Talk:Sitting

Old VfD discussion
From VfD:

Yes, an encyclopedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge, and yes, this is knowledge and it's all factual...but I think this is just pushing the edge of ridiculous. Generally, people do not need instructions to sit in a chair and if they did, I doubt the Wiki is the first place they'd look. PMC 06:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not only about sitting on a chair. And the article has potential of growth. BTW, what about sitting, sit?Mikkalai 07:13, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's kind of a "well, duh" article right now, but it could and should grow into an article investigating the various seating practices in different cultures. Besides, since when do articles have to be useful? &bull; Benc &bull; 07:40, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to sitting (replacing redir to human positions), and clean up. An article comparing forms of sitting in different cultures is a good idea.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 17:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I am not sure of my English, but isn't it true that the article is about "sitting", rather than "seating", i.e., the title is wrong? Mikkalai
 * Weak keep. Seems expandable, but not at this name. Del redir currently at sitting, and move contents of this article to that title. ('Seating style' would only be appropriate if it was comparing restaurants using strictly FIFO, vs. parties w/reservations first, or maybe comparing seat layouts of different types of venue--horseshoe shape for opera house, straight-line for modern movie theater, etc. Also, it's more than just a list.) Niteowlneils 19:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * definitely "sitting" not "seating". Neutral on what gets done with it. -- Jmabel 00:17, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to sitting. (Sitting is the preferred article name, see: Naming_conventions) Kevyn 02:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Pictures?
I need to see pictures of sitting examples.


 * I concur and request pictures especially for the positions "Tailor", Lotus position and Half-lotus position. --Bensin 22:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How is this position called? It could be used here. --Abu Badali 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The "squatting" photo is inappropriate for this article. Find someone clothed for it.

Which Indian is Indian Style
When I was in elementary school, the teachers were clearly under the impression that "Indian Style" was the style of Native Americans. Thanksgiving Indians, for example, sat indian style. However, I have to question-- is this sitting style named after Native Americans, or is named after the residents of India? Given the similarity to the clearly asian Lotus style, i'm inclined to suspect it might actually be named after the asian Indians. Alecmconroy 06:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's named for the Native Americans. Armyrifle 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Back
Is there a correct way to sit as to keep your back in good condition? Some people lean forward putting stress on one point in their back as they slouch. Others have their buttocks all the way back and sit up straight, which I think is better for your back and pose, though slightly more energy is needed to stay up. Any information on this? 70.111.251.203 13:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it's three years later but the article now has an answer for you: sitting up straight is bad for your back, and leaning back 45 degrees is the best way to do it. I read it today and found it hilarious. :D Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

lol
Haha, I find this article quite hilarious... it must be that 'well duh' aspect... 210.50.249.163 (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no picture for cross-legged
This is not acceptable, please insert one immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.243.222 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

bad health efects of sitting down
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008000/Sitting-long-raises-death-risk-countered-exercising-study-says.html --Penbat (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

More photos needed
It would be helpful if someone could add a picture of the Burmese position, because I am having trouble envisioning what it's supposed to look like. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC) And the 'chicken wing' style - I can't work out how this is supposed to look. Please someone, add more photos.

research suggesting bad effects of sitting
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2287673/Sitting-send-early-grave-Why-sofas-office-chair-carry-health-warning-.html

--Penbat (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Who invented sitting?
''The origins of the position are in dispute. Although many art pieces of Antiquity show individuals in various stages of sitting, it is thought that it did not become common practice until well into the 19th Century. Henri, Count of Chambord claimed to have invented sitting in 1834, but much like his alleged seven day reign as King of France, many challenge the veracity of the claim.''

Seriously? Do you mean that by the 19th century mankind had invented the spinning jenny, colonised America and had formed the most fundamental mathematical theories, but nobody had realised that sitting on one's butt was more comfortable than standing? Kransky (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting your bum on low-down flat surfaces can't be invented, granted, but the author might have meant that it wasn't "popularised" or maybe the modern phenomenon of sitting at every possible opportunity wasn't around yet. Who wrote that text you quote?
 * (I would have found that text iffy but according to this article, sitting in offices wasn't usual in the early 20th century.) Gronky (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain removing heavily referenced section on health?
I spent a full day documenting the health risks of excessive sitting. I came back to see if anyone'd improved it but found it deleted by two wikipedians with various edit summaries complaining about my references.

Here's my version:

I used 16 ref tags, citing 18 sources and making 6 notes explaining how to find the relevant info in those sources. I cited:


 * US National Cancer Institute
 * American Journal of Preventive Medicine
 * UK National Health Service
 * Annals of Internal Medicine
 * Journal of the American College of Cardiology
 * Indian Journal of Occupationa and Environmental Medicine
 * U.S. National Library of Medicine
 * Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute
 * Sports Medicine Australia
 * Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
 * dailymail.co.uk (quoting a study published in International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity)
 * dailymail.co.uk (quoting researchers from UK's Leicester University)
 * cbc.ca (quoting a researcher from the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute)
 * chicagotribune.com (reporting on a study by the American Cancer Society)
 * dailymail.co.uk (reporting on same study)
 * latimes.com (reporting on a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine)
 * Washington Post (citing 4 "expert" sources and 2 studies)

These are mostly medical sources. A minority from newspaper articles, but for these I was careful to only use articles that directly quoted the researchers involved or at least the numbers.

'''I spent a whole day ensuring I was raising Wikipedia's standards, and my work gets deleted for lack of good sources!??? If someone thinks there's a mistake in my work, then please say what you think needs to be fixed and we can discuss it and hopefully end up improving wikipedia.''' Gronky (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * From my talk, pinging also.  Gronky, please have a look at Wikipedia' medical sourcing guidelines regarding primary and laypress sources.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. At first glance, it seems to condone my sources.  Firstly, sources from review articles seem to be fine according to the guideline.  Secondly, my use of primary sources seem to fit the requirements given by the guideline:
 * "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study".
 * Which I did. Thirdly, my citing of various institutes seems ok by the guideline:
 * "Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present any prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies."
 * I didn't rely on any single study, I didn't use out-of-date studies, I didn't rely on in vitro studies, I didn't rely on the laypress. I don't see why the whole section was deleted.  (I'll have to give that guideline a good read to see if there are formalities I need to apply -- possibly regarding the small number of times where I cited journals and institutes as quoted in the laypress -- but I'm guessing the guideline won't propose mass deletion.)  I'll try to address any specific problems anyone can point me to regarding what was in the section before deletion.  Gronky (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! MEDRS specifically says that lay press sources are not acceptable, and neither are primary research papers, regardless of who produced them. All of the papers you cited except for Biswas et al. were primary, and because the topic has been extensively covered in the secondary literature, it's not really okay to cite them when there's more reliable sources available. All the information from Biswas et al. is still in the article. I hope that clarifies why we removed a lot of your text. I'm happy to talk further and send either of you copies of papers if you want. :) Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Emily,
 * Yes! I would love to read those papers and expand the article. I edit anonymously and I don't give my email address to Wikipedia.  Is it possible for you to put those papers online somewhere where I could download them?  Otherwise I suppose I could make a bogus email account and put it into my Wikipedia profile.  Either way, thanks in advance.
 * The sources I used were everything I found. What are the secondary sources which you say extensively cover this topic?
 * Regarding MEDRS, at a glance, I'm sceptical about your interpretation (for the reasons I quoted above), but I'll give it a good read and ping you in a few days before I do anything. Gronky (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So I don't know how to stick papers online but I can certainly email you via a throwaway email. You can email me from whatever account you prefer at keilanawiki@undefinedgmail.com. The sources I've found include Cochrane reviews and various other high-quality secondary sources. I haven't finished inserting them all but I'm slowly chipping away at it. Here are some PubMed links if you don't want the whole papers. Shrestha et al., Roffey et al., Chau et al., Chinapaw et al., Proper et al., Van Uffelen et al., Lynch, Kwon et al., Castillo-Retamal et al., Dunstan et al., Van Niekerk et al., and Biddle et al.. I know it's a lot but at the very least, it shows that the topic is very well covered in the secondary medical literature. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. I'll email you for the paper.
 * I'm confused by the rest of your reply though. You deleted a section about regular prolonged sitting, even after accounting for exercise, being linked to significantly increased death rates, but the studies you link talk about other tangentially-related topics:
 * Shrestha et al.: "OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work"
 * Roffey et al.: "PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature focused on evaluating the causal relationship between occupational sitting and LBP"
 * Chau et al.: "OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting."
 * Chinapaw et al.: "Abstract The aim of this systematic review was to describe the prospective relationship between childhood sedentary behaviour and health indicators"
 * Proper et al. THIS MIGHT BE ON-TOPIC
 * Van Uffelen et al. THIS MIGHT BE ON-TOPIC
 * Lynch THIS MIGHT BE ON-TOPIC
 * Kwon et al.: "''BACKGROUND: Although various occupational physical activities are suspected of contributing to low back pain...'"
 * Castillo-Retamal et al.: "OBJECTIVE: To identify methods used to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviour"
 * Dunstan et al. THIS SEEMS ON-TOPIC
 * Van Niekerk et al.: "BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting has been associated with musculoskeletal dysfunction."
 * Biddle et al.: "OBJECTIVE: To synthesise systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions aimed at decreasing sedentary behaviours"
 * And none give anywhere near the level of detail I'd added.
 * Also, when you say you "haven't finished inserting them" - where are you inserting them? I only see one source you've inserted (Cochrane) and nobody's touched this article in a month. Gronky (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very busy at the moment, trying to write a particularly high profile article and study for my med school admission exams. So it's taking awhile, sorry. As for the sources you say are off topic - I respectfully disagree and I think you'll find them much more useful once you've read the entire paper. If you still feel they're irrelevant after reading the whole thing we can discuss further, but I've read all the papers and they all discuss the deleterious effects of sitting extensively. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

New study coming soon (maybe June 2015)
Just noting this here for future work:


 * http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/a-2-minute-walk-may-counter-the-harms-of-sitting/?action=click&contentCollection=Energy%20%26%20Environment%20&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

. Gronky (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

W-sitting?
I was expecting to see common sitting positions like W-sitting for children.--178.25.35.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusion with kneeling
Sitting is supposed to be having the buttocks on the ground or resting against a horizontal surface such as a chair seat yet the first two positions listed in Sitting are actually kneeling.--Penbat (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Guy Standing addition
What is the point of having a picture of Guy Standing in the article? As far as I can see it's addition is based purely on humorous reasoning. A picture of a guy sitting, called Guy Standing, yes, very funny. The image doesn't show the sitting posture in full, and has since been replaced by a much better picture that shows a full sitting posture, including the chair.

Instead of edit-warring to include your joke image (I see you were the one who added it here, please use the talk page to explain why it should be included, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The photo was there for three months before you decided to start your little edit war. There's no reason not to have the image as further visual reenforcement of the article's concept.  Ignore the image if it bothers you that much. W ASB94 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for external input here. I'm of the opinion that the image is intentionally disruptive, albeit for humorous reasons, rather then malicious.  It offers no benefit to the page, especially now that a better image has been added in its place.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of 3O, my arguments against the image are as follows:
 * The image has been replaced with one showing the act of sitting in better detail and quality - unlike the previous image, the new one shows the entire chair and posture of the image target.
 * The previous image is of a person called Guy Standing, which increases confusion when he is being associated - in this context - with sitting.
 * It is literally a guy sitting called Guy Standing. While this is funny (ho ho ho) it is not the job of an encyclopedia to entertain, and given the previous argument - and those who are not familiar with Guy standing, they may wonder why the image description contains both Sitting and Standing.
 * The argument that both images can co-exist is not applicable, as the Standing/sitting image adds nothing to the article that the replacement image does not do as well - or rather does better. There is no need for the Standing/sitting image, apart from the desire to crack a joke.
 * Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Standing is a common surname. The fact that the name itself is hyperlinked should prevent confusion.
 * Humor is often used as a way to entertain, but also to inform. No, this is not a comedy encyclopedia, but so long as the image is relevant to and does not disrupt the article, there's no need for it to be taken down.  If someone cracks a smile while reading the article, how is that a bad thing?
 * It's simply an image of a person sitting taken at another angle. The camera angle isn't ideal here, no, but the placement of the man sitting in a chair (accompanied by a multitude of empty chairs - a common instrument used for sitting) should make it sufficient for placement.  There is no need for the Standing/sitting image to be taken down.
 * W ASB94 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here in response to a 3O request. Put simply, what does this specific picture add to the article that is not covered by the other pictures of individuals sitting or could not be accomplished using a different image? It seems to me that this is intended as a gag picture, and one that may be confusing to readers for whom English is not their first language. Going by WP:IDD, my concerns would be that the image is not especially relevant (in light of the other pics), and that it's somewhat of an overload given the the other pics available. Given the contentiousness of this specific picture, I imagine that even if editors feel that a picture was necessary, a less potentially ambiguous one can be provided. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to recognize the ambiguity of the picture in question. It features an act of sitting accompanied by instruments that are commonly used for sitting.  As far as the language barrier is concerned, I would argue that the description might help people not familiar with the English language understand the way nouns and verbs differ from each other when they sound alike or are written similarly, i.e. that "Standing" can be a noun as well as a verb, and that a sentence is grammatically correct if that particular surname is followed by a verb. W ASB94 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, your failure to recognise the ambiguity is the whole reason we are in this situation and I felt I had to call for an outside opinion. I am against the picture for reasons I outlined, DonIago has kindly given a 3rd opinion which is also against the image, albeit softly worded.
 * Can you answer DonIago's question: "what does this specific picture add to the article that is not covered by the other pictures of individuals sitting or could not be accomplished using a different image?"  That's all you have to do.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you don't feel the picture is ambiguous, but Chaheel and I do, at least with regards to speakers who may not be as familiar with English as presumably the three of us are. It isn't the role of this article to provide readers with a grammar lesson, but rather to provide clear and unambiguous information regarding the subject of the article. Anything that gets in the way of that should be reexamined for appropriateness, as we are doing now. As Chaheel mentioned, your comments don't appear to address my initial question, which is fundamental to my concerns about the picture. If the picture is contentious and there are less contentious options available, it seems reasonable to me that those less contentious options, to wit either replacing or removing the picture, be pursued. DonIago (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been 4 days without a (civil) response, so I'm assuming that W ASB94 has removed themselves from the discussion and I'm taking out the image. Thanks to DonIago for the 3O.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Do animals sit?
What is missing in the article (an I am not in any way an expert to add this) is whether it is something specific to humans or not. Do animals sit? I guess, mammals certainly have the resting posture I would consider sitting. The differences and similarities with regards to humans and animals sitting are not addressed at all. I'd be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than me in the subject would do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.129.12 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)