Talk:Human body/Archive 2

info shown by sources pertaining to sentence : "... body contains between 5 and 5½ litres of blood ... "


"The average adult body contains between 5 and 5½ litres of blood and approximately 10 litres of interstitial fluid." (first under heading Composition)

[https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=The+average+adult+body+contains+between+5+and+5%C2%BD+litres+of+blood+and+approximately+10+litres+of+interstitial+fluid. see sources in here]

A healthy young man has 5 to 6 litres of blood (Genetics Classical To Modern - Page 2-22 - P. K. Gupta)

The circulatory system of the average adult contains about 5.5 liters of blood. (Human Anatomy and Physiology Laboratory Manual - Page 266 - Elaine Nicpon Marieb)

human has about 5 liters of blood (Atlas of Microscopic Anatomy: A Functional Approach ... - Page 70 - Ronald Arly Bergman)

between 4.7 and 5 liters, although the more recent sources state the volumeof blood in an average adult as 4.7 liters (http://intranet.tdmu.edu.ua/data/kafedra/internal/normal_phiz/classes_stud/en/med/lik/2%20course/2%20Cycle%20Physiology%20of%20blood/01%20Physiology%20of%20red%20blood.htm) Whalestate (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * These would support between 5 and 5 1/2 litres. Also note there is a difference between blood and interstitial fluid (which is between cells). Please feel free to improve the article by adding these sources (and more while you're at it!). Lastly, the final source is probably not as reliable as the other sources, which are textbooks. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the sources! --Spyder212 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead image
. . . it is unnecessary nudity. Tito ☸ Dutta 10:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a picture of two human bodies (one male and one female) is "unnecessary" on an article about the human body. And it makes more sense if the bodies are naked: clothes don't have anything to do with the article topic or any content in it. WP:CENSOR - not liking pictures of naked bodies or potentially objectionable material is not a reason to remove the picture.Bilorv (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be true, but those are some un-representative people. Weird lookin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.241.101 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. To begin with, they are so extremely clean-shaven in different parts, that you would almost suspect them of being US WASPs:-).  If the idea is to illustrate humans as biological beings, more naturally looking people might be better; while if you take dominating culture features into account, they actually ought to be clad. JoergenB (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not show outline charts of the human body instead of actual naked humans? It may not be good for younger readers of the article. Charts would serve the purpose quite well.68.100.116.118 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As it says right at the top of this talk page, Wikipedia is not censored. There is nothing inherently offensive about the human body, and other articles on the anatomy of specific organisms also lead with 'naked' photos of their respective animals. If you've never seen a naked person before and it offends some personal sensibility of yours, you should not expect something objective like an encyclopaedia to cater to your irrational aversion. As for the chosen images being 'non-representative', you could say that about literally any models that could replace them. But our biodiversity as a species is quite low compared to other animals that have achieved a similarly vast distribution, so any two anatomically normal/healthy humans will provide a sufficient representation of the species as a whole. Trilobright (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't get my idea. What do you think about my suggestion of outline charts? 68.100.116.118 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why would we use an inferior copy instead of actual images? HCA (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, in this case, the naked imagery is fine. WP:Offensive material has more information on how to approach potentially offensive images. If the image in question were a sexual image, I'd be against it in this article. If it were a sexual image in a sexual article, I'd suggest a less offensive alternative (meaning an image that is not a real-life image), such as a drawing or a painting (if available), per WP:Manual of Style/Images and the WP:Offensive material guideline. But showing what human anatomy actually looks like is very important. This doesn't mean that we need to have a bunch of photographs of naked people in the article; after all, educational diagrams of the human body are common. And per WP:Offensive material, we should be careful to select appropriate images. But at least one photograph of the naked human body, in a non-sexual way, is appropriate for this article. And some educational diagrams of the human body consist of realistic-looking artwork of the genitalia anyway; so they wouldn't necessarily be less offensive. Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the image in question is small; it is far from a closeup look of the genitalia. The dimensions are not there. For a closeup look of such anatomy on Wikipedia, readers would need to go to the Human penis, Scrotum, Vulva, Clitoris and Vagina articles. And, yes, the buttocks aspects are clearly visible in the photograph, but people usually don't make such a big deal about butt imagery these days. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You would need a close-up to see the male member. Indeed the dimensions are not there. Definitely not representative of the whole species. Nevertheless a good picture for the article. Strange to see nudity offend people looking for human anatomy. But then again, everything offends somebody somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.131.148.4 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Update: With this edit, Jmarchn changed the lead image. He shouldn't have marked the edit as WP:Minor, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I altered my initial comment above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * . I moved the initial image to a new gallery section, where I added similar images with different skin colour. I think that is of educational interest.Jmarchn (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone here can agree that "offensive material" is an utterly subjective term; that statements such as, "There is nothing inherently offensive about the human body" are horrifically (from a logical and philosophical point of view) amateur and untenable from the moment they are conceived; and that the basis for any decisions regarding potentially offensive material should defer to Wikipedia policy - specifically, that offensiveness should be gauged by the "majority of the website readers (not active editors)". When approaching a subject that carries with it a clear risk of being offensive to a good deal of readers, it makes sense to be as encyclopedic about the subject as possible while keeping potential offensiveness to a minimum. As concerns this article, there is nothing about the photograph which cannot be communicated by a non-photographic depiction. Indeed, the latter accomplishes just as much and with less potential for offending readers. It seems instead that the users herein are arguing that the photograph is not offensive because they do not find it offensive, or that the photograph is not offensive because it is not inherently offensive (an impossible statement). If either of these approaches were tenable, then what maxim prevents a user from uploading images of blow-jobs and coprophilia to their respective article pages? Or is it sexuality which exists as your line of offense? As if such could even be divorced in its entirety from any notion of "human" or the portrayals thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As seen above, I went by the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTCENSORED and the Wikipedia guideline WP:Offensive material. Go ahead and read WP:Offensive material and what it states about images of a naked body in an article such as this; it is something readers should expect. WP:Principle of least astonishment is about something the readers wouldn't expect. They would not expect sexual images in this article, and they shouldn't expect them. They don't belong in this article. A picture of a naked human body being shown in the way the two people are shown in the disputed image is not sexual unless the reader makes it sexual. And yet I still stated, "This doesn't mean that we need to have a bunch of photographs of naked people in the article; after all, educational diagrams of the human body are common. And per WP:Offensive material, we should be careful to select appropriate images." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that an IP restored the disputed image. That restoration was completely unnecessary and now we have this image used twice in the article. If it wasn't clear, I agree with Jmarchn's solution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Why should link-clickers expect a photograph of naked individuals as opposed to a diagram and textual information pertaining to the human body? The guidelines you and I are both referencing are vague - and for a good reason (which may be intentional or not): defining "offensive material" in an objective manner, divorced from subjective, popular opinion, is (thus far) not possible. Indeed, the quote I included from Wikipedia's policy on offensive images states just that - that offensiveness should be determined by the majority of the readers using this encyclopedia. And this, in the end, is the only reason why you and I do not find sexually explicit images acceptable herein; the majority of the public (and Wikipedia readership) finds them obscene. I do not, personally, find the human body obscene, but I wonder if the defense to keep this image up has more to do with users trying to push their personal acceptance of human (strangers') nakedness on those who are bothered by it, which I find problematic for assessing what is best for Wikipedia. "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred" [emphasis mine]. Also, as a quick and easy means of gauging the public (and your typical Wiki reader) on this topic, consider the simple fact that, worldwide, full nudity in public is illegal. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is "not censored" (or at least so goes the chant/mantra), but the real-life laws prohibiting such reflect a majority preference. Now, if you want to get into false consciousness and theories that this is all just socioreligious brainwashing keeping us from the majesty and paradise of a full and explicit humanism, then that's a topic for another day. My position holds - the image should be replaced, but I have no intention of doing so myself, only to bring up a point you folks seem to be overlooking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.53.178 (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Why should link-clickers expect a photograph of naked individuals as opposed to a diagram and textual information pertaining to the human body?" Um, because pictures like File:Human Body.jpg are shown in anatomy books and this is an anatomy article. Both types of visuals (the naked photograph type and diagrams) are shown in anatomy books and doctors offices. And the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTCENSORED and the Wikipedia guideline WP:Offensive material are not as vague as you are making them out to be. They get the point across well enough, with examples. If they were useless, we wouldn't still defer to them. As for the rest of what you stated, I see no need to respond since I already addressed matters above. For example, I already made it crystal clear that, per WP:Offensive material, I commonly opt for the least offensive image and would not mind at all if the previous diagram was used. I stated there was no need to change the lead image back to the disputed one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Also keep in mind that WP:Principle of least astonishment is an essay and, per WP:Policies and guidelines, does not have the same weight as a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would a page about an object not include an unobstructed, clear photograph of said object? The squeamishness of the general populace? 51% of Americans fear snakes (according to a Gallup poll), should we remove all the photographs from the snake pages? HCA (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.52.80 (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, that answers how seriously we should take your position then. Discussion closed. HCA (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You receive the level of seriousness that you bring to the conversation. You chose to overlook the policies I cited - principally, that Wikipedia's readership (which happens to be the public) ultimately determines the definition of "offensive material" - such is already in play all across this site, which is why when we go to the page dedicated to the Tate murders (perpetrated by the Manson Family) we do not see the crime scene photos in which the pregnant Sharon Tate lies naked, bloodied, and stabbed. If Wikipedia's aim was as simple as the revelation of the explicit truth of all things encyclopedic, why let public preference stand in the way at all? Can you universalize your own maxim? My guess is that you yourself have a line which you do not want Wikipedia to cross. I do appreciate your use of the word "object" as an attempt to suggest that an object in and of itself is never offensive, but I must disagree with the objectivity of such a statement. When it comes to "offensive material", all that you or I (or anyone) can bring to the discussion is our preferences. Offensiveness is a construct, and no objective reality can be realized, regardless of how much you wish to add the weight of objectivity (science!) to your opinion. It is still just an opinion, or preference - in this case, a lack of offense on your (and also my) part as regards the lead image. You also rather crudely decided to conflate offense with squeamishness (perhaps to utilize your snake trivia - which, I grant you, was an interesting figure). The latter is akin to walking in upon your naked grandmother, whereas the former is akin to being flashed at Target. Oftentimes, offensive material is regarded as such based primarily on where and how it is encountered (e.g., non-requested nudity in public vs. late-night pornographic internet quests). What is at issue here is the public's expectation of this resource, and the fact that the users arguing for the lead image's presence do not seem to appreciate their own cultural biases behind their feelings of non-offense, preferring instead to claim for themselves a scientific point of view that is culturally immune, and casting upon the image's dissenters a stigma of social repression (i.e., lacking wisdom, enlightenment, sensibility). The philosophical missteps here are what I find offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.52.80 (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Discuss
OK, we have been "bold" by editing this article and now had it reverted, twice. I have always enjoyed working with you, but this sort of reversion is not productive at all.

How can we improve the article if we are essentially reverting to the previous status quo? Please at least leave a talk message here so we can discuss this change.

I think the approach by was a lot more visually appealing and removed duplication. If we were going to keep the previous large image (which will be difficult to display on mobile devices) we should perhaps put it either in a gallery or move it to another relevant article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact I just want to reiterate how frustrating and disheartening this is. Why has the entire article been reverted? Edit summary seems to suggest only the image was at issue --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. I have re-reverted to the edited article. Am happy to discuss any aspect. If the issue is about the use of a source then we wlll remove that source but please don't hold the entire article hostage without a good reason. This is not the wiki way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for any perceived hostility, but it comes down to the fact that we have a large amount of editors on anatomy articles that add facts sourced to very poor sources. About.com is pretty much one of the worst possible sources available and often engages in WP:Circular. What concerned me is that the distribution was cited to CNX previously — which you removed and then replace with about.com.
 * I've been a little strapped for time lately and couldn't look through all the edits immediately, but I have no reason to believe that you can't take part in developing this page.
 * Also I happen to like the figures that signify the systems, because they give a broader idea of which parts of the body are involved in each system, so I feel they should be kept.
 * Let's hope we can collaborate better in the future.  Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 17:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing units: 60% water by weight, volume or mols?
I just removed an illustration that, among other major shortcomings, did not state the units used. I then saw that this is true of the statement about water, too. Can we determine which it is - weight, volume or molarity? Cheers, Samsara 10:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is a good point. Perhaps can provide an answer and help with updating the picture if needed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Replaced with image used earlier --Iztwoz (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Under the composition headline, it includes how many liters of blood a male body contains, but does not state how much a female body contains. If you’re going to include the male body average, you must include the female body average to keep the article well rounded. Some statements such as: “The body also plays the role of host to trillions of cells which reside in the gastrointestinal tract and on the skin” needs a citation and also is out of context given. The next statement reads “Not all body parts are made of cells” but then does not give examples and jumps to the next sentence, which is confusing because stated in the first paragraph or the page, the author said the body was compromised of cells. There are also sections dedicated to the history of physiology and the history of anatomy but these seem a unrelated to the human body topic. Korhornp (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions
To be related to our week 3 assignment topic, I have chosen the article of ‘human body’ because I was interested in the visual culture of human body. Then, I focused on the human body more deeply. Generally, the article is covered by reliable sources and neutral sources with proper citations. Besides, I believe that the paragraphs of article are very well related to the topic of human body and I liked it especially, the paragraphs of the society and culture of human body. It is because it was about the history of human body cultures with the necessary sources were used. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest several things to improve on the article. Firstly, I think it would be better if the composition paragraph in the article move to another topic that relates with the topic of science. Also, some of the citations in this paragraph are unnecessary, for instance it cited a word of 'water' which everyone would know what it means. Lastly, the lengths of each paragraph are not equally divided with important key words. Hyojungsong (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I think you have analysed the article well. As you can imagine it's difficult to cover a topic as rich and complex as the human body which has so many different aspects (historical, artistic, scientific) in adequate detail without being too excessive. I couldn't however find this instance of "water" being cited? --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article has a lot of basic information about the human body. If you wanted to go in more detail you would have to click on the links provided within the article to get more explanation of each part of the human body. The human body is a very detailed and complicated thing so it makes sense that it can be broken down into many different articles. I would have liked to see a little more detail all on the same page making it easier to connect all the information. Most of the facts in this article are referenced and from the looks of each they seem reliable. There are 43 total references showing a good variety and making sure not all information came from the same source. Some facts even have more than one reference listed. There are still some facts without references so going through and finding ways to back up the information is one suggestion I can give. The section on development just has a link to the main article of Human Development. It would be nice if it at least briefly talked about this topic on this page. I believe the development of the human body from fetus to grown adult is very important regarding this topic. The topic on Health and Disease distracted me a little bit. Yes, human bodies do acquire diseases but this section seemed too vague. It tells us about risk factors and cancer, but it doesn’t relate those to how they affect the human body. Meghangrossmann (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Meghangrossmann (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017
add knowyourbody.net as external links. Aaa0007 (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  20:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Right things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyking5151 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2017
Change "The human body is the entire structure of a human being" to "The human body is the entire PHYSICAL structure of a human being." The former seems to assert a purely materialist interpretation of what makes up the entire human being whereas the latter is a much more broad definition that is capable of accommodating disputes about the human person that happens in disciplines like philosophy or theology. Nothing wrong with having a materialist interpretation per se, just want to make sure the page is being as neutral as possible. Michael.gruber173 (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, any sources that support the idea that the human body is ever used to indicate both the physical and possible psychic or spiritual components. Body is only ever used to indicate the physical in most usages. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Pictures not aligned
The thumbnails aren't aligned anymore and it looks weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordf32123 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Composition
The Human body section says, "The adult male body is about 60% water for a total water content of some 42 litres." However, it doesn't say what the percentage and number of litres are for the adult female body. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Human body for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Human body is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human body until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)