Template talk:Humanities

What is the rationale of having genetics, anatomy and sexuality displayed here, when human biology is already present? Plus, it would be better to replace sexuality with human physiology and genetics with human biochemistry if the three topics need to be kept in the template.--Eukesh 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show or hide

I think the phrase "All" needs to be changed to "Most" in the discussion about when farming was introduced. There is evidence of composite farming tools way back to over 40,000 years ago. Also the evidence of grain pollens indicates migraion of farming during 20-40 thousand years ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.3.5 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see this table with the default of showing (i.e. with a hide button automatically present) as it only takes up one line on my computer. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More

Other articles I feel should be included:

Also, perhaps a separate bar for the broad academic disciplines dealing with humans: Humanities, Social science, and Medicine.

And I think that the articles should appear in alphabetical order. It's hard to discern what organization scheme is being used right now. Fishal 03:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology

All authoritative sources identify sociology as belonging to the social sciences, not the humanitites. @ModernDaySlavery: please revert your misleading edit. Trakking (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Antihumanism (Philistinism)"

This insinuation of a equivalence between antihumanism and the so-called philistinism is equivocated. Actually, even the mention of 'antihumanism', in this context, instead of its alternative names, induces serious error. Antihumanism is not an opposition to humanities, but to humanism. Antihumanism-derived philosophies, such as critical posthumanism, have been a powerful influence in contemporary humanities. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]