Talk:Epicanthic fold

Epicanthus vs Monolids

I wanna want to know what are the differences between Epicanthus and Monolids?

It is usual to add new posts to the bottom, not the top, of a talk page. Epicanthus means 'around the corner [of the eye]'. An epicanthic fold is a fold of skin that tends to cover the corner of the eye. Monolid is a slang term for when there is no visible crease of skin between the upper eyelid and the eyebrow. Strictly speaking the two are separate features, though they often occur together. In Epicanthus inversus the canthus is covered, but there is often no monolid. Urselius (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

An

.."An epithcanthal fold...is the origin of the...term "mongoloid."

What does that mean? A-giau 10:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just guessing here, but mongoloid now means people with down syndrome and asians. They both have the epicanthal fold. Mongoloid first refered to Asians (Mongol +oid) a bit latter it was applied to down syndrome people because they looked a bit asian. Hope this helps.Itler005 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

First, it's Down Syndrome (in caps) and Asians (in caps). Second, for at least the last thirty years it has been unacceptable to call people with Down Syndrome "Mongoloids", a practice which is demeaning to both Mongols and those affected with Down Syndrome. Myles325a (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

the term is still utilized in scientific literature by all sides e.g. asians , historically speaking the mongols have made significant impressions on the europeans - kahn and atilla - and since other asian ethnicities resemble the mongols more or less in facial characteristics , the europeans have made the connection from mongols to mongol-oids with oids meaning resembles .

in medical literature , the term is not used as of today . it's been discovered that people with down syndrome simply have excessive genetic content - they have an extra chromosome or part of an extra chromosome , the term to describe this phenomena is trisomy . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.64.117 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should provide complete and accurate history and ideology of words and phrases which are relevant to an article. Should evolving standards of civility, tolerance, in deference to other cultural norms render an older word or phrase demeaning or politically incorrect, Wikipedia should not "rewrite" history, but rather, assume the modern norm is known or reference it parenthetically. Articles are written for a global audience and history has to be recorded accurately. It is more demeaning to whitewash over prejudices suffered by a group of people. Should the article regarding the Anne Carlsen Center omit any reference to the Crippled Children's School? 76.14.128.97 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Da5id403 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Child With Downs Syndrome

The child in this photo does NOT have an epicanthic fold... Therefore this picture is inappropriate for this article and would best be removed. --69.216.135.167 17:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

America

Don't Amerindians and Eskimo have it too?

Many Latin Americans have it, too. This is because, like the American Indian and the Eskimo, their ancestors crossed over the Bering Strait landbridge tens of thousands of years ago.--YoungFreud 12:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Latin American isn't a race. Amerindian includes the original peoples of both continents. 107.77.64.22 (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Epicanthic folds are more common in Native Americans than most other populations in the world beside East/South East Asians. BUT, the occurance of epicanthic folds in Native Americans is much less prominant than with East Asians. They tend to be most common among indigenous of the northern most populations/tribes. I have also noted they also seem fairly common among some arawak tribes of the Amazon. 69.213.87.141 13:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Foolish white. the epicanthal fold is a sign of superiority and intelligence. Asians > cRA KERS

who are you calling white? Surely not I!

My Norwegian Father and Native American Grandmother (Muskogee Creek and Cherokee) had epicanthic folds. His parents and her children (Native and Scots Irish) did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.122.159 (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Irish

I'm not going to add this, because I want to hear confirmation from somebody with a stronger anthropology background; but I have read before that the expression 'Irish eyes' refers to the tendency among Irish people to have whole or partial epicanthic folds. John F Kennedy had such a feature. (I did too when I was a child, though according to the article this is common among children who aren't of Irish descent as well.) QuartierLatin 1968 02:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

i am scottish, with possible irish heritage, and i have very distinct epicanthal folds....

so in regards to the irish thing, well, yes so it seems so!

In response to the two posts above: I have never heard this before, but I'll have to add myself to the anecdotal evidence of epicanthal folds as a possible feature of people of Irish descent. I have had very distinct epicanthal folds since birth and on into adulthood and I am of English, Irish, and German extraction. No one else in my family has this trait, though, so I can't figure out where it came from. And I don't think that JFK can be said to have had epicanthal folds, based on looking at some pictures of him online. Coreyander 04:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

epicanthic fold is not unheard of in scottish peoples, this may be due to gentic backgrounds involving scythians via the pictish people or from the 5000 sarmation shoulder brought in by the romans. I have epicanthic fold as do many of my male relatives and Im scottish descent. Some of my relatives also have exhibited mongolian spot.

Oz Clarke, Billy Davies, Louis Walsh - British/Irish people with folds, off the top of my head. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi: Adding to conversation here. I keep coming across people on the net stating that they are 100% white yet have EPICANTHIC FOLDS. Usually they identify as Celtic, Portuguese, Spanish or Italian. It's understandable that many don't know what I'm about to share, we're not all geeks like me. So here goes.

Celtic? Theories have been put forth that the Celts are actually a hybrid group resulting from the mingling of Caucasian & Asiatic peoples in the regions of the Caucaus mountains/Eurasian steepe before begining their migrations west. Once arriving in the British Isles/Gaul they then interbreed w/ the resident population recorded as having dark complextions, eyes and hair. These persons have genetically been confirmed as having Asiatic and Cro-Magnon origins (ie Basques). Therefore, those thinking they have "100%" white Celtic blood, don't quite understand what Celtic really is. That's ok.

As for those 100% white Italians, Spanish and Portuguese. These regions consisted of the mingling of Caucasian, Asiatic, Middle Eastern and African peoples. Native Iberians interbreed with Celts. These offspring interbreed with Romans. Then came the Germanics and finally the Arabs, Berbers and other absorbed populations that arrived during the Moslem conquests which swept from Eurasia to the Atlantic. So its not suprising that those who think they are 100% white have EPICANTHIC FOLDS...they're not 100% white. And that's great. Kinda dispells the myth of racial purity in Western Europe doesn't it?

Quick side note, those from Scandanavia and Germany who claim pure "Aryan" blood need to realize that 1) their Viking forebears brought back captured women from Celtic Countries, the Middle East & Africa w/ whom they interbreed (making modern Scandavians), 2) the Norse interbreed w/ the indigenous Saami populations of Scandanavia who have genetically/linguistically shown to be of partial Asiatic & Cro-Magnon origin(again making modern Scandanavians), 3) the Roman legions placed on the Northern border of the Empire were largly taken from the Southern Provinces (North Africa & the Middle East) and gradually interbreed w/ the local Germanic populations. This was to lessen the risk of Roman soldiers joining with the subdued population in any insurrection. So this supposed pure "Aryan" race (which by the way is an Sanskrit word appropriated by Germanic racists) never really existed......and if it did it ended by (at the latest) in the 1100's AD. So we were all big mutts even before we got to the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.217.81 (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Another English example is Stephanie Butland. In Germany there are also lotsa Germans with an E. who were obviously mostly born in the states Bayern and Baden-Württemberg (South Germany). See here. Possible that Huns live there loong time ago? --Gabbahead. (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I've read some ridiculous crap on this talk page. The reason people from far western Eurasia and people from far eastern Eurasia some similar physical characteristics is "convergent evolution". Their environments share certain similar pressures so people from those regions have developed similar physical characteristics to deal with those environmental pressures. Numerous genetic studies have demonstrated the further western populations are removed from the east, the less eastern admixture they possess. This includes the Irish. I have degrees in anthropology and archaeology. I promise, the reason I've provided is correct. Holy smoke, I've read some ridiculous crap on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.121.195 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Epicanthoplasty

Epicanthoplasty is the name of the operation for reduction of Epicanthal fold. Blepharoplasty is the creation of a "double eyelid" from a "single".--Hontogaichiban 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Blepharoplasty" is a generic term for reshaping the eyelid. Perhaps you are referring to Asian blepharoplasty. -AED 17:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you're right and I certainly did mean to say Asian blepharoplasty.--Hontogaichiban 22:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Down Syndrome

I fail to see why Down Syndrome should be mentioned in this article? I believe individuals with Down Syndrome also have mouths but it doesn't mention that on the mouth page!? I can see why it might be mentioned on the Down Syndrome page as a feature that is more exaggerated in that condition, but here I would have to question the reason it has been stated.--Hontogaichiban 13:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read from somewhere that the Down syndrome anomalous fold is not actually the same as a healthy fold. But, an epicanthal fold on a person who normally wouldn't have one is a simple diagnostic clue, and has to be mentioned. The issue here is like with lactose intolerance: a "disease" in Europe and genetically associated areas, but normal elsewhere; yet lactose intolerance is a symptom of irritable bowel syndrome, which is not normal anywhere. --Vuo 01:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

When there is a dispute like this, it certainly helps to provide references for the assertions. -AED 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on this one, I am always open to being proved wrong! :) However, I'm still not happy about this. Firstly, if the fold in question is not the same as an epicanthal fold and is best refered to as "Down syndrome anomalous fold" then it shouldn't be here, it should either be on a separate page or on the "Down syndrome" page. Also please define "a person who normally wouldn't have one". I don't think in the vast majority of cases, clues are normally required in diagnosing Down Syndrome, the diagnosis is fairly obvious and straight forward. As for IBS, not all IBS suffers are lactose intolerant, not by a long way, do you have a source for this one?--Hontogaichiban 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And "Cri du chat anomalous fold"? The article is about the feature, not just about its occurence in people of various ethnicities. (Red hair mentions its incidence as a symptom of kwashiorkor, for example.)

I imagine "a person who normally wouldn't have one" has as intended referent a person who has a chromosomal variation who, in the counterfactual situation where they did not have that variation (i.e. the mutation in their gamete which caused the variation failed to occur, or was reversed early in embryonic development), and from then on experienced a healthy, typical pregnancy, would have been born without an epicanthal fold. (Yes, I know I'm just rephrasing. Personally, I believe that causality is a primitive concept. "Normally", again, is incredibly slippery, but I think I know what Vuo meant by the term; I can't see any wildly different interpretations that would still make sense. I doubt Vuo is referring to a person who has temporarily acquired an epicanthal fold through makeup or cosmetic surgery, for one.)

As for diagnosis, all diagnostic indicators are clues in some sense. When a baby who has Down syndrome is born, if prenatal tests have not indicated the baby as having the syndrome, epicanthal folds will be one of the indicators leading to medical practicioners pursuing a diagnosis of Down syndrome, if the epicanthal folds are unexpected given the baby's parentage. -- EdC 09:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the way you have phrased it now.--Hontogaichiban 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I hope people realise why adding this to this page is controversal. I note that on the down syndrome page the only mention of epicanthal folds is to point out how linking this feature between down syndrome and people with inherited epicanthal folds lead to a degree of racism that continues to this day. So it seems that to mention it here in this much smaller article is out of proportion and potentially misleading.

"English physician John Langdon Down first characterized Down syndrome as a distinct form of mental retardation in 1862, and in a more widely published report in 1866 entitled "Observations on an ethnic classification of idiots".[1] Because of his perception that Down syndrome children shared physical facial similarities (epicanthal folds) with Mongolians, he used the terms mongolism and mongolian idiocy.[2] "Idiocy" was a medical term of the century referring to a severe degree of intellectual impairment." - Quote from Down syndrome article.

--Hontogaichiban 13:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see racism mentioned in that context; I do realise that it's a sensitive topic, but that's no reason to omit encyclopædic facts. Anyway, if the mere mention of a topic in an article appears to overemphasise that topic, the solution is not to remove the topic but to expand the article. We don't have anything on the connotations of epicanthic folds in various East Asian cultures, for example. That's something that I'm certainly not qualified to begin to write about, but if you could add any information it would help to redress the balance. We should (I think) be aiming for something like the article on red hair, which also deals with a minority phenotype with positive and negative connotations in the societies where it does occur. EdC 16:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said.

Re racism in the down syndrome article, what it is refering to there is the linking on down syndrome and the Asian "race" which still has ramifications today. I don't mind all this information being included, I just want to ensure it is done carefully and I hope we can all work together to achieve this.--Hontogaichiban 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Slanted eyes"

User:Hontogaichiban: you removed a sentence (diff), deceptively marking it as a minor edit. I appreciate that you did so in good faith, but "slanted eyes" is (whether you like it or not) a common shorthand in colloquial English for the appearance of epicathal folds. As such, it should be preserved, perhaps moved later in the article with a mention that the term carries undesirable undertones. But I'll let you do that. EdC 07:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept that "slanted eyes" is a common shorthand in colloquial English for the appearance of epicathal folds. Not only is it technically incorrect but it is also potentially offensive. Here is a dictionary defintion[1]:

:slant    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (slnt)
:v. slant·ed, slant·ing, slants 
:v. tr.
:To give a direction other than perpendicular or horizontal to; make diagonal; cause to slope: She slants her letters from :upper right to lower left. 
:To present so as to conform to a particular bias or appeal to a certain audience: The story was slanted in favor of the :strikers. 

:v. intr.
:To have or go in a direction other than perpendicular or horizontal; slope.

:n. 

:A line, plane, course, or direction that is other than perpendicular or horizontal; a slope. 
:A sloping thing or piece of ground. 
:Printing. A virgule. 

:A personal point of view or opinion. 
:A bias. 
:Offensive Slang. Used as a disparaging term for a person of East Asian birth or descent. 

Even if there are parts of the English speaking world where this term is not offensive, in this international encyclopedia, I do think we could avoid this term in favour of another. Which is actually present in the article already. When I removed the sentence it made no difference to the information content of the article leading me to believe the sentence may have been added as vandalism of some kind which lead me (without adequate thought) to mark it as a minor edit. - I do accept that this was an error on my part and which could amount to deception which I don't approve of in other people and I apologise for doing it in this case.--Hontogaichiban 12:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually having just reviewed what was actually written, I removed it primarily because in the way it is used in the article it is just plain wrong. The article does not say that "slanted eyes" is a colloquial description, it states factually that <various features> do give the appearence of slanted eyes. This is simply incorrect.--Hontogaichiban 12:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the phrase into its own section, although it does seem out of proportion to the rest of the article. Also please feel free to edit this if you feel it could be written better.--Hontogaichiban 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that. I appreciate the edit was made in good faith. I would point out that:

• The term has reasonably wide currency (111,000 pages on Google);
• The offensive slang marker is attached to "slant" as a noun, which I would consider highly offensive. "Slanted eyes" I would term less so.
• We do have a list of ethnic slurs, wherein:

  • Slant-Eye, Slit-Eye, Slant, Slant-Eyed Devil, Slant-Eyed Demon

    (UK Commonwealth & U.S.) a person of Asian descent

Further, I would contend that (a) the term(s) should be explained, and (b) they should be explained here. And that holds especially if the terms carry an incorrect assumption. -- EdC 17:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I will add Slit-eyed to the article and a link to the list of ethnic slurs. Fortunatley I have not heard the other terms list in use in the UK at least and so won't bother to add them here. If you feel they should be included feel free to add them. Cheers.--Hontogaichiban 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, here is an example of political correctness gone mad. When I came across this article, the first thing that I thought of was "Is this fold something that makes Chinese people look slant eyed, or is that done by some SECOND genetic trait?" Here we have an article that totally avoids this because "slanted eyes" is regarded as offensive, whereas "rounded eyes" is not. If you met an Asian person for the first time, this is the second thing you would notice after their yellow skin. If you were to write back home and describe this person, could you not reasonably say that their eyes were slanted compared to an Englishmen's, or would that be a racist slur? How stupid can you get! I suppose there are some who would argue that to be all proper and precious, you would say they exhibited epicanthic folds, that is use formal Latinate piece of medical jargon, and advise your reader to look it up on a medical site. And that would be better. Latin medical words are used for parts of the body that are considered indecent if publicly displayed, like vagina, penis, rectum and so on. So, why would calling slanted eyes, ocular entities exhibiting epicanthic folds be a better way of talking about a human? I'm going to add a reasonable and non-offensive detail to the effect that folds ARE the reason that Asian people's eyes look slanted. The preceding discussion above my contribution here could have come straight from "Alice in Wonderland". It's just complete gibberish. The fact that some word can have an offensive connotation to SOME people in SOME places is not a reason to forget that it can be used in totally innocuous and aptly descriptive ways too. For example, to some people, the term Jew is about the same as a swear word. But there is nothing wrong in using the word when it correctly identifies a person of the Hebrew faith. So much for "slanted eyes" being regarded by some as a "slur". So are a million other words for people with twisted minds, and we aren't writing or catering to them here at WP, are we? Myles325a (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact you take the term "yellow skin" literally makes you lose any credibility you have, idiot. --68.123.152.132 (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As much as I don't want to agree, saying "yellow skin" does really make that whole argument be thrown out the window, in fact that's when I stopped reading... As for this whole debate, no matter how many times you've used it, the fact is that even Webster classifies it as "Vulgar and slang", so no matter how much easier it would've been for you to understand it WITH the slang, NO credible encyclopedia would ever use the slang to describe something. Just like the "Black People" article won't have the n-word in it, or Chinese have c-word, and so on. It's not just a matter of respect towards a people, it's a self-serving unwritten (as far as I know) policy that if Wiki wants to be taken seriously it has to do. As a matter of fact I wasn't even aware that it's slang, or offensive, but that doesn't matter. ANY vulgar/slang work only belongs in it's own page with an explanation of what it is, and why it's offensive. The only time we would ever use a slang word is like, "More commonly known as ____", where the blank is NEVER a vulgar/offensive word, as this one is clearly defined by dictionaries. 24.91.72.168 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to kick a dead horse, but Asian's do have yellow-ish skin tint. My grandmother is %100 Korean. They also have the titular epicanthic fold, which gives them the appearance of slanted eyes. I don't understand why some people find this so offensive. It IS a racial trait. Describing a person of Asian descent as having slanted/narrow eyes is different than calling them a "squint-eye" out of spite or racism. Are we just going to pretend that race doesn't heavily influence appearance and genetic characteristics? Even my grandmother refers to Asians as having slanted eyes, and Caucasians as having rounded. Is she an evil racist too?

-B184.153.119.55 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Kicking the dead horse more.. And wondering - is/was there a "corresponding" racial slur used at any time or place calling Europeans "round-eyed devils"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimw338 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Plainly and simply, there is no need for a dictionary definition of this type—one that is not only colloquial but also potentially disparaging—to appear in the introductory sentence. That the term slant eye appears on dictionary.com is not the last word on the matter; the term also appears in Merriam-Webster (a longer-standing and more reliable source) as "disparaging and offensive." Accusing this edit (removing the term) of being vandalism is nothing more than trouble-making. And so, I will continue to revert this edit (re-inserting the term). Thank you. 75.27.42.188 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Major resectioning

I have resectioned the whole article for clarity's sake. I hope that this structure is better. I'm sure it needs some tidying up though etc...--Hontogaichiban 13:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Err...

It is primarily a cosmetic procedure, though it may increase the horizontal range of the eye[citation needed].

Yeah, really need a citation here. How could the fold increase the eye's horizontal range if it doesn't cover any part of the pupil?

Question...but don't get offended by it....

The article says that the epicanthal fold is seen in young children before the bridge of the nose begins to elevate. Is that why East Asian people have flat noses? (204.168.120.163)

i think it rather works the other way around: because Asian typical dont have a pronounced forhead and/or nose, they are more likely to have Epicanthal fold. (p.s. my parent are both chinese, but damn it work the other way around//// da>.<n~)--142.161.69.222 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, although the evolutionary reason for these folds being retained in some populations may be different again.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The commonality of epicanthic folds and flat noses is that both are neotenous traits, i. e., East Asians adults simply retain both traits, while they disappear in Europeans as they grow up.

There might be an implication here that epicanthic folds are only retained in populations (or even individuals) which also retain a flat nose, but not the other way round, but I have no idea if both traits are necessarily correlated. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think epicanthal folds can be considered neotenous traits if a huge number of adults retain them (e.g. many East Asians, some Negros, a few Europeans). There might be a correlation between low nose bridges and epicanthal folds, but there are certainly other factors involved. --Supjet (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand.

The diagrams use arrows pointing to different locations of the face, and the png image shows a girl with no apparent crease in her eye whatsoever. I still have no clue what this mythical "fold" is. This encyclopedia page does work.

I agree. Eventhough I know what an epicanthic fold is it isn't well defined here and definately not through the pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.213.87.141 (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Having read the article over and over (apart from having read descriptions of it in books years ago) and viewed Image:Young_woman_with_dimples.JPG, Image:Brushfield_spots.jpg, and Image:Epicanthal_fold.jpg, well, it's as if the article presented totally opposite descriptions of what an epicanthal fold is. One picture shows what I think is a "double eyelid", the other a "single eyelid", and the last one looks like something in between. So what is an epicanthal fold, really? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.182.204 (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Well single/double eyelids have little to do with epicanthic folds besides that in order to have a single eyelid an epicanthic fold must be present but double eyelids appear in eyes both with and without an epicanthic fold. Regardless, an epicanthic fold is something separate from an eyelid crease... It's the little flap of skin that appears in the inner corner of the eye.

The only way out of this mess is comparison photos/diagrams of all three of

In some Asian ethnicities, the presence of an epicanthic fold is associated with a less prominent upper eyelid crease, commonly termed "single eyelids" as opposed to "double eyelids". The two features are distinct; a person may have both epicanthic fold and upper eyelid crease, one or neither.

commons:Image:Epicanthalfold.jpg hardly points out the difference. It should only have color on the different part. And still, need 3 not 2 images. Also the grey line on the similarly named commons:Image:Epicanthal_fold.jpg is weird. Jidanni (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Khoisan?

I'm wondering about the accuracy of this part. This is OR so far, but it looks to me as if Khoisan eyes don't fit the description of the epicanthic fold. They have no upper eyelid crease, but the fold goes the other way, covering the outer corner rather than the inner corner of the eye. See, for instance, the portraits at [2]. 82.25.232.106 12:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Restrict vision?

Do epicanthal folds restrict the field of vision at all? One of my schoolmates has extreme epicanthal folds and she seems to have vision problems related to these, while other asians with less pronounced ones do not. One recurring joke is that we can never tell if she's squinting at us.--Pewpewlazers 06:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad example

I don't think this picture really shows a good example of an epicanthal fold, and therefore I, perhaps temporarily, moved it here:

File:Brushfield.jpg

epicanthal fold in a child with Down Syndrome.

On the other hand, this might be a better example. Too bad it's not free to use. Mikael Häggström 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

New picture

I uploaded Image:Epicanthalfold.jpg. If you find it uncorrect, please change it. It's very easy. Just open it in Paint, copy the upper part to the lower and start painting! Mikael Häggström 06:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pejorative Terms

In some parts of the English speaking world, the term "slanted eyes" or "Chinese eyes" is still in colloquial use, though it is widely considered offensive in urban areas.

What, so it's OK in rural areas? Revised this whole para. Rojomoke 11:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic group examples

There aren't sources for most of the ethnic groups listed, but the mention of Turks caught my eye (no pun intended). I don't think I've seen a Turk with any epicanthal fold. Ufwuct (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's a common trait among the Turkic people, though not the Turks (people of Turkey), because most people in modern Turkey are Europeans (Anatolians, Greeks, various Balkanites, etc) who were Turkicized, only a minority of them are pure Turkic. Edrigu (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please include photo of a person without epicanthic fold

Please include a photo of a person who does not have an epicanthic fold, for comparison. That would allow the reader to more clearly compare the specific features that make up the fold. As it is, I see general features but still do not understand what the epicanthic fold is. -Pgan002 (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I second this Aurora sword (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep! As soon as I saw the piccies on the page, I thought this needs a photo of an non-epicanthic eye alongside, and from the same perspective. Sure, you could say everyone knows what typical Western people's eyes look like, but it's not the same thing as having two pictures to look at where you clearly see where the differences lie. Myles325a (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Came here specifically to suggest this also. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is the bigger picture the one *without* the epicanthic fold? It's confusing. In fact, all of the pictures are hard to see the fold on. Anyone have better pictures than these? Horus (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What's more, he's smiling, and his facial lines are obscuring his natural eye shape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.208.161 (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Evolution

These evolutionary theories are not commonly held and are not even referenced. They should be removed. --Dneyder (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources in this section are not reputable. The entire section should be removed. Rectipaedia (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Epicanthic Fold

The second photograph (the "Older East Asian Male") should indicate that the subject has East Asian eyes that lack the epicanthic fold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dneyder (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

be bold and correct it yourself. I don't know if you're right because as it says on my user page, I'm totally blind. Graham87 15:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference between an epicanthic fold and that of which can be ascribed to as the " slit " appearance

The majority of Asians do not have the fold , a " slit " is not an epicanthic fold. The second picture was deleted because it was of poor quality - obscure - and the fold wasn't prominent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.64.117 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What IS it? Unclear

The descriptive text and the existing photos don't help me to understand what an epicanthic eye-fold is in the first place. Maybe the article needs a diagram, or additional contrasting photos? JKeck (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alignment

My addition to the page was removed from the Front page and moved to the Talk page where someone also removed it. I believe it has a right to be in here. This topic and reference is what I wanted to add:

Alignment

The epicanthic fold can give horizontal alignment.

External links

Different alignment gives a different view

There is also a reference to this on Notcot.org: http://www.notcot.org/post/4206/ Michel_sharp (talk) 19:14, 11 januari 2011 (UTC)

Racial epicanthic folds

It looks like this page used to have extensive discussion of epicanthic folds as a result of one's racial/ethnic descent, but that due to controversy it was removed. Unfortunately, the current state of this page (that is, listing only neoteny and medical conditions) implies that having epicanthic folds is always a disease and is always abnormal. Since this is not the case, I added a stub section back in about racial epicanthic folds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandperl (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That section was an uncited list of various Mongoloid peoples, so I removed it. It was original research. I will add a quote from Ashley Montagu who claimed it is found on Mongoloid peoples.--Ephert (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rice....

This article was linked on wikipedia's home page today: Did you know ... "according to controversial Romanian anthropologist Henric Sanielevici, the Chinese eye fold comes from chewing rice?" There's no mention of that (absurd, to me) theory in the article, but it should be here, along with rebuttals made by other anthropologists. Wikipedia is not a place for POV.... Here's what is currently there as a theory: "Although it has become quite a well known fact, that due to the sand storms and particles of sand being in the air, the eyes folded over on them self to protect the eyes from the sandy winds, a conclusive theory that has been debated many times, but seems the only logical way that natural selection has made the Homosapien evolve." This is substandard. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Eric

Mongoloid Term

Why does this article use "Mongoloid" I thought it was derogatory and outdated. I changed one usage and will precede to change the others if no one minds.--JTBX (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't have any objections to that, but the older term is more succinct, and should probably be mentioned at least *once* because it was in such common use. But I don't know anything about this subject; this article is only on my watchlist to protect against vandalism . Graham87 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I also find the usage of the word "mongoloid" outdated and racist. I would update the word and the corresponding source with a more modern one. 64.189.101.117 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Source for Europeans with folds

There was a picture of a currently living saami person with supposedly epicanthic folds in the article for quite some time. I removed, and still there is no source for saami or any other group having the folds at all. It's not even clear if the pictured person had epicanthic folds at all. Pleas refrain from using a vivid imagination when editing. Heracleidae-2013 (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Some British and Irish people also have this fold. See; Billy Davies, Oz Clarke and loads of others i can't think of right now. 2.217.255.31 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

I am adding a section here regarding an edit by Rectipaedia made yesterday. The content removed is sourced. The edit summary indicates that a discussion was started; it was merely a response to a section created made six years ago. I'm going to restore this content. If this restoration is contested, please revert and let me know what I may be missing. Thanks. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: done. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The content in question is sourced. That is not the issue. The issue is that the source is unreliable. Wikipedia rules require sources to be reliable. "For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." The source is a self-published non-academic source, which is not allowed.

Also, please do not create a second talk page section. I will not reply in this section again. Rectipaedia (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It is the inner corner fold

Seems to be confusion. The epicanthic fold is the fold of the upper eyelids which covers the inner corners of the eyes. It has little do do with the presence or lack of a eyelid crease of the upper eye-lid (which is a separate issue). Hence, the name "epi-canthus" (ie., "(upon)-(the corner of the eye)"). One can have an epicanthic fold while at the same time having a deep crease in the upper eyelid. More specifically, it is the fold of the upper eyelid folding over the inner corner of the eye (the rest of the eyelid crease can be present above the eyelid bottom anywhere else around the eye, however the epicanthic fold is specifically where it crosses the inner corner of the eye [below the lower edge of the eyelid]). Someone needs to research this topic better and correct and make clearer the article. At the moment, I think this article is just confusing people greatly. — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epicanthic fold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112093315/http://health.allrefer.com:80/health/epicanthal-folds-info.html to http://health.allrefer.com/health/epicanthal-folds-info.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Genetics

What are the genetic bases of this eye shape? --62.46.51.183 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There may be more than one gene involved, but one that has gotten a lot of attention is EDAR, which codes for Ectodysplasin A receptor, in particular, a variant called 370A, also known as rs3827760, 1540T/C, or Val370Ala. (Ectodysplasin A receptor#Derived EDAR allele) It results in epicanthic fold, thicker hair shafts, more sweat glands (especially on the feet), shovel-shaped incisors, and smaller breasts. It goes back about 35,000 years, with no indication that it was inherited from Altai or other known Neanderthals. Apparently it underwent a recent selective sweep. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Medical Conditions"

The listing of disorders and genetic mutations that may or may not in some or all cases produce morphological features similar to the epicanthic fold is off-topic in this article in my view. If there is a consensus about such a list being needed in the article then I would like to have the reason. There are many more diseases and mutations that come with eyelid creases common among caucasian populations, yet they are not mentioned in this or other related articles. Racist terms such as "Coinslot Eye Disease" are a common slur, fetal alcohol syndrome is also used to refer to Asian people, and that may be partly because of the tolerance of the addition of unrelated disorders in wikipedia articles about normal variations of human morphology. Since the article makes it seem like it, I think it needs to be made clear that the "epicanthic fold" is not the result of a disease. I question the purpose and motivation of edits that deliberately connect it to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moot372 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

60% of individuals with Down syndrome

The question is: what is the percentage amongst individuals without Down syndrome? It is the most popular eyelid, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.110.47 (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of information with sources

Both of you need to take this somewhere else. This talk page is for discussing the article's content. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by MJL. Please do not modify it.
Why did a registered user remove a whole section of information with sources? What is this? You're supposed to back everything up with sources and I have done that. Please don't remove information with sources, you're breaking the basic rules of Wikipedia. I don't know what your problem is. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)) Why not create an article on "Epicanthic fold frequency variation in South Asia", that way you can add anything you like. Urselius (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC) @Urselius: Why are you so irritated? The way you are speaking to me is completely unwarranted. I don't know what I did for you to treat me in such a disparaging way. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)) Your actions speak for themselves. You seem to interpret advice as disparagement - if you have enough material, create a page on the subject, I have many times (here is one of the smaller articles I have created as an example: Gustaf Otto Rosenberg). I have split the section in order to accommodate your additions, now it is at least readable. However, the size of your addition means that South Asia is accorded a third of the coverage of the whole world, it is hardly balanced. Urselius (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC) @Urselius: You did not give me advice, you told me that my edits can't be taken seriously because I'm not a registered user. That's not advice, you broke the rules of Wikipedia by saying that. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:2856:C0E7:1585:5A7B (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)) Nevertheless, I think the new version of the article is good because everything has been broken down into a more readable format. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:2856:C0E7:1585:5A7B (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)) No, I advised you to create an account and explained why. Urselius (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC) "Create an editor account if you want your edits to be taken seriously", that's what you said. If you think that's advice, then you're mistaken. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:AD0E:C7D:4865:BC36 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)) Advice, "Create an editor account", the reason why you should, "all edits by IP addresses are treated with some suspicion". I will admit to the omission of 'because', it should have read "because all edits by IP addresses are treated with some suspicion". BTW I'm happy to do this ad infinitum my patience is difficult to test in such situations. Urselius (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC) @Urselius: Let me correct that for you, "Create an editor account if you want your edits to be taken seriously" and it's those words that made you break Wikipedia rules. Telling an IP user to "create an editor account" is not advice as it's not a crime to edit Wikipedia as an IP user. I don't have to create an account if I don't want to. You did not give me advice, you belittled me. You hate IP users, no respectful registered Wikipedia user would say such a thing to an IP user. There's a reason why you were told by another Wikipedia user that your choice of words broke Wikipedia rules. You did not give me advice, you belittled me and your choice of words show me the types of opinions you have on IP users. It really doesn't matter what you think because we all know that at the end of the day, you did the wrong thing. All we need to do to prove that is to look at the edit history of the article. Be my guest and continue to belittle IP users and I'll continue editing articles by respecting the rules of Wikipedia, something that you clearly can't do. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:CC09:7A25:4FB7:84CD (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)) I broke no Wikipedia rules. I reverted your edits for the reasons I have explained before - that they reduced readability and distorted the balance of the text. I am allowed to do that, any editor is; perhaps I should have taken it up on the talk page, that I will admit. Of course if you had had a user account I would have been able to message you directly, but you have a shifting IP address so that was and is not really possible. You are now entering the realms of a patently extremist attitude by accusing me of things that you have no evidence for. I do not hate IP address users, I just treat their edits with more circumspection than I would those of a registered user. If I find an edit that is accurate, useful and cogent made by an IP address user I am quite happy to see it. If it needs tweaking in grammar, citation or linking etc. I will do so without changing its meaning one iota. I have created 36 articles, not one has been deleted or even challenged, one has been rated a 'good article' and another was featured on Wikipedia's main page this year. I have completely rewritten 38 pages, of which 4 have been rated as 'good'. Can you boast of having contributed as much high quality material to Wikipedia? All I care about on Wikipedia is content, content that is cogent and produces balanced, readable articles. I will admit that I have had a lot of unpleasant contact with POV pushers, especially ultra-nationalists, when I see edits that seem to be distorting articles in one direction, for example treating one sub-continent in the same detail as the rest of the world, I do react unfavourably. BTW, this exchange is not what the talk page of an article is meant for, another good reason to create an account, such exchanges should take place on your own talk page. Urselius (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Create an editor account - all edits by IP addresses are treated with some suspicion. You are attempting to add far too much material on minority populations in South Asia - of course areas where East Asians and other ethnicities meet and overlap will have higher frequencies of epicanthic folds - that can be taken as being obvious. Urselius (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC) @Urselius: I've responded on the your talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC) How jolly Urselius (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Link to "Mongoloid"

@Rantemario: I moved a link from "See also" to the text. I don't see any problem in this, but you reverted me with the edit summary "No". Can you please tell me why you reverted that ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Apes

Can apes /monkeys have this? I was googling pics of the Douc monkey, and it seems to have it. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the canthus of the eye is fully visible in the Douc monkey, though they have 'almond-shaped' eyes and something approaching a 'monolid'. I think that the different morphology of features around the eyes, projecting brow-ridges and the lack of a projecting bridge to the nose would preclude epicanthic folds in apes. Urselius (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-verifying statements added by long-term abuser

The following content in boldface was added by Whhu22 (WorldCreaterFighter) on 16 March 2022:[3]

Some Northeast Europeans were found to carry a derived gene allele of the EDAR allele, frequently found among East Asian people, which may affect specific facial features.[18]

There is nothing in source [18] (Lamnidis, et al [4]) that links EDAR to epicanthic folds. Quoting the only mention of EDAR:

Additionally, within the Bolshoy population, we observe the derived allele of rs3827760 in the EDAR gene, which is found in near-fixation in East Asian and Native American populations today, but is extremely rare elsewhere37, and has been linked to phenotypes related to tooth shape38 and hair morphology39 (Supplementary Data 2). Scandinavian hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden have also been found to carry haplotypes associated with this allele4.

Additional content added by WorldCreaterFighter:

Further evidence for a tropical, random or sexual selection as opposed to cold adapted one, is that East Asian-related populations originated in Mainland Southeast Asia rather than Siberia. Paleolithic Siberia was populated by a European- and Native American-related Ancient North Eurasian population, which was subsequently partially-replaced by several northwards migrations of Ancestral East Asians during the late Paleolithic and early Neolithic period.[22][23]

There is nothing in source 22 or 23 about epicanthal folds or EDAR. Links below:

Osada & Kawai 2021 [5]

Yang 2022 http://www.pivotscipub.com/hpgg/2/1/0001

So, this appears to be falsification of the references by an LTA. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Topic with false and/or incorrect information locked from correction!?!

Topic Locked!?! Seriously!?! So the incorrect and outright misleading information can continue to spread ignorance and to be blunt Stupidity!?! Whoever is in charge of the site needs to consider anyone who would allow clearly or at least easily verifiable false information in a topic and then lock it from being charged and corrected probably never had any business being the new or next person in charge! Wikipedia isn't a site where broken people can tell themselves "Wikipedia is a place for me to have my own page to spread the results of my mental brokenness and produce more people like me that don't know the truth and facts so I don't get my feelings hurt from realizing I'm abnormal and less than normal!" Sorry, but we just can't afford to let ignorance abound and grow and hold humanity back simply because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings! It's not fair to future generations! Please fix this and penalize those responsible to prevent and discourage future occurrences. This is good and right guidance on how to approach this situation just in case it's needed.

Hope this helps! Magnus Rexel (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No it does not. You bloviate at length, but give out no useful information whatsoever. A waste of your time and mine. Urselius (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)