8A3:4A48:FE64:93FE (at 18:27 on 14 February 2016) adjacent to two refs that pertain not to this but to a different proposition in the previous sentence. One of those refs (Wong, Bang 2011) is behind a paywall; the other (Neitz, Jay; Neitz, Maureen 2011) does not appear to support the proposition that red–green color blindness does not cause difficulty discerning red from green.  --Frans Fowler (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv "This deficiency does not cause difficulty discerning red from green" 

message: While the textual part of this section is quite clear and documented, it is then followed by a table
titled "Red–green color blindness" which I find quite mysterious.
It has 3 entries: Population, N, %.  Population and % are clear, but what is N?
It might become clear if one could get access to the cited source, but I cannot.
So, who can grab that Harrison book, please clarify this table, either by replacing N with some clearer label, or by adding a sentence or 2 where the meaning of N is defined.
Thanx in advance!
Nicola.Manini (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: N means the number of people studied User:Nicola.Manini Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiology 

message: Can anyboy access the source for the male prevalence table?
I'm very suspicious of the fact both Navajos and Mexicans have a prevalence of 2,3% out of exactly 571 individuals studied. It really looks like they studied 571 Mexican Navajos, and added it twice to the table. --77.230.216.174 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexicans or Navajos 

message: I have removed the following tag from the caption of the red and green apple simulation image: 
{citation needed|date=May 2015}<!-I am Deuteranomaly and these are totally differn't. user:scientus->.
The proposition illustrated by the simulation is sourced in the body text; the source of the image is given in the media description. Moreover, the image is supposed to illustrate normal v. dichromatic perception, not normal v. deuteranomalous perception, and it isn't clear from scientus's hidden remark what is "totally differn't" from what.
As it happens, my own sight is strongly deuteranomalous, and in a way the simulation works perfectly for me: the top pair looks exactly like the bottom pair — as one would expect for someone with dichromatic vision.
--Frans Fowler (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red and green apples image - 'Citation needed' tag removed 

message: In the Medical Conditions infobox, in the description for Symptoms, it states:
“Decreased ability to see colors”
There is a reference attached in support of that description linking to the National Eye Institute: https://nei.nih.gov/health/color_blindness/facts_about
I do not think the reference supports the description. I understand the range of colour deficiencies that are collectively termed Colour Blindness. But I do not think this description for the symptoms of colour blindness is accurate or sufficiently precise.
I have selected two sentences from the first paragraph from the reference that I think contradict the infobox description:
1. Some people, however, have a color vision deficiency, which means their perception of colors is different from what most of us see.
2. People with color blindness aren’t aware of differences among colors that are obvious to the rest of us.
I think the language used by the National Eye Institute is considerably more precise than “reduced ability to see colors”. It describes a difference in perception of colour, and awareness of differences among colours.
The most common forms of colour blindness, relating to red-green colour vision, are much more subtle than “ability to see colours”.
Colour blindness is probably the most misunderstood vision-related defect there is, and a description of “reduced ability to see colours” just feeds common misapprehensions.
I didn’t just go ahead and change it because I’m a deadset newbie to editing WP, and it seems like a major change to mess with things in infoboxes.
Any feedbank would be appreciated. Prime Lemur (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reduced ability to discriminate certain colors" might be closer to the mark.  Alternatively, throw out the concept of it being a medical condition; it's really just a part of a range of normal genetic variation. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Condition Infobox entry for Symptoms 

message: There's an interesting discussion of colour blindness in relation to association football here: World Cup 2018: Why millions of fans see the football like this JezGrove (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange article. Did he never watch black and white TV? (Or is this a young person's problem?) One team has white shorts. The other dark green. They couldn't look more different! HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association football and colour blindness 

message: "Adjustments to teaching methods, mobile apps". What specifically does the "mobile apps" mean? Does it mean using using special mobile apps to aid others, or what specifically? The article is unclear on this fact. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous 

message: I'm sorry I lack evidence, but a friend who was colorblind (at least in the red area of the spectrum) was deer hunting and shot a deer.  We helped him track a blood trail using a red light source intended to emphasize blood drops.   At some point, the friend/hunter declared "I'm seeing colors I have never seen before."   I trust that he was not kidding, as he was quite amazed and history of color-blindless well known to his friends.  Is there an explanation for this phenomena?   Sorry I don't know anything about the emission spectrum of the blood tracker. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anecdotal 

message: Clinical and Experimental Optometry has an article showing that Clifton Pugh on biographical, inheritance and other grounds was was a protanope. I have looked hard but cannot see any place suitable for this information in the article. There is no section for "notable color blind people" though such sections exist for example for Prosopagnosia. I have put this information with reference (more details are in the online abstract) in  Color blindness and occupations though this is not the ideal place. However the information is important since it shows that color blindness should not stop people for seeking to become artists if that is their talent.
I was watching a scientific video in which they explained color blind people also see a certain color that others don't...  I was curious about that, but see it nowhere here David Lemire (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous colour blind artist 

message: None of it is really controversial. One ref is sufficient. Rest can go in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi refs in the lead

message: For the "Deuteranopia sight" picture, shouldn't it be "Protanopia sight" instead?
The picture seems like the red hues are missing, while the table in the "Types" section associate the lack of red hues with Protanopia, not Deuteranopia (associed with the lack of green hues, which are perfectly visible, to me)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheos2 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deuteranopia sight" picture 

message: I assume the label is referring to the 2 types of monochromacy. The article itself implies that achromatopsia means only rod monochromacy, but I think it normally means any monochromacy.
I am not an expert, but I think I know the missing information to clarify the difference between the two. No main cause is given for cone monochromacy. This is caused by only a single type of cone being functional.
The second sentence is nonsense, or at least a garbled version of the truth. Of course, if two different cone types are missing or non-functional, that only leaves one, but that does not mean that monochromacy is a combination of two types of dichromacy. It is certainly not an additional cause to a (missing) main cause, as implied.
I think it would also be useful to link the symptoms of rod monochromacy to the cause. If no cones are functional, vision is still possible using the rods, but these are for night vision and overload in bright light.
Unfortunately I do not have any reeferences to justify my opinion, so I have not made an edit. Where are the Facts (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Types of Achromatopsia 

message: I am just intrigued by the fact that a article in Wikipedia are referring to British countries, Canada and USA. I am thinking of removing such references in a generic article.
--84.210.141.97 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why some contries 

message: In the Diagnosis section of the article, there appears to be a missing word:
"... simplified to six tests; test, one of tests 2 or 3,... "  should likely read " ... simplified to six tests; test 1, one of tests 2 or 3, ..."
SquashEngineer (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnosis 

message: The text in the article is not correct despite cited sources saying the contrary.  Even though blue-yellow color blindness is the common name, in truth Tritanopia should be called blue-green color blindness since it is actually green (not yellow) that is indistinguishable with blue.  Yellow appears pinkish (not blue or green) to people with tritanopia, and this is due to L/M vs. S cones and the laws of physics.  This should be corrected ASAP. ANDROS1337TALK 22:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tritanopia 

message: The treatment and frequency sections of the graphic seem severely lacking, and should probably be elaborated on. WikiWonder159 (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main chart 

message: Is "color perception difference" more accurate terminology than "color blindness" or "color vision deficiency" when referring to color vision syndromes beyond complete achromatopsia?
Do English-language textbooks of Ophthalmology and Anatomy & Physiology currently reflect this?
Dasuitts (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Medical Nomenclature 

message: it contains some references to how tricrhomic color vision works, but no indication of the mechanism(s) behind color blindness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.184.131.199 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this critique and made an attempt at updating the section to be more in line with explaining CVD, i.e. the deviation from trichromatic vision, not trichromatic vision itself. I still need to fill in the blanks with some sources. Curran919 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mechanism" section does not actually contain the mechanism for color blindness.. 

message: I propose merging Color anomaly into Color blindness. The page should - if anything - be called anomalous trichromacy, but I do not think it warrants its own page like dichromacy and monochromacy do, since the scope is much narrower. The current content is fully redundant with what is already in Color blindness, and I would say potential content (e.g. if I really felt like filling out an anomalous trichromacy page) would be 90% redundant. On the flipside, I don't think making a page for anomalous trichromacy would allow significantly less information on Color blindness. I think the OP made that page, since many object semantically to color blindness being used to include "partial" color blindness, but that is how it is both in literature and colloquially.Curran919 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Color Anomaly 

message: I'm also considering splitting the article for genetics of [congenital] red-green color blindness, which could use quite a bit of expansion. Thoughts? Curran919 (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split for Genetics of Red-Green Color Blindness

message: in the "design implications" section, the sentence "For denotative tasks, using colors that are classically associated with a color name. For example, do not use burgundy () to represent "red".", if I understand it correctly seems to say that we should use, use colors associated with a color name, then gives an example saying not to do that.. So which way is it? Dhrm77 (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have clarified the passage. Curran919 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing statement