File talk:Human anatomy.jpg

Image label: calf

I know it says don't use this to request corrections to the image, but I don't know where else to do it.

The singular of "calves" is "calf"; the image says "calve". Although I could probably change it myself, I'd rather leave it to Wikipedia experts.

Thanks.

Callypenny (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Callypenny

Problem solved.--Lamilli (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Female in standard position as well

what is in the way of getting a picture of a female in standard anatomical position as well. In the current picture the woman's knees are bent and that shifts her spine and it just doesn't represent it correctly

andyzweb (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree here, I was immediately thrown off by the apparent pose of the female in comparison to the neutral male. The latter is probably more scientific. 24.63.133.224 (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --201.86.220.180 (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of silly (not to mention inconsistent) that the female model takes on the 'model' pose while the male doesn't. There is an advantage in that her pose shows the backs of the hands; but any model could just as well stand like the male one but rotate one wrist 180°. Interestingly, in another of their inconsistencies, these models seem to succeed in avoiding what I'll call 'eye sexiness': men generally are more attracted sexually to photos of women looking into the camera lens than of women looking away, while the opposite is true when women are evaluating photos of men. — President Lethe (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why no body hair?

It's ridiculous and rather pathetic that neither of these models have any body hair. All Humans have hair on their pubic regions and underarm area. As a result of this omission the picture is a reflection of cultural values, not a depiction of Human anatomy, and should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.183.0 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. --Garrythefish (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I second this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.42.70.212 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, their skin lacks the normal pigmentation found in most humans. These two individuals appear to be presenting the "white" phenotype. Since less than 20% of the animals of this species display this phenotype, I would suggest that a more representative photograph be found. --64.81.96.198 (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion for "normal pigmentation" is absurd. What's the average human? Do we look for the mean, median, or the mode? Perhaps we should have an African, because they were the first "of this species," a Han Chinese, because they are the most common, or an English person, since this is the English version of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.132.192 (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we replace the humans with monkeys and leave it at that. I can't see much difference from this end anyway. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's possibly that both models lack body hair, except for scalp, to give a clear view of anatomical features. Hair can obscure certain anatomical features, such as genitals, and mask muscul contour. Also, I don't know of any particular culture with customs that require or suggest hair removal to the extent depicted here, for both sexes. Further, my guess is that the models were simply those available to the photographer, regardless of skin tone. Tonerman (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This picture should have a caption saying that body hair and presumably the man's facial hair have been removed so that non-hair features can be seen more easily. It also would be good if we had pictures showing people with untrimmed hair in the normal places (leg, armpits, crotch, chest, face, scalp, &c.) and with some indication that men's and women's scalp hair can grow to the same lengths and that individual differences are attributable mainly to genes and/or culture. Then comes the race: I suppose the light skin makes it mildly easier to make out some features, and I don't think we must constantly seek out non-white models for 'inclusiveness' all over the place; but, at the same time, in the context of world 'politics', failures at inclusiveness reek of subconscious or intentional exclusiveness; plus, for reasons cultural or otherwise, people with this tone of skin are by far a minority on Earth in 2010 and are pretty near to one extreme of the range of human coloring. Then again, no matter what race(s) is/are used, surely someone's going to feel left out. Still, some obvious notes in the caption about the hair and pigment 'anomalies' are in order. — President Lethe (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I knew before even going in here that someone was going to complain about the fact that their genitals are shaved and yet ignore the fact that the man shaves his face as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.124.169.126 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you people would also like to complain that these humans have evidently been cutting the hair on their heads? Ought there to be a notice saying that the humans depicted here have been trimming their nails, which are of course much shorter than they would otherwise - naturally - be? 109.246.224.56 (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Men have breasts, too

Not sure why the "breasts" label points only to the woman. Men have (generally smaller) breasts, get breast cancer (1% of all cases), etc. The label should point to both models. -- Scray (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Women have armpits and shoulders, too, the last time I checked. It seems clear that the labels are not intended to flag every feature on both models. 66.234.36.73 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but every label down the center points to both models except for "breasts", so that the lack of a pointer to the male is obvious and could easily be interpreted as meaningful. Add to that the common misperception that men don't develop breast cancer etc, and this is a substantive issue. -- Scray (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right. ... Well, anybody with appropriate software is free to improve the image. — President Lethe (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Slight angle?

On closer inspection of this picture, one can see that the photo of the male model (both models, to be fair, but the male model more so) is taken from a slight downwards angle from above instead of straight on. This slightly distorts the perception of the proportions and make his legs appear shorter and his feet smaller in comparison to his torso than they actually are. 68.1.172.2 (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange appearance of penis?

Hello, old chaps. I notice that the penis shown in the image is extremely unusual in shape. It does not seem to be a representative image of a penis. This seems to me as if it may give the wrong impression to impressionable people. Can this image be replaced with an image of a man whose penis bears a greater resemblance to a normal penis? 184.88.143.190 (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just uncircumcized. It's not "unusual" except in cultures where circumcision is the norm. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I second the original comment. It's not about the foreskin's covering the glans. It's the way the folds of the upper scrotum flank the base of the penis and make it look very narrow, so that it flares outward greatly toward the corona, before tapering again to the tip of the glans. That man's penis may not usually look like that (it may just be how his skin happened to be at the moment); but his is the only adult human penis I've seen with a look anything close to that. — President Lethe (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It not only appears abnormally small but with strange 'folds' at the sides. It does look rather strange. Being circumcised or not has nothing to do with that. 83.57.49.129 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Navel of man

Navel should be pointed out for man too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovnandan (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Overweight representation for a woman.

The woman is clearly overweight (maybe obese?), therefore I ask for a newer image that shows a female closer to an ideal weight be chosen. This would at least give a healthy representation of a female human.

The woman is nowhere near overweight - she's not supermodel slim, she's an average and healthy weight. Unrealistic ideals of body image should not encroach on an encyclopaedia. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree that the woman does look overweight. Or, at least, she looks fatter than normal. And the "man" looks like he hasn't played a sport in his life. If this is an accurate representation of Homo sapiens then I believe the species is doomed! --82.31.164.172 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The woman looks healthy. But the shape of the arms and certain volumes in legs and waist are slightly flabby. 83.57.49.129 (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as saying the woman is overweight, but she has a much more exaggerated torso-hips ratio than what I would call "normal". This is also further exaggerated by the fact that the woman in this picture is not posing in the "Vitruvian Man" position (like the man is), but is posing at an angle in regards to the camera, with one foot forward. The woman's photo really isn't that great a choice for those reasons. Although her weight itself is likely far from unhealthy for a woman, it is greater than that of a woman who regularly exercises. The whole effect is worsened by the fact that the man on the other hand, is depicted with a perfect balance of fat, and an average musculature for a young adult. Anyways, sure, the woman does not look grotesque, but the point of an anatomy picture is to depict the subject at it's peak health (but not unnecessary extensions beyond that, such as hardcore bodybuilders, as their extra muscle mass does not contribute any extra to their health). LiamSP (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)