Talk:Bipedalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Biology
Biology Portal

Bipedalism is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Charles Darwin This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Quadrupeds

Not a single mention of quadrupeds (and whatever they call things with more than 4 stomping organs)?!? Not even as "as opposed to" or "see also : " with appropriate links?!?
[ -- an IP user]]

The article has always linked to Leg in the first sentence, which is the extent of other counts' direct relevance to this topic, and a better place for an editor with the interest and background to compare and contrast. Leg has always mentioned at least quadrupeds (although most of that history is now to be seen in Human leg), and now goes further. --Jerzy(t) 16:52, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)
Er, i wrote the following summary for the edit where i added the above msg:
The article links to Leg in the first sentence, which is the extent of their relevance to this topic. However, this comment deserves to have a copy placed on Talk:Leg, and i am doing so. --~)
Then i realized that what is needed at Leg is not what the IP asked for, and that moving the msg was pointless, and wrote a different msg here than i'd anticipated.

--Jerzy(t) 19:07, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

Deleted the line about buffalo wings, was irrelevant and sounded like a plug. Hope this helps

[edit] Category?

Why is this article categorized under 'transportation' and 'robots'? It seems misplaced, as those things are mentioned more as footnotes to the main thrust of the article. Istvan 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed this original research from [60.234.112.22]

I want to add something to the origin of bipedalism, which, as far as I know, was not mentioned. I will not go into details of the hypotheses now in fashion as I do not find them convincing. I want to link neoteny with bipedalism. As the main human trait - development of neocortex - started, neoteny - birth of biologically immature babies- became a necessity. These immature babies - by definition- were immature and could not be autonomous in almost any sense. The dependence on the mother became almost total. At some point the young mother (homo sapiens to be) got to the point, when she had to "choose": either to grab her baby and perform whatever halting and imperfect bipedalism, run with the baby in her new-found embrace - or loose her baby. The choice was so stark. Because the baby, being so immature, could not even cling to the mother, would fall and become lost. So, the forelegs had to act as hands, for grabbing and holding- and this of course had its greatest impact in this context. Of course, most young mothers could not achieve this, but some were more able, for both anatomical and CNS reasons- and these were able to keep their newborns and automatically also the species to become more and more bipedal. Bipedalism, of course- showed itself to be both plus and minus in other aspects of life of these ancient creatures, but the ability to keep the babies alive during their immaturity was the most crucial for the whole species. Jan Miller, MD, Whangarei, New Zealand. janm@nhl.co.nz 23/7-2006.

[edit] Redirected Savanna theory here

Below has been pasted from the Savannah Theory page, it is discussion about the Savannah Theory page.

HEre is the previous talk page

I'm putting a NPOV label on this article because the author put way too much time refuting this theory, without displaying the prose and cons from both sides. Arbadihist 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. An aquatic ape supporter is not a suitable author for the opposing theory. [edit]

internal inconsistency

This article has been flagged for NPOV due to author's pro-wet ape theory, but the Aquatic_Ape_Theory article has not. This is probably confusing to the reader.

The Aquatic Ape Theory article is balanced. The author makes a strong case for it, points out the criticisms, then rebuts those criticisms. This article (Savannah Theory) makes no case for the theory, then makes a strong case against it with no rebuttals. Regardless of the author's strongly biased orientation, the Savannah Theory has the most fossil evidence to support it, and (likely because of this) has the most support among anthropologists. This is just a badly written article. (Danaidh 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)) [edit]

What can be done?

This page is really appallingly bad. I don't know wikipedia well enough to know what can be done about this. It seems that there were attempts to bring it to the attention of the wikipedia community at large, but those attempts have obviously failed. And the article desperately needs revision. Not only because it's biased, but also because it contains next to no useful information about the theory at all.

I've been trying to research the topic so that I can improve upon the article, but it's quite a complicated issue, and I don't have the necessary background knowledge, nor valid sources. Actually, my limited research thus far seems to indicate that the term "Savanna Theory" is only used in context of the Aquatic Ape discussion, and not in discussion of human evolution in general. That is, when people discuss the theory, they do not refer to it as such. Additionally, it appears that the savanna itself is not playing as large a role in theories of human evolution as the article indicates. It appears, therefore, that this article is not only biased in its coverage of the material, but also a simply incorrect portrayal of the "conventional" or prevailing theory of evolution at the moment, or at least an incorrect portrayal of the savanna theory as the prevailing one.

Then again, I could be wrong about the above--I simply do not have the knowledge or resources to discern what the theory actually is, what it is called and by whom, and what role it plays in the anthropological and paleontological communities.

But I would love to find out more, and as Wikipedia would be an ideal way in which to compare the two theories, I beg someone with the ability to rewrite this article!

I know that I haven't really made a contribution here except to whine and ask for help, but the poor quality of this article has been bothering me all day.

Hi. You might want to read this article, which has a more scholarly view of human bipedalism origins. I agree, that savanna(h) theory is language not used by professionals researching the subject and that this article is a textbook example of a strawman argument. What can be done are a number of things. At first I was going to suggest a complete rewrite of the article, although as the term isn't really used, that may not be wise. A merge / redirct to Bipedalism might work. JPotter 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC) JPotter 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for Human bipedalism

I love this page, especially the parts concerning the reasons for Human bipedalism. However I find it curious that everyone seems to be trying to discover the ONE reason Humans adapted that way. As a non-Anthropological scientist, it seems to me that an adaptation is selected (in the Darwinian sense) if it's more useful overall than the alternatives. That may mean that is has one overriding utility, or many smaller ones. I'm thinking that the 'pluses' of bipedalism (carrying things, seeing greater distances, mobility in trees, ability to manipulate things, better fighting ability) simply outweigh the 'minuses' (lower top speed, more difficult balance, etc.), in the environmental niche Humans evolved in. Thus the earlier bipedal proto-Humans were more successful overall and out-competed their quadrupedal versions. Middlenamefrank 20:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've removed external links twice now and User:Nicolharper has partially reverted twice. I think my version is the better, any other opinions? WP:EL says links should be kept to a minimum that are most useful, and those containing info that can't be kept in the main page. Here's my rational for each:

WLU 20:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Hi WLU. Thanks for neatening up the page with your previous edits. With regards to the external links, I think it is useful to have a selection of links at the end of articles for further reading - some linking to in depth discussions, others highlighting curiosities. Wikipedia should make full use of its advantages as an internet encyclopedia, with its capacity to link and its effective lack of space limitation. Obviously many links would be hard for people to process, but there are only a few at the end of this article.

Thanks for giving your reasons for wanting to delete the links, much appreciated. I agreed with your deletions for some of the links and I have kept them deleted. However, in general I think that if someone thinks a external link should be deleted, unless the link is obviously totally spurious, they should either work the link into the text, or find a better replacement link. I think that some of the links here could be improved, but better to find replacements in that area than delete them. An encyclopedia, particularly wikipedia, provides an introduction to a subject, enabling further reading. Extensive deletion weakens wikipedias capacity as a source for investigating a subject further. I would like to see more links at the end of this article, say about 20. Thanks again for the edits, Nicolharper 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem for the heads-up, and your thanks gives much needed positive-feedback for discussing rather than revert-warring.
However, your assessment of external links is quite out of keeping with the external links policy, which states in the nutshell

Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article. (emphasis added)

Further, in the first section Important points to remember, the first point is "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." Emphasis is in the original. There should not be 20 links, particularly for a page as short as this one. Notice Autism, which is much longer, but only has two external links. Ditto for hospital, anabolic steroid and I urge you to read WP:EL and make your arguments from there - wikipedia is built from policy, and it is what allows articles to be brought to a common standard. Any page which has any sort of external review (i.e. WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:ARB) will do so based on policy. I've got it right on my user page, read the policy, because it's incredibly important. Familiarity with policy will save you a lot of anguish and frustration in the future, and is essential, ESSENTIAL, if you are ever to participate in WP:AFD, possibly the funnest part of wikipedia. D'you get the feeling I'm a fan of policy?
WP:EL also agrees with your preference for integrating links into the article as inline citations - citations are the preferred use of external links, the EL section is actually for links which are virtually impossible to include in the body text. Note that further reading can be added to pages, in a further reading section. Given this, what do you think about trimming the links further? WLU 00:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I am aware of this policy, it is just the case that my preferred minimum is bigger than your preferred minimum. The policy isn't strict as far as I know on what constitutes a minumum, or what is meritable, accessible, or appropriate, it is a point for discussion. My reasons for favouring a larger minimum of links are those I gave above. I would also argue that the articles that you mention such as Autism are wrong to have so few external links, and it would be more helpful to the reader to have more than two external links. I would suggest that it is simply that my attitude toward wikipedia is more Inclusionist[1] whereas yours, I would guess, is more Deletionist[2]. I have reinstated four of the external links until better links are found to replace them, but I am happy, to be polite, to keep deleted four more of the links that you deleted. I hope you find this a suitable agreement. Cheers and all the best,Nicolharper 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of replacing links with other, better links - it's a matter of if the link is appropriate to the page, by adding a reference to information that can not be placed on the page itself. An external link is given tremendous weight and traffic by including it on wikipedia, so it should only be the most relevant links. Can we discuss them on a case-by-case basis?
  • The monitor lizards link is 100% spurious in my mind - it is at best an inline citation, it's not really adding anything to the page, and bipedalism is mentioned once, at the end of the article. Particularly since there is now an inline citation (or should be - see WP:CIT for how to use citation templates), this should be removed and not replaced. That some species are temporarily bipedal is definitely something for the body of the article. Also, it's a forum, which is a link to be avoided (#11).
  • The octopus link always turns up dead when I click on it. Does it work for you or others?
  • The time.com article essentially duplicates what should be in the article - a discussion of bipedalism. From WP:EL#Links to be aovided (#1), a link should be avoided if it "...does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." And I don't think this one does. It's a general overview of 'new' evidence, which can be used to justify similarly general statements in the article itself.
    • As with time.com, philosophistry.com should be integrated, not kept as an external link. It's a journal article, making it an ideal citation, not an external link.
Please review WP:EL and my above statements - what do you think? Is there a reason they should be included that I have missed? I've reviewed the articles quickly, not done a thorough read, so I could have missed specific statements. If you're still convinced, we can take this to a third opinion. I don't think these links should be replaced, as I don't think they add anything that could not be integrated as an inline citation. WLU 20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I've removed the links I discussed above. Two are here if someone wants to integrate their information into the page.

WLU 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi WLU. I have put my position; that the remaining links should not be deleted without being replaced with better links. All the best, Nicolharper 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comment is out of keeping with WP:EL - there is not a magic number of links which must be maintained, so there is no need to 'keep a link until it is replaced with a better one'. External links should be kept to a minimum, featuring those which best supplement the article with information or media that can not be included in the article itself. Since we appear to be at a deadlock and no closer to agreeing, I think a third opinion is warranted. WLU 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
3O has been listed [3] WLU 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi WLU. I have been looking at the featured articles and many have far more than 7 links, for example DNA, Action potential, and Chagas Disease. I think this is good as it provide lots of easy to access further reading. This article could use a wide variety of external links like those featured articles.
Also, I would suggest that if someone thinks that external links should be integrated into the text they should do it themselves rather then delete another peoples contributions and then leave it to others to work the links into the text. On a similar note, if a person finds a link to be dead they should fix it rather than delete it. This seems to me to be a more productive and considerate way to work. All the best,Nicolharper 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Contemplate the content of the external links more than their number - I would guess that the links on featured articles are extremely to the point rather unlike the ones I would like removed. Autism and Raney nickel feature just two and Victoria Cross (Canada) has none. Given the open-editing nature of the project and the more than two million articles on wikipedia, it's always possible for errors or improper links to be added, or for a diversity of examples to be found for either featured. And your polite criticism aside, the links are available for inclusion on the talk page. Further, the criticism can be reversed - rather than reverting, you could work to integrate the links yourself into the article. Still you have not replied to my comments above on the content of the links. Please address their content, and how you feel the link itself demonstrates something that can not be integrated into the article as text. It's possible I am not seeing your merit, the only way I can understand your rational is if you lay it out for me. Currently, as far as I understand it, all I have to go on is 'the article had seven links when I got here, and there should always be seven links'. If the links can be replaced with 'better links', then that may mean they are not suitable for inclusion at all. In general, a link should stand based on it's own merits in isolation, not related to other links on the page.
However, if you feel it absolutely necessary, I shall attempt to integrate the links into the page and then remove them from the external links section. WLU 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Further note - I'm attempting to integrate the philosophistry link, and found out that it is in fact a blog. This bars it from inclusion per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, point 12. I am removing it, and if you really feel it should be included, please state why a link that is in conflict with policy should be included in the page before reverting. WLU 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

I'm looking things over now and will give an opinion shortly. — Coren (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am generally in favor of a small (half-dozen at most) number of external links on an article, especially when those provide in-depth coverage of a specific aspect of the main topic, are the "official" site of the topic, or are academic sites covering the subject matter (which can then be used as a springboard to deeper research).
In this particular case, however, on a very strictly defined topic there are very few external links that could be relevant but which could not be used to flesh the article itself out (and used as sources instead). We have to remember that the objective is to write the article, not defer to external sites.
So, of the six links currently in the article, one is dead, one (http://evolution-of-man.info/) is of unknown reliability, and three are news articles of relevance only to a specific event or aspect of the topic and should either have their info added to the article and be used as sources. The time.com article is accessible and on-topic, but provides no useful information that is not already in the article.
One of the guiding principles of what to add to external links is that they should provide useful, on topic information on the subject matter of the article that could not or should not be included in the article itself. Otherwise, if the information is good and reliable, include it in the article and use the external site as a reference.
So, my opinion for this article: axe the external links entirely. None of them add to the article in any significant way. Take useful information out of those which are reliable and use them as references instead. — Coren (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm fine with this option - the links should be posted on the talk page and added to the page as in-line citations. I've already done so with some of them, though I still don't like the philosophistry one as it's basically a blog - without a publication in a reliable source, it comes across as some guy's opinion, even if it is accurate. Nicol? WLU 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it pretty much goes without saying that ELs converted to sources need to be reliable sources (which blogs aren't). — Coren (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for discussion of human bipedalism theories

It's good that the theories are attributed. It would be better if the discussion and criticism of the theories were attributed as well. Otherwise one can be left with the impression that at least a major part of the reasonings and arguments adduced are the original work of a Wikipedian (i.e.OR).--91.148.159.4 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)--91.148.159.4 23:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WLU 23:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. This is the second time this month. I'm pointing out a problem and I am told (the previous time by the person who has created the problem) to fix it myself, when it's obvious that it's very difficult or even impossible for me and a thousand times easier for someone else. It's obvious that if the edits are not OR, the person who made them or other persons with the same level of interest in the matter are the only ones in a position to source them; this is not the job of a passer-by who simply points out the fact that the discussion is unsourced. But I guess the only way to get the thing done would be to threaten that I'm going to remove the whole thing in accordance with WP:V until sources are presented. Then the original author will turn up, revert and maybe, just maybe, try to present some sources after a week or two of constant edit warring. I was hoping that I could just make a relevant observation and move on to something else, while at the same time being useful to Wikipedia. OK, so much the worse for Wikipedia.
P.S. I notice people have complained way back earlier on the talk page that the discussion of the various theories is unbalanced in favour of the "wading theory". This is an additional reason for that discussion to be sourced. --91.148.159.4 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
(note:I'm not going to post any more on this talk page, because I really can't afford to become engaged in the sort of long, painful discussions that develop often in such cases; don't take this as a sign of consent, contempt or anything else but that).--91.148.159.4 00:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's editors are volunteers. Yes, editing can be a time-consuming pain in the ass. Which is why we're not always eager to jump on a major piece of work suggested by someone else when it's not our area of specialization. We are volunteers not servants. You seem to have passing familiarity with policy, and removing erroneous text is indeed an option. Have at thee, you are supported by policy. WLU 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bipedalism edits

For some discussion see [4], Nicolharper 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turnover pulse hypothesis

I reworked the Turnover pulse section quite a bit(what was the deal with the 'wading hypothesis' critique through-out it?). I still think it needs more work and perhaps some sources. I would greatly appreciate some feedback. Woland37 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing and in-line citations would be good. Though the entire theory of human bipedalism is tentative and contested, the only way to fairly portray each theory is to source each one. Right now the AAH looks just as legit as the rest, and as far as I know it's considered bogus by academics. It's not really directed at this section (which looks good), the whole thing looks like a smokescreen for the AAH hypothesis to claim victory on wikipedia. WLU (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I know. I honestly don't think that the AAH should even be included in this article. There are basicaly three non-anthropologists who support it and zero anthropologists/paleontologists. It's the very definition of a minority viewpoint. For now though cleaning up and sourcing the other sections will probably do. I have a few old textbooks I can use. Woland37 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there's some discussion in serious journals; I recall when I was going through the AAH page that there were some mentioned and cited in the lead as discussing (possibly discounting) the AAH. Good sources. If the textbooks cite studies as well, you're better off citing the secondary sources. I'll drop some useful things for citing sources on your talk page. WLU (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages

There was a discussion a while back about the advantages and disadvantages of bipedalism, and how to add info on the topic. One suggestion I made was to use a table, here's the table I started and found some sources. Needs work, but I'm doing other stuff on my sandbox so I'm posting it here. WLU (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bipedalism dramatically changes body position and biomechanics compared to a quadrupedal stance, conferring a variety of advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages Example
Greater reach with mouth to reach food Gerenuk
Elevated head allows wading to greater depths in non-swimming species Gorillas
Greater field of vision and improved detection of danger or resources Meerkats
Frees forelimbs for other uses Rodents (manipulation), Bears (combat), Octopus (camoflage)
Greater speed for animals lacking a flexible backbone Ostrich
Greater efficiency for long-distance walking or running Humans
Disadvantages Example
Greater instability Humans can sustain concussions from a standing fall
Greater stress to feet, knees, ankles and hips Arthritis
Top bipedal speed limited compared to quadrupend animals with flexible backbones Ostriches top speed is 65 km/h; cheetahs top speed is 100 km/h
Higher fatality rates due to childbirth[5] Humans


possible sources

[6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

[edit] Hominid vs. Hominin

With all the new fossil discoveries over the past few years, taxonomies have changed, and thus terminology has changed. The textbook "Images of the Past" (which is citation 16) states that "hominid" is an obsolete term, and that "hominin" is the new term, which is more apt in its definition. Fuzzform (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facultative and obligate bipedalism

Can anyone provide a ref to clear definitions of "facultative" and "obligate"? I've searched in vain. At present I'm editing to mention the terms but point out their difficulties, and then avoid using them. Philcha (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exclude "bipedalism" in aquatic environments?

The article currently describes certain species of octopus as moving bipedally at times. I think this is totally unhelpful, as aquatic environments remove the issues of load-bearing and balance which are important for locomotion on land. This approach would classify flies (insects with only 2 functional wings) as bipeds because they use only 2 limbs while flying. Can anyone provide a ref to a definition of "bipedalism" which includes only locomotion on land? Philcha (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure needed?

IMO the "Evolution" section is not coherent because it covers widely disparate groups that evolved different forms of bipedalism in response to different evolutionary pressures. I therefore suggest that evolutionary history and pressures should be covered in the sections dealing with specific groups of bipedal animals. I propose to restructure as follows:

  • Overview
    • Types of bipedal movement
    • Facultative and obligate bipedalism
  • Bipedal animals
    • Hominines (humans and animals more closely related to humans than to chimps). Theories about origin of Hominine bipedalism. Refs: [16]; [17]
    • Other primates
      • Gibbons (normally bipedal on the ground).
      • Other apes (normally quadrupedal knuckle-walkers on the ground; bipedalism most commonly used in threat / combat situations).
      • Other primates. Lemurs. Any others?
    • Macropoda (kangaroos, etc.) Evolution if I can find material.
    • Rodents (kangaroo mice, spring hares).
    • Birds and dinosaurs. Early dinos bipedal in all major lineages. Evolution of bipedalism in dinos. Differences between bird bipedalism and ancestral dino bipedalism. ([18]). Drill down into Ornithodira if I can find supporting material.
    • Non-dinosaurian archosaurs (Hutchinson, already cited in intro). Some overlap if the dino-bird section describes Ornithodira at all, will figure out how to minimize overlap if it happens.
    • Lizards. Philcha (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There should be no need for an overview section - the summary of salient points should be in the lead. A brief look says maybe etyomology or definitiion would be a more exact term. I'll have a look. Also there is some sence of reprtition as is, though it is early and my cerebral cortex is still snoozing for lack of coffee....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow this is a really trick article. The only thing is now its sort of like we're discussing all the animals twice. Unless you have 3 separate headings for the 3 times it has evolved and eliminate a general evolution heading altogether.

I added a definition/etymology bit - we need where the term was first thought and maybe who named it etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dogs

Anyone else think this information is necessary? This type of bipedalism is ridiculously obscure in my mind and by far an exception rather than rule, only present because humans will feed 'bipedal' dogs. A single, brief mention is all that is needed and links to videos as 'proof' or references is silly and excessive in my mind. WLU (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely.--Woland (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism" into "Bipedalism‎"

I really don't think this was a good idea. The sections on humans now dominate "Bipedalism‎" far too much. "Bipedalism‎" is an overview of bipedalism in a wide range of animals, and there's room to widen that range, e.g. Eudibamus (whose name is Greek for "genuine biped"). So "Bipedalism‎" should link to more detailed articles (Wikipedia:Summary style).

In addition it's recommended that a merger should be proposed on the Talk pages of both of the articles involved and a reasonable time should be allowed for discussion. (Help:Merging and moving pages).

Also I'm not sure how to undo this - "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism" - tried undoing it but "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism" was totally gone, so I reversed the undo to prevent the merged content from being lost.

Please don't take this personally, Irishguy - I'll be very willing to discuss with you how best to handle the content of "Human skeletal changes due to bipedalism". Philcha (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about creating an article human bipedalism and go into the morphological changes, evolutionary history, unique features of human bipedalism, and a {{main}} in this article with brief discussion. WLU (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, as your suggested "human bipedalism" would serve as a source of detailed info for other articles too, e.g. human evolution, human anatomy, evolutionary theory (why didn't natural selection stop us from using a skeleton that has all these disadvantages?) and possibly even stress injuries. Philcha (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

OK, all undone now. Have at it guys. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "True" bipedalism?

A contestant on Mastermind once stated that the only true bipeds are humans and penguins. Does anybody here happen to have any idea what is meant by this? -- Smjg (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They probably were referring to the fact that both of those examples are obligate bipeds. I think they are probably wrong as ostriches are obviously obligate bipeds as well. Some other animals will stand on two legs occasionally or hop but this isn't considered true bipedalism.--Woland (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As are most birds from what I can make out. So what's the difference? -- Smjg (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The contestant was mistaken - see the article for many variations and shades of grey. Philcha (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Which article - Bipedalism, Penguin, Mastermind or something else entirely? Either way, I can't find what you're talking about. -- Smjg (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
So what's the difference? When we're talking about "true" bipedalism, we're talking about *primary* means of locomotion. With most birds this is flight. Even though they stand on their legs when they land, this is not their primary means of locomotion like it is with humans and the ostrich.--Woland (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Woland, thank you for illustrating the point so well - any criterion for "true" bipedalism vs any other kind of bipedalism is likely to break down under the weight of exceptions.
Smjg, as for your "Which article?", you listed only 3 options and only one goes into much detail about Bipedalism. Philcha (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)