Talk:The Family That Walks on All Fours

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Film: British / Documentary

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Origin of the gait

It seems the origin of the gait is solved: https://sciencenordic.com/brain-denmark-fat/mystery-solved-why-a-turkish-family-walks-on-all-fours/1402928 I'm not good enough with english to edit, so if someone could do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:163:30A0:A97A:7951:A60:E911 (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

Is the "Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention" tag appropriate here? Looking at other articles tagged with this, I find they are all fiction. But this is a science documentary about people.

that means it does not have a plot.
that great care is needed in discussing the work rather than summarizing what it says for reasons of potential libel (the documentary at its end reports on the Turkish arm trying to stop filming and after the film was broadcast there was considerable controversy and some legal threats).
it has a scientific content particularly for those interested in the particular condition it documented and any attempt to summarize this risks removing information that some may consider important. --LittleHow (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the synopsis is long, but I also do not feel that it is unnecessarily long. This is a non-trivial program that probably defies a neat, simple, description. Having read the synopsis, I found it both helpful and informative in understanding the content of this program, particularly in putting it in the context of the many (and complex) interplaying factors (social, religious, genetic and evolutionary, to name a few). Enquire (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bad sentence

I'm not sure how to change this to make sense, but this sentence So the brain cannot be the whole story since individuals born with a lack of cerebellum can still in a manner walk with bipedality. is funny, because people do need their cerebellum : ) It seems to be referring to the cerebral worm defect. 80.101.162.155 (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine as is. It makes sense, it is not funny. Enquire (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is not fine. I reread it three times because a contrafactual statement is embedded and suggests a paradigm shift in brain and mind physiology. One is left with the false fact that one can live without a cerebellum, in fact be born without one. Not being a doctor, I don't know if that is possible or not possible, but the sentence indicates that is is. Being able to survive without a cerebellum seems extraordinary. Perhaps the sentence should read: So the brain cannot be the whole story since individuals born with cerebellar ataxia can still in a manner walk with bipedality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.231.8 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a terribly written sentence.

100001010101100101010 94.122.138.113 (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]