Talk:Somatotype and constitutional psychology/Archive 1

Archive 1

References to so called "examples"

I would argue that Catherine Zeta-Jones is an endomorph, and Oprah winfrey is a mesomorph. Are you kidding me?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.214.66 (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Chaps. I think Mariah Carey as anything but an Endomorph is complete nonsense. She's in fantastic condition but look at the size of her hips/thighs - Ecto/Meso/Endo-morph is a reference to one's body shape potential rather than anything else

Keira Knightley/Peter Crouch are very obvious examples of Ectomorphs to my mind. I think Lio Messi, Fernando Torres, Cristiano Ronaldo, Caterina Murino (not related to the special needs who managed Chelsea), Claude Makelele, Samuel Eto'o, Tom Cruise,

Josh Lewsey, Ronaldinho, Kelly Holmes, Thierry Henry, Christine Ohuruogu, Didier Drogba, Jada Pinkett Smith, Will Smith, Bryan Habana, Asafa Powell, - Mesomorphs

Felipe Contepomi/Javier Mascherano/Diego Maradona/Zinedine Zidane/Brian O'Driscoll/Jonah Lomu/Gordon D'Arcy/Wayne Rooney/Jonny Wilkinson/Carlos Tevez/Ryan Babel/Ronaldo (Luis Nazário de Lima) are clearly endomorphs - huge hips and all are disproportionately strong for their height. Catherine Bell, Mariah Carey are Endomorphs surely?

Out of curiousity, what's the view on Xabi & Cesc? Ecto or Meso-morphs? Micah Richards is a Meso or Endo-morph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewpbyrne (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Angelina Jolie be a mesomorph rather than an ectomorph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhAnanku (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ectomorphs becoming fat?

One of the paragraphs here mention this.

I'm not sure this is at ALL possible. I mean, perhaps, there is a terribly low chance, but nontheless, this is almost an impossibility. All the males, from my father's (Who can be described as an ectomorph) side , are all skinny, and all of which had been underweight at some point in their lives, including myself. There is not one overweight male from this, obviously genetically skinny, family. I'm not sure you can so sure you can positively suggest that an ectomorph can become overweight, unless, the tactics an ectomorph uses are drug-related. And even with gained weight, the chances of going over the average weight, for an ectomorph, seems almost outrageous in my mind. Perhaps this is just my bias talking, but being an ectomorph, and researching my family, we've all had issues where becoming fat, as an ectomorph, is almost a fairy tale. Growing even to a normal weight is extremely difficult, never mind becoming overwight.

Yes, it is possible. Christina Aguilera is an ectomorph, and there was a time herself had become overweight. You have to go by more than your family. Black Kat 16:06 10 December, 2006 (UTC)

For a TRUE ectomorph, that is, a basically impossible somatotype, becoming overweight would definitely be challenging. Nevertheless, with the proper eating habits ANY type can become pysically like another type (as far as weight and muscle goes... I don't mean that losing fat will be easier for an endomorph after he loses weight because he resembles an ectomorph more relatively, I mean that they can look like the other, at least on the outside). If you do any studying up on fitness and weightlifting you will see that any person without disabities can gain muscle and lose fat.

Outdated theory?

This article seems to indicate that the somatotype theory is outdated, but this is only clear with the New Age part. For the rest, it is ambiguous (except for physical training). Please clarify wether or not this is an outdated theory and why. Reply to David Latapie, an ectomorph ;-)

I've tried to make a more constructive analysis of the legacy of William Sheldon's work. The behavioral conclusions are quite laughable if carried very far, but there is a valid biological core...deeply buried, but useful. To pretend that slender build, muscular build, and portly build, don't exist as "extremes" of type, is about as "PC silly" as saying that nobody is "tall" "medium" or "short". Lets keep the core idea, but cut out the behavioral "stereotyping". My handle means,"Native-born Californian", I'm no right wing wacko, just a guy who contributes a lot of Wiki stuff about my state.Nativeborncal 06:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Health Danger

"Many slender men consciously "carbed up" to gain an unhealthful forty extra pounds so that they could look more like the stereotypical mesomorphic "Jock". These same men may now be more obese than they appear, or may have even died from the transformation. Seventy pounds over ideal weight for your true body type can be deadly."

I would love to see a source on this. The idea that there is a mortal danger in bulking 70lbs of muscle over a so-called "ideal weight" sounds very much unfounded to me.

I don't think the writer was referring to muscle, but I'm commenting-out the whole section for now. -Objectivist-C 18:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more facts and insights into the section for accuracy sake. Sheldon's theory is not "outdated" by any means; it just was never taken seriously because of it's unfortunate debut during the Nazi era. Sheldon's work just didn't fit in with the secular humanism movement which took over psychology departments; talk of biolgoical contributions to behavior were just dismissed because it did not fit with cherished political views. Nobody wanted to talk about Darwin either. That's all changed since Jerome Kagan started looking at temperament. I'm not saying Sheldon's theory is right, I'm just saying it was never really followed up on. Doc Stone

---

I am glad someone brought this up because the Somatotype section, indicating that you can change your Somatotype, is dangerous in general. I was actually a personal trainer for years and I have an Endomorph bodytype. There is absolutely no way that I could become a Mesomorph. This would be like re-defining your bone density. I am a large man, at 225lbs 6'0" tall, I can benchpress 400lbs, I'm strong as a bull, but I am not nearly as "cut" as some of my training counterparts, and I never will be. I may get a vague outline of a vein, but not the bursting blood vessels of some.

The biggest misconception that people have about their body is that with a little (or a lot) of work, they can change it. However, that isn't true. You can certainly become slender, or strong, or muscular, but you won't look like the body builders on television unless you are a Mesomorph. Similarly, you can be a fat ectomorph, but you will never gain the same weight as an endomorph. I think that where people go wrong is they believe that they simply have to put in the time and be dedicated to a healthy lifestyle. This will help you become the best you can, but there will always be limitations based on your body type.

If there is one thing that really needs to be said here, it is that giving people false hope like this is not healthy. Be sure that when you do enter a training program which includes supplements, that you consult your physician. Abuse of supplements such as carbs, creatine, etc., can lead to death, which is why it is important to know your body type, for one, and don't mix supplements unless you are fully aware of the contents of the supplement and its possible side-effects.

Merge proposal

The article at Body type (exercise), while largely a set of "how-to" exercise tips (see #8 under What Wikipedia is not), repeats a great deal of what is already included in this article, and is entirely based on this principle. I propose removing the exercise tips and merging whatever is left of that article with this one. Kafziel 20:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been more than a week with no objections, so I'll merge them. Kafziel 16:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with merging them is that the personality part of the theory is presently believed by almost no-one, while the physical part is a widely used tool. It's like including a lot of phrenology in an article on the skull. matturn 10:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, while your section adds important information about Sheldon's work, it is teetering on POV. Your above statement of Secular Humanism is much more meaningful than "Left-Wing". Using the information you provided above I'll attempt a reword.

What is POV? I agree that Left-Wing was a tad harsh, although generally accurate. Regarding Phrenology, it's a knee-jerk reaction to laugh at it. In reality, phrenology represented two major advances over the Standard Social Science Model of the time: (1) The mind was a physical organ, and (2) social-cogntiive functions are localilzed. The history of neuroscience has been a struggle between the materialists and the Cartesian generalists; The Cartesians have steadily been losing. How do I time-stamp my comments with Username like the others? I want to get in the flow here Docstone

The timestamp thingy is done by typing four tildes (the symbol above the `). If phrenology is too useful, how about including a lot of stuff on the Nazi perception of the Aryans in the article on the proto-Indo-Europeans? Or the flatness of the earth on an article about the globe. matturn 13:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think merging is a good idea -- I think it's important that the terms endo- ecto- and meso-morphic are connected with Sheldon, and seen as part of a larger theory of personality. Disconnecting the morphological terms makes them appear a bit too self-evident, I'd say.. as if they are theory-neutral. Citynoise 21:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merge71.142.94.189 02:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced box added to article

This article needs more sources and citations, especially the popular culture section. I tagged it as such (especially because of lines like "for political and not intellectually honest reasons"... which to me, almost never reads NPOV). Janet13 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... why was the box removed? It's still largely unreferenced, although it claims to have been sourced from books and various papers... but that's not verifiable... right?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused ...

This article begins: "Using anthropometric methods Sheldon studied the photographed bodies of some 4,000 men ..."

and toward the end says: "Sheldon's 4,000 photographs of nude Yale undergraduates were destroyed. An interesting footnote is that the collection included George H. W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and many other famous political figures."

Wasn't this study done in the 1940's? Was it done with men or women or both? How could Hillary Clinton have been part of the photo collection? I too would like to see some clarification and citation. --Glitterspray 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, that whole section is suspect. It's shouldn't be where it is, for one, because it has nothing to do with popular culture. Second, it reads like a "rehabilitation" of somatotypes by a Sheldon True Believer. Especially considering that the usefulness of the personality types associated with the somatotypes is debunked rather neatly by the observation that the "jolly fat folk" endomorphs in realy have a higher rate of depression -- which is mentioned in this very article. Couples with the lack of citations, ridiculous claims, and the classic True Believer defence that Sheldon was only ignored because people conflated his work with Nazism (and not because, say, he was wrong), I'd say the whole section should go. However, I won't delete it. Instead, I'll create a new section for it called "A Defence of Sheldon". The supporters of that section's claims should find references for them. Joshua Nicholson 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Stereotype: the "Klein"

What is a Klein? Is this a common term? Shouldn't we have a link to a definition of this term or do away with it altogether?

I've never heard it before, but Urban Dictionary indicates that it might have the sense of "pretentious, pompous person". 惑乱 分からん 12:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged

I've merged endomorphic, mesomorphic, and ectomorphic, and various of their redirects, to here. The external links need checking (and probably trimming). --Quiddity 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hey guys just wondeirng, some people refer to ectomorphs as people with small, possibly brittle bones and/or joints for whatever reasons, dietary or hereditary...of course other types can have brittle bones but its a marker for the ectomorph body type i think, in general. i was thinking, though, doesnt everyone have small bones relatively speaking? like when people say im not fat im just big boned...how big?! arent most humans extremely small skeleton?[ie. we all look thin as hell without muscle mass and body fat]

let me know, its bugging me.

Thanks. --AF1987 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It all depends, really. It's more than just bones...it's actually your muscle and metabolism. I've done some editing, because someone who wrote this definitely had a mesomorphic bias. I've seen a good amount of slender endomorphs and overweight mesomorphs. Ectomorphs can still put on muscle, though it takes more work. Plus they added stereotype, though wrote is more as "fact," but if you look at people there are a lot of very depressed ectomorphs and mesomorphs, artistic endomorphs and mesomorphs, and ectomorphs that have been able to put on weight and muscle. Body build actually depends on the origins of your ancestory, not your personality. That's why full Africans are usually ectomorph and whites tend to be mesomorph and endomorph...it's based on location of origin for weather tolerance, not personality. Personality is just what you turn out to be. I'm an endomorph/mesomorph (endo dominant), but my personality is definitely most suited towards the ectomorph stereotype. Plus, talk about brittle, my great aunt is a mesomorph and her bones are dangerously brittle. Black Kat 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

noncompliance/NPOV

This article was quite comical in its condescending tone to a set of vocabulary that is in standard use. Saying the types are obsolete, hinting at them being the basis for apocalyptic eugenics, and refusing to discuss them without associating in some extreme stereotypes makes this article totally NPOV. Personally, I'm so endomorphic I've had multiple weight-trainers quit on me because after an hour a day for months on end, my body builds no muscle. It simply doesn't. In fact, a weight training professor back in college graded everyone on performance, and eventually pulled me aside and said he'd never seen anyone show up every day to class, work out the whole time (with a weight training PhD watching), and show little to no progress. And no, it's not a chemical or a nutrition thing--we've checked those. My boss is similar--she's been 100% vegetarian for 40 years, and she would count as morbidly obese on any BMI. Anyway, I think the article needs be cleaned up by someone to make it more neutral in tone and so as to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Mrcolj 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A weight training PhD? Did your college by any chance have a faculty of juggling? 89.101.187.201 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as a "Weight training PhD". Maybe a PhD in physiology or physics or even Health&Exercise or something similar but not "Weight training". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Old comment I know, but from the context they might not have been refering to someone with a 'weight training PhD', but to a person with a PhD who weight trained. Using 'Phd' as descriptive noun for a person with a PhD.Number36 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Science Behind the Theory

I'm not at all knowledgeable in this area (hence my turning to WP for info), but it seems to me as though there are several key explanations missing from this article:
• What causes a person to develop into their particular somatotype? Since Sheldon named the types after embryonic germ layers, is the person's somatotype determined in utero?
• Is there any non-anecdotal research indicating that a person's somatotype can change?
• Is there any research indicating that this theory does/doesn't apply to women? The article only refers to Sheldon's research with men. What about application to other species?
• There are references to this theory being obsolete. Are there new theories to replace it, or is it simply discredited?
• Is this even technically a scientific theory?
Those were the obvious questions that occurred to me while I was reading the article. is that info available? It seems kind of weird that it's not in the article. Mattymatt 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this junk even remotely possible?

how can someone possible say that a mesomorph has low fat levels?....I work out every day and am considered by all my friends to be a big guy,and while im not obese im average weight,my best friend is the same height as me and is also a big guy though he has more fat than me,low fat levels are subjective to diet not genetics.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.67.20 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, low fat levels are not subjective to diet. Sure, you can eat healthily, but that will not guarantee you a low body fat %. My ectomorph boyfriend can chow down on as much fatty food as he wants, yet he won't gain an ounce and has less than 4% body fat. I've also had a gym teacher in high school who was heavyset (she had an apple shaped body, to be honest). The woman was very healthy, would walk 5 miles to and from the school, ate properly, and no matter what she does, she will always be heavyset. It's probably not a good idea to go around spewing your beliefs without any factual backup/proven research in the future. There is just as much factored in with genetic structure as there is with your diet.

Just my two cents.

--70.180.188.247 18:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC) --70.180.188.247 18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (edit to prevent wiki program from complaining about lack of signature... corrected some poor grammar in my comment)

I'm not quite sure how your anecdotal chit chat is any more valid than the original poster's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.172.122 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Stereotyping?

However, the United States is known to have the biggest proportion of obese people in the world – which does not indicate a higher number of endomorphs but rather a higher number of people with eating disorders.[citation needed] A lack of food in other countries can also go hand-in-hand with a lower proportion of obese people.[citation needed] Anyone can become fat – even an ectomorph – and being fat is not the same as 'being endomorphic'; therefore the disorders above merely illuminate disorders that cause, are caused by or can go hand-in-hand with eating disorders.

The section on "Stereotyping using somatotypes" seems like it needs some major work, or to be removed. I'm tempted to remove it entirely, but won't for now at least, since there may be something salvagable in it. I can't see from that section why it's relevant that certain psychological disorders are more prevalent in obese people, especially since it states that obese people can have different body types according to this system. I find it rather offensive that this section implies that obesity is due to "eating disorders". Take a look at the article about obesity, it lists various causes, such as genetics and various medical conditions, as well as lifestyle factors. The assumption that obesity is simply an effect of overeating or an "eating disorder" is simplistic and for many people incorrect, and seems rather derogatory. It's also unclear what this section has to do with "stereotyping". Maybe I've misread this section, and if that's the case, then I hope someone will reword it for clarity and add more citations. --Brokenchairs 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename to simply somatotype

Would anyone mind if I renamed this? Then, we could have a section on Sheldon in the intro, and discuss its modern use in physiology more in later sections. II | (t - c) 02:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems like it would make sense to me.Number36 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem with removing material to a general article on somatotype, by Sheldon and his term are notable enough to have a page of their own. Redheylin (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking up the talk page there had been a separate article at one point but it got merged with this one. How would you feel about simply renaming this article to the more generalized heading as suggested above, leaving the bulk of it as it stands, about Sheldon's work, but introducing a section about the more modern usage which seems to be divorced from the constitutional psychological connotations, and consequently doesn't fit as well into an article where the title includes that. Both subjects are obviously related and could comfortably fit together under a slightly more general and inclusive title. If anybody was going to look this subject up for either connotation, I'm sure they'd be much more likely to simply type 'Somatotype' which redirects here anyway.Number36 (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea is sound - I'd have thought Sheldon merited his own page, but... There's a stub at Somatotypology going begging that you might like to draft into service. There's a guy called de Ropp that ought to be included also - and then there are related diverse ideas from Gurdjieff and the concept of the three castes - people like Dumezil. If you know what you are about, and feel the ideas can be better presented, please go ahead. If you can locate any responses to Sheldon that would be good - I know there have been problematic attempts to frame questionnaires to gather stats to test his ideas. Redheylin (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern Usage

There is not much in the section on modern, and possibly legitimate, usage of somatotypes, such as in weight training. I know Arnold Schwarzenegger's Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding has a bit on it, but I have to wonder whether this usage is almost as much nonsense as the former, psychological, usage. Can ones somatotype be changed? How can one calculate one's somatotype, particularly given how one's bodyshape can change depending on one's diet and physical activity? - 121.208.93.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

On the question of the possibility of changing ones body type: with the exception of a few genetic growth abnormalities, once the teen pubescent years have come to a close, there is not much that can be done to change body types (at least as far as it comes to skeletal structure). This is a problem many transexuals encounter (particularly when a male endomorph wishes to appear as a female, or a female ectomorph wishes to appear as a male). Once the teen growth years have completed, hormone treatments and surgery can not overcome skeletal differences between the sexes (and likewise, body types even within the same sex).

On the question of calculating body type, measurement of one's wrist (or ankle) circumference in comparison to one's height is one way to get a general body type categorization. A better measurement also takes into account pelvic bone width, rib cage circumference (which can be more difficult to measure with obese individuals), and leg length. Taking these into account gives a more accurate categorization, but other factors besides bone structure alone comes into play. I do believe there are websites available in which you can enter your wrist circumference and height and it will give you a body type estimate.

— al-Shimoni (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Three Types

The bulleted list in the "The Three Types" section giving the ecto/meso/endo-morphic types has a "usually referred to as" parenthetical at the end of each bullet. Respectively, this list ends the parenthetical with "slim," "muscular," and "fat." What is the cite for this. This terms, from my understanding, would be inaccurate as they refer only to fat levels (except maybe for "slim" which could apply more broadly in this context). In fact, an endomorphic body type can be slim (low fat) and an ectomorphic body type can be fat (although, not too common, but fat ectomorphs stand out as looking rather negatively peculiar, moderately fat endomorphs are generally perceived more positively than moderately fat ectomorphs). Likewise, all three types can be "muscular" or non-muscular (although ectomorphs tend to have more difficulty in building muscle mass). I'm not sure what adjectives would be best for the parentheticals of each bullet item, but the ones currently listed are definitely not them. Gracile would fit well for ectomorphic, but that adjective would not be in common use among the general populous. "Big-boned" would be good for endomorphic if it were not for the fact that the adjective is usually seen as a euphemism for "fat." Possible adjectives that I could think of that could be used here include: willowy, lanky, small-boned, medium build, heavy build. A problem I see with the last two is that they could be read to be referring to muscle mass when the intent is more toward structure. Any suggestion for better adjectives, or at least a cite (plus a suggested clarification that could be added to the parentheticals) for the current adjectives??? — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Endomorph=fat

A mesomorph who just loses muscle mass becomes an ectomorph;if (s)he also gains fat,(s)he becomes an endomorph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.98.143 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No. A mesomorph is a mesomorph regardless if s/he has a 5% body fat (around the lowest someone can go and still not harm their health) or if they have a 50% body fat (which is very obese). Somatotypes speak of body structure, the genetically set base metabolism, and other characteristics of a person's body; it does not indicate how fat or thin a person is. Mesomorphs are those who have an average structural (bone) build for their particular sex, and along with that structure are tendencies for certain muscle and fat growth metabolisms. An ectomorph tends to burn muscle away quickly, burn fat away quickly, and their body is also reluctant to generate additional muscle over their genetically set base. The end result of these factors is that it is hard for them to gain muscle as well as hard for them to gain fat. Endomorphs have the opposite situation, and mesomorphs are in the middle (average). Kiera Knightley and Calista Flockhart, for example, are ectomorphs; if they increased their body fat to 30% each, they would still be ectomorphs, however, they would look hideously overweight. I, on the other hand, am an endomorph and if I were to drop to 0% body fat (although, I would be dead from having such a low percentage) I would still look huge in comparison to both of them (even if they were at 30% body fat). — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed material not mentioned in the original source, self-published references; copyright status?

I have removed material not mentioned in the original source ("energy" in any sense but the ordinary one, "neurons", "steroids" were all not mentioned there) and that supported only by self-published references. I also question the link to the archive.org copy, since its copyright status is at best disputable (1942 material is within US copyright limits until 2017). Allens (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The copyright is disputable? What's that to you, dude? Also, since you are unaware that the word "emotion" (from the Latin movēre "to move") is synonymous with the word "energy" (the capacity to cause movement), your ability to make any meaningful contributions to Wikipedia is at best disputable. —Editor75439 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In particular, Wikipedia has policies against:

• Use of links to any material not available under proper copyright - see WP:COPYLINK; I have reported these links to Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard.
• Personal attacks against any contributor - see WP:PA.

I suggest following these. Allens (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I also suggest, if you wish to make such claims as the above in regard to words, that you back them up with verifiable, reliable sources. Allens (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to help with a response to the 3O request, if you'll have me. Please wait a while and I will be back with comments. --FormerIP (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Allens (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to provide a diff showing the insertion/removal of the disputed content? --FormerIP (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to extract it, but [1] shows most of my actions, although the edit summaries are also likely helpful to view - I tried to provide enough detail to see why I was removing what I was. [2] appears to show most of the other party's along with either Editor75439 (talk · contribs) or someone else's via IP addresses. (Converting from editing via

IP address to editing via account is, of course, fine.) I would be fine with reverting back to [3] then updating with material/details found in the reliable sources (without original research/synthesis); I am not attached to my rather-trimmed-down version. Allens (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my present to you, guys:

Viscerotonic people are extremely agglutinative. They tend to club together and to seek their satisfactions by supporting the group against the variant individual, or against individuality. They are Epimethean, as contrasted with Promethean. This tendency is perhaps a natural outcome of the combination of strong biological appetite and individual muscular weakness. Cerebrotonic people, lovers of solitude, represent an exactly antithetical tendency, and when they have a fairly strong supporting somatotonia they tend to become individualists, and haters of viscerotonic propriety. Along this cleavage line, many of the generalized hostilities seen in human life appear to take their origin.

—Sheldon, William H. ♦ The Varieties of Temperament Harper & Brothers, 1942, p. 36

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology&oldid=463529446#Viscerotonia —Editor75439 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OK here goes...

Firstly, sources for this article should demonstrate their relevance to the topic. To use sources not about the topic in order to advance a novel take on things would be original research. In the section we are dealing with, there are a number of sources we do not appear to have anything to do with Sheldon's theory of constitutional psychology. Our text should not imply a link between Sheldon's work and the work described in these sources, because the sources themselves do not suggest such a link. On that basis, material attributed to the following sources should be removed from the article:

• Newman, J. Physics of the Life Sciences.
• Weiner, I. Handbook of Psychology.
• Baron-Cohen, S. The Male Condition.
• Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1951 edition.
• Science News. Brain Network Linked To Contemplation In Adults Is Less Complex In Children.
• Voracek, M., & Fisher, M. Shapely centrefolds.
• Hanfstaengl, E. Hitler: The Missing Years.

If either of you thinks that one or more of these sources can be legitimately linked to the topic of the article, I would suggest finding a reliable source that makes such a link.

I would note that once this is done (which I suggest it absolutely must be), we are left with an article most of which is cited only to Sheldon's The Varieties of Temperament. Secondary sources which discuss Sheldon's theories should be sought out in order to make an article which is capable of being appropriately informative and balanced.

Sheldon's views and findings should be attributed to him inline each time they occur. So "Cerebrotonia exhibits a strong positive correlation...", for example, should not read so that the statement is made in Wikipedia's voice.

References to "psychic energy" in the article do not to reflect anything that is in any source, and certainly not in Sheldon's writings that are linked to. This phrase should not be used usless a reliable source which used the same phrase in relation to Sheldon's work can be found.

Lastly, The Varieties of Temperament in in copyright [4] and so online texts should not be linked to, per WP:ELNEVER.

Sorry not to be able to sit on the fence on this one, but I find it difficult to pretend that the article is not in poor shape. It badly needs the attention I have described and then some more. I either of you is not happy with this opinion, I would suggest that posting at WP:DRN would be the next step. --FormerIP (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll make some tweaks and remove the links you've listed except for "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1951 edition" (because that particular excerpt is about the Sheldonian somatotypes). Secondary-sourced criticism should be kept in a separate section in order to preserve coherence. —Editor75439 (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Allens (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the sourcing for "tridemesional organism", "unidimensional organism", "degrees of freedom", "condensed", "spiritual vacuity", "totalitarian aggregate"? We should use specialist terminology only as it is found in the sources.--FormerIP (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Books gives 3,760 results for "Spiritual vacuity": [5]. Most of them are not "specialist books". "Condensed emotions" is not a specialist expression either: [6]. Sheldon uses many words to characterize the quality of emotions, e.g., "concentrated" "There is a dull, vegetable-like quality, as if the fires of life burned slowly, without concentration of heat." If I use "concentrated" instead of "condensed", will it make any difference? —Editor75439 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean what's the source we are using for the article? Sheldon does not appear to use any of these terms. Is there a source that describes his theories using this language? If not, why are we using it in our article?--FormerIP (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The words "unidimensional" or "condensed" are not "specialists terms". Google gives 1,100,000 results for "unidimensional". Britannica uses the word "linearity" when describing ectomorphs. "Linearity" and "unidimensionality" are synonyms. WP does not prohibit using synonyms. —Editor75439 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I take the answer regarding sourcing is "no". The article should reflect what is in the sourcing. What good reason is there for it not to?--FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, you are claiming that using synonyms ("unidimensional" instead of "linear", and "condensed" instead of "concentrated") is prohibited. Show the respective WP policy. —Editor75439 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS: "Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." "Unidimensional organism" returns only one source in Google, which seems to use it to refer to a theoretical organism consisting of a small number of cells in a row. The main point is that none of this content says anything that the source says. It isn't dealing in synonyms, its just incomprehensible original thought. --FormerIP (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

merger question

As the subject line says... Some further trimming as FormerIP indicated may be necessary, and on the other hand expansion is also distinctly necessary (or at least will be once FormerIP's suggested edits are done). Merger with Sheldon's article certainly might be indicated, but not simply redirecting it without first actually doing the merger. Allens (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indicated by what? By your subjective wish? Sheldon's somatotypology is the de-facto standard in modern developmental psychology. —Editor75439 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not; that's completely untrue. Sorry, I meant: citation needed. MastCell ^Talk 05:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is; that's completely true.

• https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22endomorphy%22&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3470l3470l0l3934l1l1l0l0l0l0l164l164l0.1l1l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=sp
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22endomorphy%22&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3470l3470l0l3934l1l1l0l0l0l0l164l164l0.1l1l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws —Editor75439 (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but :Google search results aren't particularly convincing, nor do they meet this site's requirements for reliable sourcing in and of themselves. On the other hand, the New York Times (which does qualify as a reliable source) notes that Sheldon's work "has long been dismissed by most scientists as quackery." Which would rather suggest that his work is not the "de-facto standard in modern developmental psychology", by any stretch of the imagination. MastCell ^Talk 05:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To you, a newspaper article is more authoritative than 34 thousand printed books? —Editor75439 (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor75439: Somatotypes were a very popular theory in their day; unfortunately that day is long passed. Most psychologists would accept that physiology affects psychology, but this overly simplistic typology is no more current and accepted than (for instance) eugenics. It's an interesting historical theory that has no current-day applications. perspective please… --Ludwigs2 14:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Read this, Ludwigs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEASEL#Unsupported_attributions —Editor75439 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor75439, read wp:FRINGE and wp:NPOV. Don't put me in the wrong boat here: I like fair representations of all theories, fringe or not, so I'm not here to diss on somatotypes. But I know this is not a currently respected theory in biology or psychology (hasn't been since the late 50's or early 60's), and while it may persist in lay culture it needs to be presented in that light.

Piece of advice, which you should take to heart. If you collaborate, we can make a relatively decent, balanced article. If you turn this into a wp:BATTLEGROUND, you're not going to get the article you want, not even close. There are editors on project who have spent years figuring out how to crush fringe topics, and while I don't approve of that I'm sure as hell not going to stick up for your side if all I get from you is attitude. You decide whether you want to be reasonable about this or stick to your guns, then let me know.

In the meantime, I'm going to read over the article and do some changes - copy-editing and balancing, mostly. --Ludwigs2 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguments like "but I know" are typical weasel arguments used by people with bloated self-esteem. Could you do us all a favour and refrain from infesting this article with your weasels? —Editor75439 (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

While name-calling can be viscerally satisfying, I don't think you've actually engaged anyone's concrete objections in this thread. Could you make an effort to do so? MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Additionally, this edit seems incorrect. 1992 is not "nowadays" - it was nearly 20 years ago. Also, it's inappropriate to remove well-sourced and relevant information; if the New York Times notes that an idea is held in low esteem by modern scientists, then we need to report that. It doesn't matter if the author of the Times article is a scientist him/herself - that's not how sourcing works. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The NY Times article just quotes a photographed student who says that in his opinion the theory is quackery. A former student is not a scientist working in Sheldon's field. Editor75439 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not true (or else we're talking about different articles). This New York Times article notes: "Mr. Sheldon has since died, and his work has long been dismissed by most scientists as quackery." That is not a quote from a "former student" - it's not a quote at all. It's just part of the article, in the writer's voice. Can you read the source again and address its actual content? MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct, Editor. Text search the article for "quackery".

You have recently exceeded WP:3RR and I notice that you already had a warning on your talkpage. Please could you undo your recent removals of text from the article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have found the phrase. But it is a phrase of a newspaper journalist unbolstered by any quotations. Moreover, the academician quoted in the same article said that as of 1992, the theory was still supported by half of the textbooks. The theory is clearly being suppressed for the reasons of political correctness. So, the real support of the theory is much higher than 50 percent. Many textbook authors are afraid of being accused of advocating a politically incorrect theory. Editor75439 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait; so first you objected because you thought it was a quotation. Then, when you could be bothered to actually check the source, you object because it's not a quotation? I'm not sure that further discussion is going to productive if you're committed to treating this like a game. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The quotation from a former student containing the word "quack" is at the end of the NY Times article. But anyway, this Wikipedia article is about a scientific theory, so using newspapers as sources of wisdom is inappropriate. Imagine Encyclopaedia Britannica denouncing some scientific theory on the basis of a NY Times article. —Editor75439 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear. Scientists have dismissed this claim as quackery. The New York Times is simply reporting the view of scientists. If you continue to feel that such reporting in the Times doesn't qualify as a reliable source, let's solicit some outside input. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status

The copyright of a book, published from 1923 through 1963, expires 28 years after publication, if not renewed:

• http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
• http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf#page=5&view=FitV (see page 5, Works Copyrighted Before January 1, 1978)

The copyright of William Sheldon's The Varieties of Temperament has not ever been renewed since its original publication in 1942, which means that the book is in the public domain since 1 January 1971: http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/search/advanced/process?clauseMapped(title)=The+varieties&clauseMapped(author)=Sheldon+William&clauseMapped(odatISO)=&clauseMapped(dregISO)= —Editor75439 (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor, I posted the link to the renewal above. Here it is again: [7]. --FormerIP (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Former, it does not change anything. "The copyright law extends the renewal term from 28 to 67 years for copyrights in existence on January 1, 1978. However, for works copyrighted prior to January 1, 1964, the copyright still must have been renewed in the 28th calendar year to receive the 67-year period of added protection." http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf#page=5&view=FitV (see page 5, Works Copyrighted Before January 1, 1978). So, this particular book is in the public domain since 1 January 1999. —Editor75439 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you reach that conclusion, editor. Read the section of the PDF headed "Works First Published or Copyrighted Between January 1, 1923, and December 31, 1949, and Registered for Renewal". --FormerIP (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the links, former. Your Epimethean wish is granted. —Editor75439 (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

question about main table

Where did this table come from? we need horizontal labels to specify what each row is supposed to represent, and I'd prefer to see what Sheldon said rather than in ferring from the contents. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protection

I have semi-protected the article for 3 days as a result of recent edit warring by a new user and the claim that they are a returning ip editor. Hopefully that will give you all time to fix all the problems they caused. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... thank you. Allens (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations; neutral point of view; no original research/syntheses

I have been engaged in removing much uncited material, putting back in material giving a more neutral point of view by critiquing this fringe theory, and removing original research/syntheses (including one critical of Sheldon, incidentally). (If we were to allow original syntheses to be put into this article, we would need to bluntly describe this theory as racist, instead of letting the reader judge for themselves the meaning of terms such as "Mongoloids" (and I have removed insufficiently cited terms such as "Nordics" and "Jews", which would further confirm this evaluation); I do not think the editor engaging in insertion of original syntheses would appreciate this. Allens (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the section with the earlier version, it appears a little better. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The scientific validity of Sheldon's concept has been tested and confirimed by all known studies

The scientific community cannot refute a concept just by calling it quackery. A scientific concept can only be disproved by experimental evidence. All known experimental studies undertaken to test Sheldon's findings have produced supportive evidence for his position:

Sheldon maintained that the person's somatotype is genetically determined and causes people to develop and express personality traits consistent with their body builds. For example, he hypothesized that endomorphs (high in fatty tissue) would be sociable, complacent, and capable of easy communication of feelings. He thought mesomorphs (high in muscle tissue) would be adventurous, bold, competitive, aggressive, and energetic, whereas ectomorphs (low in fatty and muscle tissue) would be inhibited, introverted, hypersensitive to pain, and secretive. He tested these hypotheses by having observers rate individuals on these trait dimensions and found empirical support for his ideas (Sheldon, Hartl, & McDermott, 1949, pp. 26–27). Although this study has been strongly criticized on methodological grounds (Sheldon himself made both the physical and psychological ratings), more methodologically sound studies—in which investigator bias was minimized by having one investigator rate the somatotypes and having the study participants independently rate their own personality traits—have also produced supportive evidence for Sheldon's position (Child, 1950; Cortes & Gatti, 1965; Yates & Taylor, 1978).

—Ryckman, Richard M. Theories of Personality Ninth edition, Cengage Learning, 2007, p. 260

— 89.110.28.44 (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor75439 (talk · contribs) - I note that both the above IP address and 91.122.93.70 are going through OJSC ROSTELECOM's DSL of AVANGARDDSL.RU - you have been banned not only from editing the article, but from editing its talk page. IP-address sock puppetry is also banned. I suggest removing the above yourself (and the similar material from the Talk page for Sheldon) before the ban is extended further. Allens (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence for IP-address sock puppetry: 89.110.10.99, 89.110.8.138, and 89.110.17.92 are likewise from OJSC ROSTELECOM's DSL of AVANGARDDSL.RU - these IP addresses were used to make about the same modifications as Editor75439 kept doing via edit warring; they were done prior to Editor75439's starting editing, and appear likely to be from Editor75439.

Editor75439: If you had actually simply presented the above (which is itself citing suspiciously non-modern studies, and has been contradicted by other evidence; I am rather too tired to bother gathering the evidence now, especially given that it's been gathered before) on the talk page, and argued that this viewpoint on Sheldon's theory should be included, without personal attacks, sock puppetry, etc, you'd have been listened to a lot more (I'd have been willing to listen - I was willing to make modifications to Science wars on behalf of an IP address arguing from a viewpoint that I vehemently disagree with as a scientist). As it is, your viewpoint is going to be excluded, and you have only yourself to blame. Please try to learn from this experience. Allens (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

" Sheldon's attempts to uncover correlations between the three body types and the three personality types was a noble effort which reflected a touch of validity, but as a unified theory of personality it was a failure."

"Constitutional Theory". The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. Penguin. 2009. ISBN 9780141030241.

"William Sheldon (Sheldon & Stevens, 1942) devised his somatotype theory... However, this theory has been discredited due to a lack of findings that support a link between temperament and body type (Catell & Metzner, 1993)."

"Body Type". Encyclopedia of Special Education: A Reference for the Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and Other Exceptional Individuals. Wiley. 2007. ISBN 9780471678021.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content, unparaphrased additions

Sourced content should not be removed. If an editor wishes to add content it should be paraphrased and the references given properly. Once reverted before re adding content there should be discussion here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A New York Times article is not a legitimate source when it comes to ideologically sensitive science topics. To them, ideology is above science. 89.110.8.134 (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you consider a source unacceptable for particular content, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you want to make substantial changes to the article and have been reverted already, present a case for doing so here and build consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources presented to support the notion that this is still the subject of consideration currently were inaccurately represented. The first, Ryckman 2007 goes on to state, "Despite these findings, however, there is no direct proof that the correlations were caused by biological factors." and then discusses other theories that have supplanted Sheldon's. It does not provide any evidence that Sheldon's theories are the basis for any current research or are used in any way now. The second, Roeckelein 1998 is a dictionary of theories and lists Sheldon's with some explanation but again provides no evidence it is employed in any fashion currently. Roeckelein goes on to give the major criticisms of Sheldon's theory, that it's not a theory at all but a single assumption with a set of descriptive concepts, that Sheldon's work was methodologically flawed and that the factors he assessed are not consistent but change. Lengthy quotes are note needed in references, that's what a reference list is for, to verify one can read the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the recent reference added and making a more full reading of the other sources see also Weckowicz & Liebel-Weckowicz, 1990 pp. 220-1 ISBN 9780080867205. It's pretty clear that this theory was dead in the water over 25 years ago. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The authors in your references do not substantiate their claims about Sheldon's theory with any citations. Such references are not valid. If you believe that Sheldon was wrong, provide references to scientific works that have proven him wrong. 92.100.160.46 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable sources per policy. If you have objections take it to RSN. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ref13: have you read the paper?

I have moved Ref 13 ("Physique correlates with reproductive success in an archival sample of delinquent youth") from "Sheldon's methodology and theories have been extensively criticized and largely discredited.[1][13]" to "Sheldon's methodology[13] and theories have been extensively criticized and largely discredited.[1]"

because in the study you can read "In this study legitimate questions can be raised about Sheldon’s sampling methods and the rigor of his measurements, especially for the structural integration variables." yet "However, this research suggests that somatotype remains a useful approach to quantifying physique. While Sheldon’s dream of a comprehensive constitutional psychology based on his dimensions may never be realized, understanding how body morphology is related to sexual selection, mating effort, and other behaviors remains an important area for research." which is different from criticizing and discrediting is theories… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwegenschen (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Discredited???

192000 search results on internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• constitutional psychology - largely neglected
• somatotype - initial visual methodology - classed as subjective.
• somatotype - Heath-Carter or Rempel methodologies - alive and kicking in many published papers.

83.104.51.74 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC) -- the word "discredited" has been replaced with the word "neglected".

Bias Tag

I added the bias tag as much for the tone as the content presented. This article is heavily skewed against Sheldon's work without providing references for many of the criticisms. Not all psychologists have rejected his work, and here all sides should be presented and the reader allowed to make their own judgements. 198.214.85.199 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Body skills

Body build is associated with specific athletic skills—the best fencers, oarsmen, and basketball players, for example, tend to be tall and lean; top swimmers, divers, and pole vaulters are likely to be broad-shouldered and slim-hipped; champion wrestlers, shot putters, and weight lifters are apt to be thick-trunked and short-limbed. While body type does not guarantee athletic prowess, it can contribute to success in certain sports. Similar considerations apply to vocal and instrumental musical aptitudes wherein unique combinations of such anatomical structures as lips, teeth, larynx, tongue, eyes, ears, hands, and arms can facilitate the attainment of virtuoso skill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.37.27 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Body Types Deserve Their Own Articles

The goofy hypothesis that body types are somehow related to personality is obviously wrong, disproven by hundreds of millions of people alive & dead who disprove all of its claims by their contrary behaviors. The body types are mentioned all over body-building media, health & fitness media, but this quack psychology is so obscure that reading this article in 2016 is the first time I've ever heard of it. The body types deserve their own articles with no reference in them to this article on bogus psychology. This hypothesis is so obscure, and wrong, that it isn't even worthy of additional links to this article. Ace Frahm (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect formula for PI in ectomorphy section

The formula for Ponderal Index listed in the article doesn't match the formula used by Heath/Carter for determining ectomorphy. Per the Heath-Carter Anthropometric Somatotype Instruction Manual by Carter, the formula should be height in centimeters divided by the cube root of weight in kilograms. I'd make the change on the article myself, but I don't know anything about how to format properly, etc., especially with images involved. The formulas for converting this value into the actual ectomorphy value are also slightly different in the instruction manual, which is from 2002. Perhaps these formulas have been changed slightly since the original publication in the 1960s? 68.97.4.151 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Carleton University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

NSFW link in the Reference sections?

Hi, I checked Reference N.4 but instead of a scientific paper, it redirects me to a Russian NSFW site? It's just me or someone decided to vandalise the page?

--This is one of the reasons I placed the bias tag on the article. 198.214.85.199 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• A somatotype of unreliable sourcing perhaps? Trimmed [8] 86.190.128.52 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Imagery

Aréat, regarding this and this? Since an editor -- Crossroads -- has objected, maybe discuss this on the talk page first? I do not feel strongly on this matter; so I'd rather not be heavily engaged in this discussion. Maybe an RfC will need to be started. I will state now that I don't see that the images are needed in this article.

Please don't ping me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We've got medical photos of what exactly the somatotypes mean for each from front, back and side. It's an article about a body shape, I think the need to have them shown is obvious. And the photos are medical ones, in a non sexual way. They're definitively not gratuitous. here.--Aréat (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We already have the diagram for that. These naked pictures from every angle add nothing of value. They're non-sexual, but also excessive and unnecessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The diagrams only show the individuals from the front. The photos have the values of adding the sides and back, and of being exact exemple of what was thought of being somatotypes back then, being photos of a medical book instead of drawings. They're not unnecessary, and I don't see on what basis you call them excessives. --Aréat (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You should not have restored the picture. My not responding to this was not acquiescence; I saw no need to elaborate on what I previously stated. Flyer22 Frozen said she didn't see the need for it either. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Flyer22 Frozen isn't opposed to it. And I explained to you how it's not gratuitous, to which you gave no further argument. You can't just block an image because you don't like it.--Aréat (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

She said above, I will state now that I don't see that the images are needed in this article. You can't add an image just because you do like it. And the WP:ONUS is on you for it. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)