Talk:Martin–Schultz scale
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Which scale is correct? This page's numbering 1= dark to 16 = light is conflicts with "Coon's Scale" 1= light, 16=dark as seen at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Eye_color#Eye_color_chart_.28Martin.E2.80.93Schultz_scale.29 .
Did Coon inversely-translate the scale, is it misquoted, or is Martin-Schultz's correct here? Art4med (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Later: I have indeed found that these numbers are correct for "Martin-Schultz scale" (thus, inverted from Coon or original Martin scales).Art4med (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Are there almost half of the eye types without brown spots? are you joking all the blue eyed people have at least a light brown spot in their eyes, but this does't mean that they haven't blue eyes. If blue eyed people have brown spots you can imagine all the other shades have also. So there are 99,9 percent people having brown spots and the scale lets half of the space to people not having brown spots as if in a country where only 1 percent of population is 1,50 mt high 50 percente of bancomat were adjusted for people 1,50 mt high. Good try american racists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.94.149 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)