![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Under "Physical Characteristics", the list-tags aren't displaying properly under IE6---that is, the bullet marks don't display at all, and the text seems to simply be broken into short lines randomly. Though I can't imagine why this'd be (the UL and LI tags are in the generated HTML), it does make the page look funny to a lot of users. Any ideas? Grendelkhan 16:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Subspecies" is not the same as "race". It's deceptive to equate the two terms. Here is one definition for "race" from my dictionary:
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
It's worth listing the known subspecies though, so I added them to the taxobox. Gdr 14:50, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
No offence, but I think that a discussion of habitats along the lines of "about 3 humans at a time live on space, of the remaining 6.3 billion Earthbound humans, blah blah" is amusing (to put it politely). I have changed it around. As a biological species, Humans are adapted to the savannah where they evolved, then colonized all continents and climates through cultural, not biological evolution. Just my 2 Euro cents. — Miguel 04:45, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)
Why are there some stub messages in the middle of this article?? 66.32.141.227 21:46, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Neumannkun - you copy-paste moved this page to human being. First, page moves should be done with the "Move this page" option to preserve page histories. Second, the disambiguation page you replaced it had two terms - the article you moved, and a dictionary definition which should not be here -- see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Third, human is much more intuitive than human being as an article title -- Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.. That's why I reverted. →Raul654 01:50, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
IMHO, the spiritual characteristics section fails to distinguish between spiritual and supernatural. I am non-theistic but I don't deny a spiritual dimension, just the supernatural basis for it. Humans have engaged in funeral rites for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. Whether or not there is a theistic basis for this, it is spiritual. Other mammals grieve, and some (like elephants) go to particular places to die, but no other animal has --- to our knowledge --- a universal, cross-cultural concern with death. I don't feel qualified to repair this section, though. Miguel 17:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article seems to be entirely about the biological "Homo sapiens". I think a little bit of disambiguation (rather than simple forwarding) would be in order:
If you ask me, I would say "Homo sapiens" and "human" should be two separate articles, with a section "biology" in "human" pointing to "Homo sapiens"... Dbachmann 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In its current state, the orientation of an article on "human" toward being effectively an article on "Homo Sapiens" is a POV problem. The word human does not for most people mean Homo Sapiens. And saying that a human is a great ape is obviously misleading, given the historical, traditional, and general meaning of the word "human". The introductory material presents a marginal POV by omitting key facets of the menaing of the word "human". I propose we flag this article as having NPOV problems until these matters are fixed. Tom 17:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As I understand it, the word human is historically and traditionally used to separate living things into very few classes, such as Plant, Animal, and Human. Whether or not this system of classification seems adequate or reasonable, it is assumed in the word human. The article would do a much better job at explaining the word "human" to an alien or a child by recognizing better the core meaning and intent of the word. The article might start out, for example by saying, "A human is a person; a member of the genus Homo, especially the species Homo Sapiens. The word human also denotes those positive aspects of nature and character generally regarded as distinguishing humans from other living things." Tom 17:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-- Yath 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying that your hypothetical alien would zoom in on Earth and say, "Hmm. Rocks, plants, and a bunch of thingies running around. We've got dogs, cats, humans, rats, cockroaches, and whales. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah ad infinitum. The species dog runs around in circles and barks. The species bee builds cool hives and makes honey. The species human wears clothes, builds cities, writes books, has universities, runs around in planes and cars, has space probes out, and husbands, breeds, and engineers all the other species. Nothing special there. Next species." Is that your NPOV alien's view? I am saying the word human has important core meaning that you are sweeping under some rug. Tom 19:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Right, D. I need to cut the talk and be bold. It helps a bit at first, especially when I am new to the article, to do a little bit of talk though. That way I can be more NPOV in my efforts. Thanks. I think I might have some ideas. Tom 23:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy to use the Human article as a re-direct for the Homo Sapiens article when Homo Sapiens is not the overwhelmingly dominant and obvious sense of the word human. Regardless of how strong we feel about our POVs, our Wikipedia contributions must comply with NPOV policy. I will disclose my POV fully for the sake of clarity. To me, a human is a child of God and a responsible being, and all other living beings in the known universe are neither children of God nor are responsible. I know that this is only one POV. I also know that it is not a fringe POV. I am still considering what might be done for this article. I will be trying improvements. Tom 04:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I seem to agree with Tom. I think nobody here disputes that "homo sapiens" is the correct zoological classification of humans. The dispute is about word usage: I accept the truth of the statement "humans are homines sapientes". But I claim that it is not a tautology. We are caught in a common philosophical paradox here, in that, certainly, human culture (including this encyclopedia) is zoological, because it is created by a zoological species. At the same time, of course, zoology is cultural, since obviously as a science it is part of human culture.
Now let me ask the other way round: What are the arguments against making Human a separate article with a section Biology including a link See main article Homo Sapiens? The fact that this is the zoological classification of humans will thus be made clear, but there will also be room to treat meanings associated with Human but not with Homo Sapiens. We will have more room to resolve the issues at hand, while the undisputed "zoological identity" will not be obsucred. I really don't see what would speak against such a course. But let me add that after a discussion of this length, it is not recommendable to "be bold". We should seek a consensus first, before engaging in a revert-war. dab 13:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As dab says above, we are caught in a philosophical quandary here, perhaps a circular reference in this article. This article is the article that is supposed to answer what humans are. But though the question of 'what humans are' has no single neutral answer, a single answer is being presented as the neutral answer. And the main crux of the article--that consensus human definition is elusive--is hidden at the bottom of the article. Can we not see that this is classic NPOV violation? Presenting a single POV as the obvious one, when it fact it is seriously and widely disputed (however ridiculously and irrationally), is against all that is Wikipedia. Tom 15:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Tom 20:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The word "man" is mentioned as a term for the human race in the first paragraph of the article, yet I'm somewhat surprised that there is no asterisk next to it linking to a footnote about the use of the word "man" to refer to a human being in general. Can anyone put a footnote in?? Any objections?? 66.245.102.121 20:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Status: Secure? Really??
No, our number are not dwindling. I think in most areas we're actually increasing in number quite a bit, which could in itself be cause for concern. -- 66.32.123.183 05:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You know, guys, this article really is as humorous as your gut tells you. Someday when we are ready to tackle the article with real effort to represent all human knowledge (an important facet of NPOV) fairly, we will make this a respectable article. Until then, the taxobox will be there saying status: Secure. And this article will be humorous. Tom 05:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Humans aren't "Secure", we don't exist in the wild and are therefor extinct in the wild.
The above anonymous posting is by User:Husker007, a troll who has been vandalizing Wikipedia and has been repeatedly reverted. Rick K 23:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
It was anonymous on accident, and FYI, I'm not a troll moron. Husker007 23:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How do you define "wild?" Humans exist, therefore we cannot be considered "extinct." Where we choose to exist is irrelevant. -- Feitclub 00:06, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
The recently added subsection on skin color is too indepth for this article. What would people think if it were merged with human variability, and a short paragraph left here? -- Yath 05:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I regretfully added an NPOV dispute to this article. Before entering any discussion of the matter, I respectfully request that any participant (myself included) read in their entirety the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article and its linked tutorial (2 articles total). There are some key considerations of NPOV that are currently being misunderstood, and thus violated, in this article. I anticipate that once key participants have read those 2 NPOV docs and discussed this article, the disputation can be removed, and editing toward NPOV can go forward. Tom 17:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it might be helpful, in light of the NPOV article Tom mentions, to discuss what the conflicting points of view are in this article that are leading to the reverts. In most articles it's obvious, but in this one I think it may be less so.
Making this Human article chiefly about humanity as a biological species, with the taxonomy first and foremost, clearly suggests that a human is primarily or even only a biological species. This is undoubtedly a widely held and significant POV, deserving of reasonably thorough coverage. In addition, the biological facts and theories are certainly worth documenting.
Another view is that humanity is more than a species, but is special and maybe even unique in several respects: some ethicists reserve certain privileges to sentient species, with sometimes wider, sometimes narrower definitions of sentient; more importantly, most of humanity throughout history has practiced some form of spirituality, and has even believed in some sort of supernatural existence, in life after or beyond death, and so forth.
My initial proposal is that we return to having a "Biology" or similarly named section to address humans from the materialist scientific perspective, and other sections to address the sociological, psychological, spiritual, etc. aspects. Since the taxobox describes humans in chiefly biological terms, it seems reasonable to put it in the appropriate section. Comments? Alternative proposals? Wesley 06:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My, what a lot of reverting has been going on. Yikes, an edit war! This discussion can only go forward profitably when all have read the NPOV docs. Please each commit to yourself to revert no more until you have read the docs from beginning to end in recent memory Human doc. I personally still need to finish the tutorial. Tom 17:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the taxbox is not the issue (sorry for shouting). I feel somewhat guilty since I seem to have set off (but not caused) the current dispute (Aug 12 posting), but note that I have voiced my concerns without making an edit, let alone reverting someone. Please: I think the dispute is both typical and important. Let's make this an example of consensus building, both for how conflicts can be resolved in WP and, more generally, in Humanity. My original concern was that the word "human" is used in different ways, and I still think it is mainly a lexical problem (while of course related to opposing world-views). My suggestion would be that the taxbox stays at the top, just like for Cow and Earth, but labelled "homo sapiens sapiens" ("Humans" sounds like bad science-fiction). For the record, let me add that if a taxbox is included in Human (which I support), let it be the one for Homo (genus). Homo is latin for human, so if human is used in a zoological sense, let it be synonymously with homo. It can not be argued that common use equates Human with Homo sapiens rather than Homo (genus), since for every-day (synchronic) use, the two do not contrast. dab 18:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
You are wrong with both questions, in my opinion. :))
If I were a space alien looking dispassionately at the works of humans, I think I would be impressed by the extreme efforts that humans have made to sublimate their animal nature. Laws generally forbid men from ganging up and raiding the next village in a raid of stealth. However, Wrangham and Peterson tell us that men have a genetic predisposition to gang up and raid the next village--which genetic disposition men inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. So Law, in forbidding men to raid when they feel like it, is devoted to denying that human is first of all animal. And Religion certainly is devoted to denying that human is merely what the empirical evidence indicates that human is--namely an animal that has an inherited genetic predisposition to invent a God when all facts indicate that there is none. And today a huge expense item of the most bully of human nations on this earth is the defense budget--all devoted to denying that human is just animal. So, in the face of all that human effort to become something other than what he is--namely just an animal--to put the taxonomy box at the top of the Human page is an insult to all that human effort to become something other than the animal in the taxonomy box.
Hence, putting the taxonomy box at the top of the Human page discredits unfairly the extensive work that humans have made to sublimate, imprison, and lock away forgotten evermore that animal nature in the taxonomy box. Putting that taxonomy box at the top of the Human page is like putting shit on the dining table. Shit has its place, but shit's place is in the bowels of the article--or in another article, another page, another room, like maybe the toilet. --- Rednblu 23:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying we are free to take or leave, or to self-define the absolute and non-negotiable principle that is placed before the world as the centerpiece of our success? What you've said puts in doubt your claim to have read the NPOV doc and tutorial in full. As Wikipedia editors, we are to represent all significant POVs fairly, without any representation (by tone, word choice, form, etc.) that any one of them is the Wikipedia preferred "right" POV. For me the taxobox is not the central issue. The central issue is that the article as a whole violates NPOV as explained by Rednblu. We all have a mandate to fix this so we are presenting the whole body of human "knowledge" in neutral fashion. The taxobox is only a pivotal case for the issue. Tom 03:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Proposal: disect article into summary of:
The taxoboxes would go to Homo (genus) and Homo sapiens. This arrangement is off the top of my head, based on the present sections, and before voting on this, I would like to invite other suggestions for the arrangement. Understand that this proposal does not represent my ideal, but is in my view the most efficient way of reaching an article Human with which everybody can live. - dab 08:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
Gee. That you distort the sentence that way illustrates the mechanics of the interpreter.
Let me try a simpler analogy. Putting the taxonomy box at the top of Human is an insulting distortion of human priorities--like putting the animal part as the top selection menu for an animal that 1) when writing puts the animal part on another page separate from what is most human, 2) when fine dining, puts the animal part under wraps or in another room, 3) when philosophizing, puts the animal part in an unexamined and unnotable category far inferior to intellect which most of human activity considers to be beyond and separate from animal part, shared with brilliant machines that humans have designed if not yet implemented, . . . . Putting the taxonomy box at the top of Human is certainly a valid point of view of a cold, cruel analyst, who ignores what most humans consider to be most human--namely, the human ability through technology and culture to transcend every element of that taxonomy box that you want to keep putting at the top of Human--against the wishes of most humans. And since I think that you are an ingenious human, I am sure you will think of another way to distort even the above analogies and keep on ignoring what humans consider to be most human. --- Rednblu 15:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I propose something like the following lead section for Human. As others have noted below, we need some fair means of presenting sequentially the many facets of human.
Thereafter, following the above preamble, the sections of Human might be chronological, with animal taxonomy and history first. What do you think? --- Rednblu 17:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[I cut this, since it's a copy, for better overview, while keeping the header for consistent numbering. A derivative of "Rewrite 1" may still be inserted under "Rewrite 4"] dab 13:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
— this is suitably short and unambiguous, and I really like the "long wrestled with self-definition" which points to more detailed discussions that are to follow (and expresses exactly what we are doing here). It includes a couple of links that are central, such as soul, humanoid (!= hominid) and person. We need the taxonomic/mammals bit to exclude (without descending too much into science-fiction) hypothetical (a) extraterrestial/angelic intelligent beings, (b) artificial intelligence. I think even believers need biology to define humans as separate from angels and the souls of the dead. dab 06:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, your objections do not make sense. Clearly, you have not stated your real objections to Rewrite 2. Let me just itemize a few of the irrationalities--from my view-- in your above statement of your "objections."
...
Sure. At your pleasure. Let's take the first sentence.
That is a really dumb statement, in my opinion. It sounds like a fourth grader composing a fourth-grader sentence with zero content. It is the exact parallel of a fourth grader, in typical lovable fourth-grader fashion, writing:
Those sentences do not even point in the direction of what it means to be 1) "human" or 2) "even number."
Here is a dictionary definition of "human": "Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals." Now that sentence would suffice if this were a Wictionary entry.
But since this is Wikipedia, the first sentence should at least point the reader to the internal structure of those "positive aspects of nature and character."
At least Rewrite 2 above provides the reader some clues to what those "positive aspects of nature and character" are. Of course, there are many similar valid solutions other than Rewrite 2 for the first sentence to Human.
So let's try to write an appropriate, informative, and accurate first sentence for the Human page. Take your shot. --- Rednblu 16:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We begin with the first sentence as it is now.
Humans are commonly referred to collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race and individually as humans, human beings, persons or people.
Humans are commonly referred to collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race and individually as humans, human beings, persons or people.
"Keep the taxobox. Removing it makes it POV," said Duncharris.
Can you explain to me how the NPOV dispute can be removed while NPOV is thus violated? Tom 21:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
In my opinion, the Taxobox should be at the top of the Human page. But I can also see that there are plenty of good NPOV reasons to move the Taxobox to the "Biology" section of the Human page.
From how I interpret the dynamics of human groups, those who keep moving the Taxobox to the "Biology" section have a valid point--namely that the Taxobox distorts the part of "human" that tries so hard to avoid facing the "Biology" of "Human." And, now that I think about it, the part of "Human" that tries so hard to avoid facing the "Biology" of "Human" is the major component of human civilization and culture--giving rise to the extravagant delusions, follies, and puffery of Religion, Law, Philosophy, and Art.
So here is my compromise solution. I make the motion, and let's have some discussion.
Let's split the Human (biology) page to a separate page from Human. This is in NPOV recognition of the fact that today, most of human energy and attention is focused on closeting Human (biology) onto a page, a locked room, a suppressed region of humanity where people don't have to deal anymore with Human (biology) and look at animal nakedness every time they try to deceive themselves again and convince themselves again that they Human are more than just animal. --- Rednblu 06:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is exactly my suggestion, see posting under "NPOV dispute" above. If we can agree on this, we don't need to agree on any other points, although I emphatically reject your view that human culture has the aim of "avoiding" biology. Rather, society-building is a crucial component of the natural behaviour of the "human animal", and civilization is really built around our biology (I don't see at all how you can invoke defense budget as an indication that we have overcome our primeval instincts, btw). And what's this "just an animal"? animal means "life form" (or, granted, "life form capable of locomotion"). How does this relate to anything? But as I said, as long as we agree on where to go with the article layout, we don't need to agree on any of this. But note that my suggestion implies that all sections be "exported" (not just the biology one). I'm not sure if this is in agreement with your proposal. dab 08:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
PS, article titles: it doesn't need to be Human (biology), it should be either (or both) Human biology (viz. adjectival use of human) and Homo sapiens, which at the moment exists only a a redirect. Again, c.f. "NPOV dispute" posting. dab 09:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like the ideas so far. How about this concern? Say we split everything up and end up without any article called Human. Then somebody comes along and says, "Hey! There is no article called Human!" I think there should be (as proposed before) a summary article called Human that kinda gives a dictionary definition and then directs to more information. Tom 17:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, I don't know that I speak for a majority of belivers on this or not, but I am not against the taxobox or the biological discussion at all. As a believer, I simply believe a human is more. So a human is a combination of a natural body that is a member of a physical species of earth, genetically related to all other living things, with its own comparative characteristics, and a supernatural spiritual component whose characteristics transcend those of all other natural things (without denying a spiritual component to those other things). So I would not want to see the taxobox go or deny that it describes my flesh and genetics. I merely know that it is POV to frame and define the Human article by the taxobox when so many other share roughly my POV, as Rednblu explains so well from a secular perspective. Tom 17:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Under "Physical Characteristics", the list-tags aren't displaying properly under IE6---that is, the bullet marks don't display at all, and the text seems to simply be broken into short lines randomly. Though I can't imagine why this'd be (the UL and LI tags are in the generated HTML), it does make the page look funny to a lot of users. Any ideas? Grendelkhan 16:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Subspecies" is not the same as "race". It's deceptive to equate the two terms. Here is one definition for "race" from my dictionary:
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
It's worth listing the known subspecies though, so I added them to the taxobox. Gdr 14:50, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
No offence, but I think that a discussion of habitats along the lines of "about 3 humans at a time live on space, of the remaining 6.3 billion Earthbound humans, blah blah" is amusing (to put it politely). I have changed it around. As a biological species, Humans are adapted to the savannah where they evolved, then colonized all continents and climates through cultural, not biological evolution. Just my 2 Euro cents. — Miguel 04:45, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)
Why are there some stub messages in the middle of this article?? 66.32.141.227 21:46, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Neumannkun - you copy-paste moved this page to human being. First, page moves should be done with the "Move this page" option to preserve page histories. Second, the disambiguation page you replaced it had two terms - the article you moved, and a dictionary definition which should not be here -- see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Third, human is much more intuitive than human being as an article title -- Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.. That's why I reverted. →Raul654 01:50, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
IMHO, the spiritual characteristics section fails to distinguish between spiritual and supernatural. I am non-theistic but I don't deny a spiritual dimension, just the supernatural basis for it. Humans have engaged in funeral rites for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. Whether or not there is a theistic basis for this, it is spiritual. Other mammals grieve, and some (like elephants) go to particular places to die, but no other animal has --- to our knowledge --- a universal, cross-cultural concern with death. I don't feel qualified to repair this section, though. Miguel 17:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article seems to be entirely about the biological "Homo sapiens". I think a little bit of disambiguation (rather than simple forwarding) would be in order:
If you ask me, I would say "Homo sapiens" and "human" should be two separate articles, with a section "biology" in "human" pointing to "Homo sapiens"... Dbachmann 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In its current state, the orientation of an article on "human" toward being effectively an article on "Homo Sapiens" is a POV problem. The word human does not for most people mean Homo Sapiens. And saying that a human is a great ape is obviously misleading, given the historical, traditional, and general meaning of the word "human". The introductory material presents a marginal POV by omitting key facets of the menaing of the word "human". I propose we flag this article as having NPOV problems until these matters are fixed. Tom 17:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As I understand it, the word human is historically and traditionally used to separate living things into very few classes, such as Plant, Animal, and Human. Whether or not this system of classification seems adequate or reasonable, it is assumed in the word human. The article would do a much better job at explaining the word "human" to an alien or a child by recognizing better the core meaning and intent of the word. The article might start out, for example by saying, "A human is a person; a member of the genus Homo, especially the species Homo Sapiens. The word human also denotes those positive aspects of nature and character generally regarded as distinguishing humans from other living things." Tom 17:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-- Yath 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying that your hypothetical alien would zoom in on Earth and say, "Hmm. Rocks, plants, and a bunch of thingies running around. We've got dogs, cats, humans, rats, cockroaches, and whales. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah ad infinitum. The species dog runs around in circles and barks. The species bee builds cool hives and makes honey. The species human wears clothes, builds cities, writes books, has universities, runs around in planes and cars, has space probes out, and husbands, breeds, and engineers all the other species. Nothing special there. Next species." Is that your NPOV alien's view? I am saying the word human has important core meaning that you are sweeping under some rug. Tom 19:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Right, D. I need to cut the talk and be bold. It helps a bit at first, especially when I am new to the article, to do a little bit of talk though. That way I can be more NPOV in my efforts. Thanks. I think I might have some ideas. Tom 23:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy to use the Human article as a re-direct for the Homo Sapiens article when Homo Sapiens is not the overwhelmingly dominant and obvious sense of the word human. Regardless of how strong we feel about our POVs, our Wikipedia contributions must comply with NPOV policy. I will disclose my POV fully for the sake of clarity. To me, a human is a child of God and a responsible being, and all other living beings in the known universe are neither children of God nor are responsible. I know that this is only one POV. I also know that it is not a fringe POV. I am still considering what might be done for this article. I will be trying improvements. Tom 04:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I seem to agree with Tom. I think nobody here disputes that "homo sapiens" is the correct zoological classification of humans. The dispute is about word usage: I accept the truth of the statement "humans are homines sapientes". But I claim that it is not a tautology. We are caught in a common philosophical paradox here, in that, certainly, human culture (including this encyclopedia) is zoological, because it is created by a zoological species. At the same time, of course, zoology is cultural, since obviously as a science it is part of human culture.
Now let me ask the other way round: What are the arguments against making Human a separate article with a section Biology including a link See main article Homo Sapiens? The fact that this is the zoological classification of humans will thus be made clear, but there will also be room to treat meanings associated with Human but not with Homo Sapiens. We will have more room to resolve the issues at hand, while the undisputed "zoological identity" will not be obsucred. I really don't see what would speak against such a course. But let me add that after a discussion of this length, it is not recommendable to "be bold". We should seek a consensus first, before engaging in a revert-war. dab 13:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As dab says above, we are caught in a philosophical quandary here, perhaps a circular reference in this article. This article is the article that is supposed to answer what humans are. But though the question of 'what humans are' has no single neutral answer, a single answer is being presented as the neutral answer. And the main crux of the article--that consensus human definition is elusive--is hidden at the bottom of the article. Can we not see that this is classic NPOV violation? Presenting a single POV as the obvious one, when it fact it is seriously and widely disputed (however ridiculously and irrationally), is against all that is Wikipedia. Tom 15:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Tom 20:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The word "man" is mentioned as a term for the human race in the first paragraph of the article, yet I'm somewhat surprised that there is no asterisk next to it linking to a footnote about the use of the word "man" to refer to a human being in general. Can anyone put a footnote in?? Any objections?? 66.245.102.121 20:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Status: Secure? Really??
No, our number are not dwindling. I think in most areas we're actually increasing in number quite a bit, which could in itself be cause for concern. -- 66.32.123.183 05:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You know, guys, this article really is as humorous as your gut tells you. Someday when we are ready to tackle the article with real effort to represent all human knowledge (an important facet of NPOV) fairly, we will make this a respectable article. Until then, the taxobox will be there saying status: Secure. And this article will be humorous. Tom 05:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Humans aren't "Secure", we don't exist in the wild and are therefor extinct in the wild.
The above anonymous posting is by User:Husker007, a troll who has been vandalizing Wikipedia and has been repeatedly reverted. Rick K 23:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
It was anonymous on accident, and FYI, I'm not a troll moron. Husker007 23:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How do you define "wild?" Humans exist, therefore we cannot be considered "extinct." Where we choose to exist is irrelevant. -- Feitclub 00:06, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
The recently added subsection on skin color is too indepth for this article. What would people think if it were merged with human variability, and a short paragraph left here? -- Yath 05:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I regretfully added an NPOV dispute to this article. Before entering any discussion of the matter, I respectfully request that any participant (myself included) read in their entirety the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article and its linked tutorial (2 articles total). There are some key considerations of NPOV that are currently being misunderstood, and thus violated, in this article. I anticipate that once key participants have read those 2 NPOV docs and discussed this article, the disputation can be removed, and editing toward NPOV can go forward. Tom 17:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it might be helpful, in light of the NPOV article Tom mentions, to discuss what the conflicting points of view are in this article that are leading to the reverts. In most articles it's obvious, but in this one I think it may be less so.
Making this Human article chiefly about humanity as a biological species, with the taxonomy first and foremost, clearly suggests that a human is primarily or even only a biological species. This is undoubtedly a widely held and significant POV, deserving of reasonably thorough coverage. In addition, the biological facts and theories are certainly worth documenting.
Another view is that humanity is more than a species, but is special and maybe even unique in several respects: some ethicists reserve certain privileges to sentient species, with sometimes wider, sometimes narrower definitions of sentient; more importantly, most of humanity throughout history has practiced some form of spirituality, and has even believed in some sort of supernatural existence, in life after or beyond death, and so forth.
My initial proposal is that we return to having a "Biology" or similarly named section to address humans from the materialist scientific perspective, and other sections to address the sociological, psychological, spiritual, etc. aspects. Since the taxobox describes humans in chiefly biological terms, it seems reasonable to put it in the appropriate section. Comments? Alternative proposals? Wesley 06:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My, what a lot of reverting has been going on. Yikes, an edit war! This discussion can only go forward profitably when all have read the NPOV docs. Please each commit to yourself to revert no more until you have read the docs from beginning to end in recent memory Human doc. I personally still need to finish the tutorial. Tom 17:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the taxbox is not the issue (sorry for shouting). I feel somewhat guilty since I seem to have set off (but not caused) the current dispute (Aug 12 posting), but note that I have voiced my concerns without making an edit, let alone reverting someone. Please: I think the dispute is both typical and important. Let's make this an example of consensus building, both for how conflicts can be resolved in WP and, more generally, in Humanity. My original concern was that the word "human" is used in different ways, and I still think it is mainly a lexical problem (while of course related to opposing world-views). My suggestion would be that the taxbox stays at the top, just like for Cow and Earth, but labelled "homo sapiens sapiens" ("Humans" sounds like bad science-fiction). For the record, let me add that if a taxbox is included in Human (which I support), let it be the one for Homo (genus). Homo is latin for human, so if human is used in a zoological sense, let it be synonymously with homo. It can not be argued that common use equates Human with Homo sapiens rather than Homo (genus), since for every-day (synchronic) use, the two do not contrast. dab 18:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
You are wrong with both questions, in my opinion. :))
If I were a space alien looking dispassionately at the works of humans, I think I would be impressed by the extreme efforts that humans have made to sublimate their animal nature. Laws generally forbid men from ganging up and raiding the next village in a raid of stealth. However, Wrangham and Peterson tell us that men have a genetic predisposition to gang up and raid the next village--which genetic disposition men inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. So Law, in forbidding men to raid when they feel like it, is devoted to denying that human is first of all animal. And Religion certainly is devoted to denying that human is merely what the empirical evidence indicates that human is--namely an animal that has an inherited genetic predisposition to invent a God when all facts indicate that there is none. And today a huge expense item of the most bully of human nations on this earth is the defense budget--all devoted to denying that human is just animal. So, in the face of all that human effort to become something other than what he is--namely just an animal--to put the taxonomy box at the top of the Human page is an insult to all that human effort to become something other than the animal in the taxonomy box.
Hence, putting the taxonomy box at the top of the Human page discredits unfairly the extensive work that humans have made to sublimate, imprison, and lock away forgotten evermore that animal nature in the taxonomy box. Putting that taxonomy box at the top of the Human page is like putting shit on the dining table. Shit has its place, but shit's place is in the bowels of the article--or in another article, another page, another room, like maybe the toilet. --- Rednblu 23:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying we are free to take or leave, or to self-define the absolute and non-negotiable principle that is placed before the world as the centerpiece of our success? What you've said puts in doubt your claim to have read the NPOV doc and tutorial in full. As Wikipedia editors, we are to represent all significant POVs fairly, without any representation (by tone, word choice, form, etc.) that any one of them is the Wikipedia preferred "right" POV. For me the taxobox is not the central issue. The central issue is that the article as a whole violates NPOV as explained by Rednblu. We all have a mandate to fix this so we are presenting the whole body of human "knowledge" in neutral fashion. The taxobox is only a pivotal case for the issue. Tom 03:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Proposal: disect article into summary of:
The taxoboxes would go to Homo (genus) and Homo sapiens. This arrangement is off the top of my head, based on the present sections, and before voting on this, I would like to invite other suggestions for the arrangement. Understand that this proposal does not represent my ideal, but is in my view the most efficient way of reaching an article Human with which everybody can live. - dab 08:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
Gee. That you distort the sentence that way illustrates the mechanics of the interpreter.
Let me try a simpler analogy. Putting the taxonomy box at the top of Human is an insulting distortion of human priorities--like putting the animal part as the top selection menu for an animal that 1) when writing puts the animal part on another page separate from what is most human, 2) when fine dining, puts the animal part under wraps or in another room, 3) when philosophizing, puts the animal part in an unexamined and unnotable category far inferior to intellect which most of human activity considers to be beyond and separate from animal part, shared with brilliant machines that humans have designed if not yet implemented, . . . . Putting the taxonomy box at the top of Human is certainly a valid point of view of a cold, cruel analyst, who ignores what most humans consider to be most human--namely, the human ability through technology and culture to transcend every element of that taxonomy box that you want to keep putting at the top of Human--against the wishes of most humans. And since I think that you are an ingenious human, I am sure you will think of another way to distort even the above analogies and keep on ignoring what humans consider to be most human. --- Rednblu 15:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I propose something like the following lead section for Human. As others have noted below, we need some fair means of presenting sequentially the many facets of human.
Thereafter, following the above preamble, the sections of Human might be chronological, with animal taxonomy and history first. What do you think? --- Rednblu 17:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[I cut this, since it's a copy, for better overview, while keeping the header for consistent numbering. A derivative of "Rewrite 1" may still be inserted under "Rewrite 4"] dab 13:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
— this is suitably short and unambiguous, and I really like the "long wrestled with self-definition" which points to more detailed discussions that are to follow (and expresses exactly what we are doing here). It includes a couple of links that are central, such as soul, humanoid (!= hominid) and person. We need the taxonomic/mammals bit to exclude (without descending too much into science-fiction) hypothetical (a) extraterrestial/angelic intelligent beings, (b) artificial intelligence. I think even believers need biology to define humans as separate from angels and the souls of the dead. dab 06:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, your objections do not make sense. Clearly, you have not stated your real objections to Rewrite 2. Let me just itemize a few of the irrationalities--from my view-- in your above statement of your "objections."
...
Sure. At your pleasure. Let's take the first sentence.
That is a really dumb statement, in my opinion. It sounds like a fourth grader composing a fourth-grader sentence with zero content. It is the exact parallel of a fourth grader, in typical lovable fourth-grader fashion, writing:
Those sentences do not even point in the direction of what it means to be 1) "human" or 2) "even number."
Here is a dictionary definition of "human": "Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals." Now that sentence would suffice if this were a Wictionary entry.
But since this is Wikipedia, the first sentence should at least point the reader to the internal structure of those "positive aspects of nature and character."
At least Rewrite 2 above provides the reader some clues to what those "positive aspects of nature and character" are. Of course, there are many similar valid solutions other than Rewrite 2 for the first sentence to Human.
So let's try to write an appropriate, informative, and accurate first sentence for the Human page. Take your shot. --- Rednblu 16:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We begin with the first sentence as it is now.
Humans are commonly referred to collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race and individually as humans, human beings, persons or people.
Humans are commonly referred to collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race and individually as humans, human beings, persons or people.
"Keep the taxobox. Removing it makes it POV," said Duncharris.
Can you explain to me how the NPOV dispute can be removed while NPOV is thus violated? Tom 21:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
In my opinion, the Taxobox should be at the top of the Human page. But I can also see that there are plenty of good NPOV reasons to move the Taxobox to the "Biology" section of the Human page.
From how I interpret the dynamics of human groups, those who keep moving the Taxobox to the "Biology" section have a valid point--namely that the Taxobox distorts the part of "human" that tries so hard to avoid facing the "Biology" of "Human." And, now that I think about it, the part of "Human" that tries so hard to avoid facing the "Biology" of "Human" is the major component of human civilization and culture--giving rise to the extravagant delusions, follies, and puffery of Religion, Law, Philosophy, and Art.
So here is my compromise solution. I make the motion, and let's have some discussion.
Let's split the Human (biology) page to a separate page from Human. This is in NPOV recognition of the fact that today, most of human energy and attention is focused on closeting Human (biology) onto a page, a locked room, a suppressed region of humanity where people don't have to deal anymore with Human (biology) and look at animal nakedness every time they try to deceive themselves again and convince themselves again that they Human are more than just animal. --- Rednblu 06:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is exactly my suggestion, see posting under "NPOV dispute" above. If we can agree on this, we don't need to agree on any other points, although I emphatically reject your view that human culture has the aim of "avoiding" biology. Rather, society-building is a crucial component of the natural behaviour of the "human animal", and civilization is really built around our biology (I don't see at all how you can invoke defense budget as an indication that we have overcome our primeval instincts, btw). And what's this "just an animal"? animal means "life form" (or, granted, "life form capable of locomotion"). How does this relate to anything? But as I said, as long as we agree on where to go with the article layout, we don't need to agree on any of this. But note that my suggestion implies that all sections be "exported" (not just the biology one). I'm not sure if this is in agreement with your proposal. dab 08:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
PS, article titles: it doesn't need to be Human (biology), it should be either (or both) Human biology (viz. adjectival use of human) and Homo sapiens, which at the moment exists only a a redirect. Again, c.f. "NPOV dispute" posting. dab 09:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like the ideas so far. How about this concern? Say we split everything up and end up without any article called Human. Then somebody comes along and says, "Hey! There is no article called Human!" I think there should be (as proposed before) a summary article called Human that kinda gives a dictionary definition and then directs to more information. Tom 17:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, I don't know that I speak for a majority of belivers on this or not, but I am not against the taxobox or the biological discussion at all. As a believer, I simply believe a human is more. So a human is a combination of a natural body that is a member of a physical species of earth, genetically related to all other living things, with its own comparative characteristics, and a supernatural spiritual component whose characteristics transcend those of all other natural things (without denying a spiritual component to those other things). So I would not want to see the taxobox go or deny that it describes my flesh and genetics. I merely know that it is POV to frame and define the Human article by the taxobox when so many other share roughly my POV, as Rednblu explains so well from a secular perspective. Tom 17:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)