Talk:Eye shadow

Can we get a nice closeup of a eye with full shadow on it? A picture of some being applied is useful but is of secondary importance to illustrating the concept. Daniel Case 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Far East" section

I'm removing this from the article:

The East 1500 BC: In China and Japan rice powder was used to paint faces pasty white. Eyebrows were shaved and plucked, teeth were painted gold or black, and Henna dyes were used to stain hair and faces.

The reason I'm removing it is I don't see what, if anything, that has to do with eyeshadow. Not only does it seem incongruous with the rest of the article, but it contradicts itself. Pale complexions were valued in these cultures (heck, they still are except for many ギャル subcultures in Japan), so why would henna dyes be "used to stain hair and faces"? Dying hair could possibly make sense, but not faces. 76.99.199.53 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eye shadow. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clpgh.org/cmnh/tours/egypt/dailylife.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19981203120352/http://www.clpgh.org/cmnh/tours/egypt/dailylife.html to http://www.clpgh.org/cmnh/tours/egypt/dailylife.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.medicinelodge.net/webdoc26.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eye shadow. 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/20021019044814/http://users.aol.com/vanishwood/guild/cosmetic.htm to http://users.aol.com/vanishwood/guild/cosmetic.htm

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) 03:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ingredients

I expanded the ingredients section and restructured it by ingredient type, purpose and examples. I’ve also added citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.147.148 (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

History

I’ve reworded the start of the history section to improve accuracy and add citations. In doing so, I somehow made a grey box appear :( with some disputable or potentially irrelevant details. Will review this info and remove/recycle. (The use of burnt sticks to do eyebrows is within topic if we’re including brow products, but do we need info about white face powder here?)

Will research other historical cultural practices specifically around eye shadow, and return comment about references in the Bible. Am looking for other historical references too.

Will reword the Egypt section to provide clarity around dates. (The figure for 12,000/10,000 years ago as well before proto-Egypt. (I think it puts it back to earliest days of developing agriculture?) I’m trying to find evidence to support the info there, but I don’t think it’s correct.

There are unsubstantiated claims throughout the page. I can’t find any corroborating evidence to support the Smith Museum citation. The 12,000 date throws that source into doubt for me. The Smith citation also mentions antimony, for which I think there’s reasonable doubt about that being likely. Will spend a bit of time finding credible sources or rewording to improve accuracy.

References

Updating modern usage section

Added information about early use of eye shadow as the name of a commercial product. Added links to newspapers and magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.147.148 (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please review before making changes

As a woman, I know far more about why we use makeup. I know what we are trying to duplicate with eye shadow. Many of us really admire women who have been blessed with naturally shiny eyelids, and wish to God we all had the same, but we do not, so we try to replicate that look. It’s a bit difficult to accurately match the look because it can end up looking watery or too glossy. It is NOT the same thing as PERIORBITAL DARKENING either. That is a condition leaving ugly dark circles around our eyes that we do not like because it makes us look like old tired women. In fact, most of of us who have that condition struggle very hard with different types of makeup and concealers to get rid of that look. On the other hand, many of us seriously wish we had glossier shiny eyelids like our friends. And that nautral eyelid pigmentation look can sometimes glossy, silverish, or pinkish stone. It tends to be more present and younger women, and we like to always look younger. Please be aware women have been historically denied their own opinions and it is extremely frustrating to be forced to listen to men explain to us why we are wrong about female things we just know as women and suppress our knowledge. I highly recommend you read the source article so you understand what we are talking about here as women. Please stop this endless cycle of trying to change a woman’s view. 71.255.236.211 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Your personal experiences and claimed expertise isn't what matters here, I'm afraid. We need reliable sources to back up claims. Thus I'm reverting your edit to the previous stable version until there is consensus. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki management please note: Peri orbital darkening is not the condition here.

Restored 10 year old section - due to lack of consensus - that periorbital darkening is responsible for glossy shiny eyelids. Current citation does not back up claim and is therefore removed. Claimed knowledge by user is insufficient to considerably alter a 10-year-old standing article until proper citation can be found connecting both. 71.255.236.211 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

what on earth are you talking about regarding a "10 year old section" etc? You appear to be edit warring instead of engaging in discussion here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I added a citation needed to the said sentence because it is not backed by the glossy nytimes ref. I think we should leave it as the 10 y.o section for now to stop edit warring till we find a better source (though it being 10 y.o has nothing to do with its authority). I do think the the term "natural eye shadow" is not appropriate here though, because having scoured the internet, the term seems to only be used to refer to eye shadow made from "natural" material rather than naturally occuring skin pigmentation. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

But the phrase "The use of eye shadow attempts to replicate the natural eye shadow" simply is not correct - it is a generalization. Sometimes eye shadow is worn for other reasons (and wildy divergent colors and styles) that have nothing to do with replicating some "natural eye shadow". That's why at the least we need to say "may attempt". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that point, I just only realized that that was reverted as well. It should be "may attempt" while we find better sources. --Jiaminglimjm (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)