Talk:Human body

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human body article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

Anatomy: Gross Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Physiology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the field of physiology.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 27 April 2020 for a period of one week.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Non representative image ( --> light skinned, shaved genitals)

I checked, and this issue has been raised once or twice in the archives: the main image, while high quality in general (and an improvement to the previously used one I think), is not representative of human beings in general - both male and female have very light skin, plus their genitals are shaved. I guess there is no alternative in sight though ? That is a shame, I think :/ . Regards 134.3.246.179 (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public hair is removed to show anatomy. The light skin is indeed non-representative, which is not ideal, but that's the best image we currently have. I've added more wording to the image caption to clarify this. If you can provide a better image, you are welcome to contribute it. -- The Anome (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thoughts at first when viewing the image, but the lack of pubic hair (and body hair in general, as both the male and female in the picture probably have less body hair than the average human being) does help to make it easier to see the anatomy. And I would say that using a model with a lighter skin tone also probably helps with that as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how does all this work@Rreagan007 104.207.197.125 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to see the genitals clearly in this picture? We do not see for instance the anus at all, and I don't think we need to. There are many parts of the human body that are not shown in this article, since only some internal parts are shown. The article about the human reproductive system does have photos of (shaved) human genitalia. So there is every reason to show adult humans in their natural state in this article. If one thing is missing, in terms of showing the human body as one would any other animal, it's a photo of naked human children. 2001:4643:1480:0:30B6:EB00:1434:78D5 (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of them is white and one of them is East Asian. Out of a pool of two people, that's perfectly fine. It's an important issue to keep in mind, but let's not unnessarily focus on race here. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis image #5 shows genitals of different races Cartoon karma (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ+, Gender Neutrality and Gender Diversity

Text and many images in this article (and thousands of other articles) blatantly assume that there are "only 2 genders" when in reality there are more than 2, because gender is not binary and hence genderqueer and non-binary people are real and normal humans.

Due to evolution, gene pools of not only humans but other organisms as well are very diverse. Though gender is never a choice, science behind LGBTQ+ communities is even more complicated then that. But greater the diversity, higher the chances for a successful biosphere.

Therefore, I propose that Wikipedia policies concerning neutrality (and gender-neutral language) be implemented effectively on the entire website. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 13:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be specific as to what you're talking about? The article doesn't mention the word "gender" once. Are you sure you aren't confusing "gender" with "sex"? And how do you propose the images in the article be improved? _signed,Willondon (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article in specific is only referring to biological sex, not gender, with it uses terms like "male" and "female". Rreagan007 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visual representations of all the bodies parts

tried to make this representation of the bodies part, to kind of give an intuition of all the parts which have to come together to to form one human body(be it female or male). Any suggestions on what can be done to improve it is welcome :) Did I miss any organs? is there a smart way to outline which organ belongs to which system? Having lines pointing to where in the body which organ comes from would properly be to much? sometimes I have also modelled multiple organs next to one another, is there a point to depicting these more individually somehow? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but despite your diligence to provide novel images, this one wouldn't make it easier for the general user to understand organs. The article already has an excess of images and wikilinks to the point of clutter, WP:LINKCRISIS and WP:NOTGALLERY. Zefr (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would make it easier for the general user to understand organs? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The existing images are mostly good - they can be examples for you. There are too many images in this article, so adding further is unnecessary. Zefr (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

errrrrrrrrrrrr the heart? 2A0A:EF40:271:6601:E3DF:46AB:411B:F2FC (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only two organs and repeated section

Hello! I'm using this article as a base for translation into Basque, and I have seen two things that seem strange. There may be reasons for that, but I would like to know if this is on purpose or not:

There are only two organs with subsections: the heart and the kidney. Is there any reason not to add others, or even better, to add only those two? I think that the article would be better without those subsections.
The composition is good organized as cells > tissues > organs > systems, but the section tissues adds again cells. It would be better if that part is added to the cells, and not returning to cells again after reading tissues.

The translation will have this schema, but I wanted to notice that, because there may be another reason for that. Thanks! Theklan (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]