Talk:Physiognomy

message: Does Paul ekman's work have no place here? We know about things like smile lines { crow's feet } only appear on people who have a baseline of joviality. Because a wrinkle near the eye is a sign of a genuine smile. There should at least be a footnote...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.114.72 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  micro expressions 

message: For all of my years the term has been thought to be much more at simply the vastly subtle differences to be found IN THE VISUAL OBSERVATION OF THE FACE (of humans); these differences being remarkable in that no one has ever looked exactly like another person.  The Physiognomist may be a person who is particularly keen on noting the similarities within these subtle confines of two people, perhaps most often when congenital relationships exist.  Perhaps there is a more apt word for this description; the way it is defined here (and elsewhere) is much more concerned with deducing inner characteristics of person (personality type) than simply the appearance of the face as defined by its many variables (skeletal structure, presence/absence of adipose tissue, etc.)  Cisum.ili.dilm (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quandary 

message: I read something today.  It was from an article in a scholarly journal.  Physiognomy is real and NOT racist (but it is UNIVERSALLY AND RIGHTLY regarded as a mixture of racism DISGUISED by science.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.111.68 (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW HEADING 

message: What is the 'Norwich connection' mentioned in the last paragraph? It isn't explained anywhere in the article that I can see. R Lowry 04:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwich Connection 

message: * Physiognamy is also used in classification of natural communities.  How does that apply?
* What about non-European theories of physiognomy?  I understand, for example, that some Sufis at some point had developed (and perhaps still hold to) a system of beliefs regarding the relationship between ones physical appearance and personality/spiritual capacities.  Anyone?
* I'm no expert here, but doesn't the explanation for the 2nd type of "physiognomy" in the Intro. sound kinda backwards or something? Sfahey 19:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiognamy 

message: The introductory sentence makes it sound like there is absolutely no connection between a person's face and character or personality. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water, is it not? It is the attempt to lay down hard and fast "scientific" rules about this that founder. Can we clarify the opening somehow? Hgilbert 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading introduction 

message: The short list of works after Aristotle has it written that they were written in the 2nd and 4th centuries AD.  The links however, go to the second and fourth centuries BC. Which is wrong?  machinebuster
::I'm not sure of Adamantius (though his postdating Aristotle would suggest AD), but Polemo was most definitely a second century AD physiognomist, so it's certainly the link that's at fault there. 
::Wiper 20:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works after Aristotle 

message: Based on arbitration and
clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and to the Physiognomy category in general, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and also from the Physiognomy category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiognomy (Physiognomancy?) is Pseudoscience? 

message: The Victorian College of Classical Homœopathy (VCCH)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.82.61 (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homoeopathic Facial Analysis 

message: As the proud bearer of a degree in pedantry, I would like to indicate that there is an asterisk at the start of the section "Middle Ages", which Firefox renders as a blue dot behind the text. Hexadecima (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor remarks, since the page is protected 

message: I added a reference to a study by Tufts University, but was unsure of how to format it properly and where in the article to find the necessary information.  Hopefully I can get back to it, but if not, it'd be nice if someone could take a look. GarrickW (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting, but it somehow seems to be referring to an extremely local situation, with people experienced in conditions in their own part of the world.  It reminds me of how many Ethiopians can tell at first glance if someone is Amara, Tigre, or Oromo - but a non-Ethiopian might not know any Ethiopian from a Somali. And it would probably be harder for someone in another part of the world to guess what political party you belong to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Formatting 

message: Physiognomy is proofed as a pseudo-science and absolutely discredited. It is often used as a medium to discriminate and judge people just by their appearance. In particular during Nazism in Germany it is used as a further "scientific" reason to murder 6 million jews - "... they have faces and so they behave like rats ...".
Please insert a critique-section and change the article-entry so that this fact is mentioned!--78.55.147.206 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the critique? 

message: The modern science section seems a little sparse, there have been more than a few modern scientific theories relating to facial characteristics and personality, like the chad v dad faces in the sexy son hypothesis among others.
Should I just add these links in or does there have to be some sort of vote or discussion beforehand?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Science and the Sexy Son hypothesis and others. 

message: The lead uses this source to state that "There is no clear evidence that physiognomy works." Asides from the source explicitly stating that "There is, however, some tantalising evidence that our faces can betray something about our character", it list several recent studies that indicate a connection between personality and appearance which the lead painstakingly omits. Ankh.Morpork 20:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The "morphopsychology" article is short and not often edited or expanded, and has only one source. Since from what I can tell its methods and goals are essentially the same, and is basically just a neologism for a specific subtype of physiognomy, it would be best just to try and merge this in, unless someone wants to expand it considerably and explain how it is different. anamedperson (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Morphopsychology]] 

message: Below is my plan to expand the science section of this page (as a part of assessment for a university course), please let me know if you have any suggestions and advice. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SkyRepublic76/sandbox  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyRepublic76 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the Science Section 

message: There are missing information especially the middle ages in Middle East 50.190.221.210 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: Hello, I've found an article about Physiognomy, it might be useful as a reference/external link for this article:
* BBC - Future - How your face betrays your personality and health, 13 March 2015, David Robson, BBC
—  Ark25  (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More data 

message: I have removed the paragraph in the lede
It lacks a citation and, while I am aware of some  projects  that fit this description (and which I regard with a similar contempt as the quoted paragraph), I don't think it meets notability requirements at present, especially for the lede.
A Lesbian (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your editorial analysis here.  In order to present the implication, as that prose clearly did, that serious researchers think that AI-mediated mass data set heuristics are going to somehow shift the scientific consensus on such theories, rehabilitating widely debunked psuedoscience and placing it in the light of a viable avenue of empirical inquiry, we would at a minimum need a significant number of reliable secondary sources that meed WP:MEDRS standards.  That's clearly not the case here, even if we can find some primary sources by way of self-interested commercial entities advancing dubious claims about the capabilities of their proprietary AI analytics or an odd fringe article written for a publication mill without any real peer-review editorial controls.  So not only does the statement as original added, not meet WP:V for the very obvious reason of not having had even a single source to support it (and being very vague in the implied support for these notions), but even if a couple of these primary sources had been attempted as the verifying sources, the content would still run afoul of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and WP:WEIGHT.  I think this was very much the right call, though I understand, given the contentiousness of the over-arching topic, why you chose to explain your edit here on the talk page.  Good call and good catch on this generally. Snow let's rap 02:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI/ML revival 

message: I'm changing
to
since the evaluation is made by a director of research from HRC, Ashland Johnson, and not by BBC News. As it stands, this invokes the wrong authority figure. I would actually like name Ashland Johnson in the article, but I wasn't sure how to refer to a researcher by name which is in turn referenced in a news item.
Also, the BBC item actually quotes a professor from the Face Research Lab at the University of Glasgow:
I believe adding this (not necessarily as a quote) may make the main article reflect the nuanced perspective of another scientist on the paper. This means the article would reflect the study better. However I'm not sure if this level of detail to a specific, widely discussed research study appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Anyone? --Ozan Ogreden (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better reporting of BBC coverage 

message: Most of this section was added by a single IP editor here. Tagged instead of blanking because it is all sourced and there should be a section about AI and contemporary interest in this pseudoscience. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems likely. Deleted. Remsense诉 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific investigation section