Talk:Beard/Archive 2

UNIX
Why is there no mention of beards and the relationship to the UNIX and open source? No picture of Richard Stallman? Boo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.125.133 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is Richard Stallman? And what does this have to do with beards?--GlennSoupp (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL you forgot to mention beards and their effect on women too, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.30.200.53 (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I second both the Unix and "effect on women" sections. For the women's part, we need to add the story about Lincoln's beard - superb tale 137.30.122.155 (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's okay to feature a picture of a white man...it's not racist
I seriously think people are trying way too freakin' hard not to be racist. We have this Nepali man featured, probably only because you don't want to be associated with "whiter power" and all that bullcrap. Guess what. It's moronic. Why feature this Napali? Chances are, a non-Nepali added that picture. It's okay to display white people... By trying so hard not to be racist, you're kind of excluding white people from the game here. It's just like with the page for "humans"; it features two Asian farmers. Come on, guys...this is ridiculous. We all know Asian farmers didn't add that picture. It's okay to be white.Swiiman (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This guy has a fantastic beard. Should non-white people only be featured if a good picture of a white person couldn't be found? 137.150.5.153 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The photo was changed fairly recently. I don't think it matters what color the individual is; I think it's easy to argue that the current image is a somewhat superior photo compared to the old one (though the old one was perfectly serviceable). OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The picture makes perfect sense because if you look at the percentage of people with beards, there are more Asians who are bearded. Who was the last US pres. with a beard? Abe Lincoln!

Besides, that old guy's beard rocks! And that's his only claim to fame. 137.30.200.53 (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Latter-day Saints
I'm removing the section on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since there is no actual proscription, the unsourced tendencies of church members aren't notable. Any objections? Mateoee (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Famous beard-archetypes?
I removed Henry Thoreau from the Neckbeard part of Beard Styles, as he is pictured in the Chinstrap beard article. I think his beard is a chinstrap beard, not a neckbeard (the statue of Nero would probably be the archetype). Frankly, I think nobody should be listed in the "beard styles" section due to the difficulty in authoritatively classifying one style of beard from another, but I'm not going to make that call. I only took Thoreau out for internal consistency. 151.207.244.4 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

List of bearded people
Is there really a need to list famous people with beards? Beards are fairly common today and were even more common at some points in history - its like a list of people with brown hair or people who wear T-shirts. I'm in favour of removing the list or changing it to a short one for people who were famous for their beards. 137.132.250.10 (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more. I've already removed the list of fictional characters with beards. Unless someone was famous because of their beard or the beard received significant public attention they should not be mentioned. As it currently stands this massive list has no references whatsoever, so the easiest and probably smartest approach would be to remove the whole thing. If someone wants to rebuild using only sourced information on notable beards, they can do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. 2¢. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Language of the Beard
The Language of the Beard - Poets Ranked by Beard Weight was heavily linked via blogs, in summer 2009. Can anyone confirm the existence of this pamphlet he describes, and add it to the article? There's nothing in google scholar/books. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note
this is the greatest wiki page I've ever seen there should be something to distinguish it

Photo of Jimmy Wales
It says 2-day stubble, but this appears extremely unlikely. It looks like a week's growth or even more. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Civilian prohibitions
Regarding the prohibition of commercial pilots having beards, this cannot be correct. I know several Jewish Orthodox EL AL pilots who have fully grown untrimmed beards. From my own service in the IDF with a fully grown beard, I was also told by less informed ranks that I would have to trim my beard for operations involving gas masks, and this was not the case. It may have been an issue in the past, however it's no longer an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.216.211 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality
'The name means something like "two-bearded, woody".' Really? Something like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.87.213 (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Horrifible gallery smoat!
(Whatever that means)

The gallery is wild grown and doesn't provide any real information, just a meaningless extra loading time. I prefer it is replaced with some information about how different genetics and cultures affect the status of beards. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 10:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know. Where else can you find Henry VIII, Rip Van Winkle, and Jimbo Wales all on the same page? The novelty of it almost makes it worthwhile! In all seriousness, though, the gallery is bloated and subject to more bloat. It might make sense to have a gallery if the inclusion criteria were more limited and well defined (e.g., images of people whose beards were famous, rather than famous people who happened to have beards). Rivertorch (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, the Image gallery policy takes a pragmatic stand: galleries are allowed whenever they are the best way to add encyclopedic value and reader's understanding on a subject. The style galleries of 1750–1795 in fashion are considered prototypical gallery usages on Wikipedia. A gallery containing one example of one kind of a beard, would be one such beneficial gallery usage. A gallery containing examples of people sorted by shoe number would be more like unencyclopedic, and random images likewise. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 17:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the quotations about beards be on wikiquotes?
There are a bunch of quotations of beards. Shouldn't they be on wikiquotes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.10.116.109 (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What about a section about the benefits of a beard?
I think beards protect the underlying skin a little. And can someone find out more pro-beard stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.30.200.53 (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing evolutionary section
This section is based on a single source which and is entirely undue. It will be removed in due course unless robust sourcing is provided, including excerpts which illustrate that the sources discuss the topic broadly as opposed to in passing. aprock (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is based on a review article reviewing many other studies. Not sure what policy you talking about regarding "broadly"? Name and link please.Miradre (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your inability to properly source content is well established. It's safe to assume that you are again misusing sources.  Please provide excerpts which show that this source is  broadly discussing evolutionary explanations in the contexts of beards, as opposed to just mentioning the topic in passing. aprock (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, not sure what policy you talking about regarding a source needing to discuss a topic "broadly"? Name and link please.Miradre (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:DUE. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not . Given your history of misrepresenting sources, all indications are that this view is voiced by a small number of researchers.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if those researchers hold that the view presented is just one of any number of possibilities.  aprock (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Spare me your incivility. WP:DUE does not say that only sources discussing something "broadly" are allowed.Miradre (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Factual statements regarding your poor track record in sourcing are simply that, factual. As noted in the WP:DUE, If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not .  The section you've inserted will be removed unless it can be demonstrated that this view is held by more than an extremely small minority. aprock (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion regarding my track record is incorrect. There is no indication in the paper that there exists opposing views.Miradre (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can establish that the views described in the section you added are held by more than extremely small minority, it will be removed per WP:UNDUE. Are you prepared to affirm that the source you cite does in fact indicate that the view is held by more than an extremely small minority? aprock (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I given a WP:RS of the highest quality. You have given no evidence for that there exists opposing views.Miradre (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In a clear example of your inability to properly represent sources, the status of opposing views is not mentioned at all in WP:UNDUE and is irrelevant to this discussion. aprock (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" Done. Miradre (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." It has. Miradre (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In a second example of your inability to properly handle content, you misrepresent both WP:UNDUE and the source you are citing. A majority of people hold this view?  Which reference text have you sited?  A journal review in a niche field is not a "commonly accepted reference text".  And you have not substantiated anything.  You've only given a source which has only a passing mention of this views. aprock (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mirardre, The reference is to a single journal paper. If this is a common view, then it should be easy to add more references. This would be a pretty straightforward way of ending this argument, rather than insisting on the same point repeatedly as you are attempting. As it is, it does seem to be a minority viewpoint being overplayed here. Aprock, don't be a dick. This would have been a lot quicker and easier if you had approached the issue civilly. siafu (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a review paper so it cites several other papers. Aprock removed such a paper previously claiming primary source (which are not automatically disallowed).Miradre (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can add a number of such sources if desired.Miradre (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually took the time to skim the paper, and I'm afraid it's not what you seem to think it is. It is presenting a novel thesis, based on previous work.  All papers have references, the mast majority of the ones presented in the paper do not state the same thesis being presented, and what's more, having absolutely nothing to do with beards.  Really-- if this is such a big and obvious topic, then you should have no trouble doing the legwork and finding more sources, particularly secondary sources, to justify it.  That's what this discussion needs, not more elaborations about policy. siafu (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another: Miradre (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pile 'em up. We don't have to use them all, but there's no reason not to make it unambiguous. siafu (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another on beards and attractiveness to females Miradre (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another:

Please see the RfC below, and at least make an effort to locate secondary sources. A mountain of primary sourcing in a universe of published research means little. aprock (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not disallowed. A secondary source has already been given. Miradre (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No one said they were disallowed. They just can't be used to establish WP:WEIGHT. aprock (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See nothing about that in WP:WEIGHT. Miradre (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:PSTS Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, which is exactly what's going on here. aprock (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have given three now. See below. Miradre (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can hardly see how "novel interpretations of primary sources" is occurring or how two heavily referenced paragraphs on the speculated evolution is "undue weight". This section should obviously be kept. I can only imagine the attempts to remove this section are religiously motivated. —Pengo 02:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC
Question: Should the section Beard be included in this article, or it be removed per WP:UNDUE?


 * The section is based on a paper which discusses the role of dominance in sexual selection. The paper can be found here and all mentions of evolutionary origins in the paper are purely speculative.  In fact, the content included in the article appears to be synth, as there are no passages in the paper which specifically discuss the evolution of beards.  In fact, many mentions of beards in the article indicate a lack of explanatory power of various evolutionary hypotheses: ("The hunting hypothesis also has difficulty explaining traits such as beards" ... "This hypothesis that men's traits evolved to be ornamental gains little support from the literature. Some male traits, such as beards, have been found to decrease attractiveness")  The only passage which even hints at possible evolutionary explanations is "For example, beards and eyebrow hair grow at puberty in males and may signal dominance".   aprock (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote more correctly from the paper which is a literature review evolutionary reasons for mate choice in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior: "For example, beards and eyebrow hair grow at puberty in males and may signal dominance through association with testosterone levels and by increasing the apparent size of the jaw and brow (Guthrie, 1970; Muscarella & Cunningham, 1996; Neave & Shields,2008). Male faces with beards are rated as more dominant than the same faces clean-shaven (Muscarella & Cunningham, 1996; Neave & Shields, 2008)." Miradre (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Miradre (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Here is yet another: New Zealand Science Review, Darwin Commemorative Issue, Vol 66 (3) 2009. Page 115. Miradre (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are a number of other sources also supporting evolutionary reasons for beards:
 * Yet another review: Facial attractiveness: General patterns of facial preferences, Krzysztof Kościński ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW • Vol. 70, 45-79 (2007) Miradre (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All speculative primary sources and thus poor sources for establishing WP:WEIGHT. Many of the sources aren't even about evolutionary explanations. aprock (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have given 3 reviews and 3 primary sources. All mention evolutionary explanations. Should certainly be enough.Miradre (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the consensus that that you misrepresented the first source,, , your insistence that a paper about lions and beards discusses accepted theories of evolutionary explanation, and your presentation of Neave/Shields as a relevant paper, you'd better start quoting the relevant sections from these papers. If you've only just located these papers on google, presenting them without having read them is disruptive behavior. aprock (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no misrepresentation. Here is what that this particular review says: "For example, beards and eyebrow hair grow at puberty in males and may signal dominance through association with testosterone levels and by increasing the apparent size of the jaw and brow (Guthrie, 1970; Muscarella & Cunningham, 1996; Neave & Shields,2008). Male faces with beards are rated as more dominant than the same faces clean-shaven (Muscarella & Cunningham, 1996; Neave & Shields, 2008)." Miradre (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, I see no mention of evolution in your quoted passage. Are you performing WP:SYNTH?  I especially note the use of the word may in this context.  It's pretty clear that your supplied quote does not support the content in the section you added. aprock (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole paper is a literature review about evolutionary explanations regarding mate choice. Miradre (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In another demonstration of your lack of ability to comprehend the written word, no one suggested that the Puts paper was not about sexual selection. I'm bowing out now. Have fun with anyone who shows up for the RfC.  So far two editors have indicated that this section is undue.  aprock (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, it is is a literature review about evolutionary explanations regarding mate choice published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. So far I see only you categorically rejecting the new sources: To summarize the sources:

Miradre (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * New Zealand Science Review, Darwin Commemorative Issue, Vol 66 (3) 2009. Page 115.
 * Facial attractiveness: General patterns of facial preferences, Krzysztof Kościński ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW • Vol. 70, 45-79 (2007)
 * New Zealand Science Review, Darwin Commemorative Issue, Vol 66 (3) 2009. Page 115.
 * Facial attractiveness: General patterns of facial preferences, Krzysztof Kościński ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW • Vol. 70, 45-79 (2007)
 * New Zealand Science Review, Darwin Commemorative Issue, Vol 66 (3) 2009. Page 115.
 * Facial attractiveness: General patterns of facial preferences, Krzysztof Kościński ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW • Vol. 70, 45-79 (2007)

One post by me is not a consensus, and it's a bit off to quote my post as part of a character critique. I refer you to my previous statement, directed at you. This does not have an antagonistic situation. aprock, since you listed this an RfC, perhaps it might be a good idea to cool it and wait for the comment that you requested to come in? siafu (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the existing sentence but move it to the bottom of the article. It is, of course, pure speculation but that is the nature of most evolutionary explanations. It certainly doesn't belong at the top of the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section was a bit too prominent at the top of the article. I moved it into the History section as a subset of History:  I think that is a logical flow, that is:  chronological, since the evolutionary stuff would be happening over a long, long time period in pre-history. --Noleander (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename - There is a huge amount of literature on how evolution relates to secondary sexual characteristics (mostly regarding sexual selection, but some on natural selection). I'm sure that, as far as beards go, 99% of the literature focuses on sexual selection.  However, the phrase "evolutionary psychology" is not the best phrase: that is a narrow subset of evolutionary studies, and would seem to exclude much of the sexual selection material.  So, the title should be broader: something like "Evolution and beards" or "Beards and evolution" or "Evolutionary explanations of beards".  There is no reason to include the word "psychological" in the section title (although it can certainly be discussed in the body of the section). --Noleander (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I renamed the section to "Evolution and beards", and I supplied three more references. There are tons more references, and the section could be beefed up considerably. --Noleander (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks for taking care of that. aprock (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the above discussion, I removed the Undue template from the evolution subsection. If anyone thinks there are still undue weight issues, go ahead and restore the template, and explain the issues here. --Noleander (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep a couple of paragraphs. There are many more scholarly sources than are named here, so it's clearly a subject that receives some attention.  Surely this article can make at least as much room for scholarly opinions as it makes for smaller religious groups like Judaism (1 in 500 people).  However, I don't believe that this article needs more than a brief overview of the basics, with a couple of decent sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed bit about Greek word in lead
The Greek etymology bit didn't really belong in the lead and it didn't fit into any of the existing sections either, so I removed it. If someone wants to find a way to include it in an appropriate context, go ahead. --KFP (contact - edits) 17:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)