Talk:Human Universals

Speedy deletion tag
From Criteria for speedy deletion, point 11. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. Whole policy makes sense to me. Can't see any grounds for speedy deletion of this article in the policy though, please explain. Feel free to remove this comment when removing the speedy deletion tag. Thanks for letting me know before taking action. Alastair Haines 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the objection here is that the article doesn't assert why the book is important. It just says "this book exists" and follows it with essential bibliographic information and a table of contents. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a helpful point. I'll whip in a sentence about the book's importance. No substitute for a proper, or even short article, but just don't have time atm. Lots of people know this book, there'd be anthropology undergrads who might fancy fleshing out a stub. Thanks for giving it the benefit of the doubt. Pigman and I had a good chat too, it's great to meet you guys, I bet you do a heck of a lot of work, cheers. Alastair Haines 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This still has notability problems. "The book is important because it makes a case for an alternative point of view to cultural relativism ..." Making a case is what any book does and does not, in and of itself, suggest notability. WP:BK explains notability for books. --lquilter 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, this book does not reflect a mainstream view in anthropology, and the article misrepresents cultural relativism as a somehow exploded theory (rather than as a set of mainstream epistemological and methodological tools). That may not in itself merit deletion -- but if it is a question of improving the worthiness of keeping this entry, the text of the article should engage more with larger debates on the subject (rather than simply asserting that a list of "universals" have been "proven." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidface tony (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Universals.gif
Image:Universals.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Unique" to humans
The "unique to humans" requires explanations. While all human cultures have courtship rituals, they are all different. Animal courtships rituals are identical.

Birds may appear to "dance." But, within a species, their "dancing" is identical. Human dancing is common to all cultures, but differs in cultures. And changes.

The "uniqueness" is not that animals don't do the same thing, but they do identical things forever. Human do it "universally," but often do it differently.

(Just realized that this sounds perilously close to No true Scotsman).Student7 (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That section is original research because it is an individual editor's categorization of someone else's work. Leadwind  (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is what his book says. If you have an indication that his book says something else, great. But it should go in a "controversy" over what the book says, not what anybody wants human universals to be or not be. The article is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Student7 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, the material is not "my interpretation." I never read his book. This is all from WP:RS. Student7 (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)