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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
A section of the article reads:
"Most sexologists, starting with the pioneers Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey, believe that the majority of homo sapiens are attracted to males and females, being inherently bisexual. This belief is based upon the human species close relatives' sexual habits such as the bonobo, and historical records."
There are many problems with this section:
The fact that this article says "Conservation Status: Secure" is a lesson in absurdity. Please excuse me if this has already been mentioned. -- Weldingfish 13:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
How about: "N/A" 'Conservation' of a species has to be done by someone, applying a status to humans would be assuming other animals (or perhaps super-animals; god(s), aliens etc.) read Wiki and consequently decide wether or not to start a breeding program?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.173.3 ( talk • contribs)
Whatever is decided, can we please decide it on the talk page rather than get into a revert war? My own opinion is that Homo sapiens should not be treated any differently than any other animal. It sounds like there is a project afoot to create a series of articles dealing with the various aspects of human existence, and hopefully that will settle the matter. Fishhead64 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that a consensus would be to leave the conservation status in at this time. Even though I think it makes Wikipedia look very silly, I'll drop this subject for now. -- Yath 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What should we do when this reaches 30 archives?? 40?? 50?? Georgia guy 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC) F
This article, even more so than wikipedia, is difficult for all of us to retain neutrality regarding. Bias takes a whole new meaning when we are talking about ourselves. As Sun Tzu said, :
Sam Spade 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hear Hear.
NPOV is " absolute and non-negotiable", no matter how many humans are biased.
(I had an edit conflict, so the rest is @ DD)
I apologize if you misunderstood my quote. I highly recommend you read that book.
The problem with the article is it's expressly secular humanist POV. Spirituality has become a sub-section of culture. The first sentences of both the first paragraphs refer to us as unqualified primates. The intro reads like the intro of a human biology textbook. From top to bottom this article has been savaged by aggressive POV, forcing it from FA status.
Nobody here is trying to suppress the skeptical POV. Instead, were trying to balance it. Sam Spade 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The following remark by User:Goethean, deleted by User:FeloniousMonk, has been restored with the ostensibly offensive sentence removed: (— goethean ॐ 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
I am considering Silence's arguments above. But there is something else that needs to be said, and that is that the reaction to Sam Spade on the part of User:Silence, User:Jim62sch User:FeloniousMonk and User:KillerChihuahua has been unconscionable. Sam Spade, I, and any other Wikipedia editor who feels like it has every right to contest the neutrality of this article to their heart's content. It doesn't matter how many degrees they have. There is no hierarchy here. This is the way that Wikipedia works. If you don't like chaotic operating procedures, then you don't like the very idea of Wikipedia. If you don't like discussing odd subjects with internet cranks, tough shit. That is part of being an Wikipedia editor. If there is a Wikipedia policy that says that one person objecting to an article does not constitute a valid objection, please point me to it. [COMMENT REDACTED] It needs to stop, or be brought to the attention of the wider Wikipedia community. It has been repeatedly claimed that "only one of two editors object" to this version of the article, with the implication that that does not constitute a valid objection. Both the assertion and the implication are false. [COMMENT REDACTED] [2] [3] [4] [5]— goethean ॐ 18:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Goethean's personal attack has been removed. If you can't make your case without resorting to disruption and personal attacks, then there are 1,037,993 other articles where you can contribute to without being a source of strife. FeloniousMonk 19:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The following might have been written by C3PO, R2D2, an angel, or a muskrat abiding by NPOV and NOR, being only able to cite human "knowledge". Tom Haws 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Tom Haws 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow oh wow, delete that bit of silliness with extreme haste. -- Cyde Weys 19:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Sam Spade 09:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hold your horses. 100% of people are homo sapiens according to you. Were not here to discuss our own opinions. We are here to attribute and catalogue the opinions of others. Humans are homo sapiens in latin, or according to anthropology. 'According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church a human is a being of body and soul in the image of God. According to Islam, every human "is composed of three parts—spirit, carnal soul, and body" [1] and humans are the "vice-regents of God" [2]. According to Hindu Advaita thought, "no such thing as a human exists. The human phenomenon (supposed to consist of the mind, vital energy, and physical body) is an illusion. Only God exists." And according to Hindu Dvaita thought, "humans, like all creatures, are souls of God (or divinity) enclosed within a complex of bodies ranging from very gross (the physical body) to very subtle (the ego). Humans, however, are unique among living things in that they have the potential to realize their divinity."'
Please, leave your POV at the door. Were here to write an encyclopedia article, not to enforce our personal paradigms on others.
Sam Spade 10:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
According to who? Opinions vary, as should be clear by now. You can read over Tom Haws posting above, or my quote from it. If you want to know what I think (which isn't relevant here), see User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. Sam Spade 11:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sam, your post does not illuminate. I am not speaking of opinions, or POV. I am speaking of terminology and accuracy. What is the issue with homo sapiens? What precisely is your objection? KillerChihuahua ?!? 11:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to homo sapiens, rather I am pointing out that is aterm (in latin) used in a certain field (anthropology) to express a certain paradigm (humans are a zoological animial). Clearly many other paradigms possess alternate views of humanity. Sam Spade 11:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I keep trying to explain, my private opinions don't matter. I will discuss my opinions, but I'd prefer not doing so here. As far as homo sapiens, obviously that should be mentioned, but only with the explanation that it is the latin term, used by anthropologists and zoologists. Most english speakers, expert and otherwise, use the english term. In any case, just as we can explain that zoologists call man homo sapiens and consider him a primate, we can also explain that theologians feel man is primarily a spiritual entity. Sam Spade 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi is right, homo sapiens is the zoological label, and should be explained as such. Theologically, man is possessed of a soul, and is primarily a spiritual entity. Culturally we are americans, europeans, sikhs and etc... Each of these catagories has validity.
To killer, what were not agreeing about is the definition of man. I think thats extremely obvious. Sam Spade 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
One possible solution would be to have separate articles for Human being, Homo Sapiens, and Humanity, rather than attempt the seemingly impossible task of synthesizing all these views. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
<< David, I find it very peculiar that you do not seem to understand what I am saying. It is very simple: Of course that Humans are the "homo sapiens" species. That is not disputed. What is disputed is to use the species as the principal way of defining what is human. The argument goes that defining humans as Homo Sapiens ONLY, is not NPOV as it does not present competing views, such as the one that asserts that Humans are not only a species of animal called "homo sapiens". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sam, you write above:
This implies that the Catholic church does not recognise and use the term Homo sapians. This is strange given that the Catholic church accepts evolution. Your analysis here is bordering on original research. As you, yourself, have said many times, "Please, leave your POV at the door. We're here to write an encyclopedia article, not to enforce our personal paradigms on others." Maybe you should heed your own words? David D. (Talk) 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae [1]. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Like all primates, humans are an inherently social animal.
Culturally, humans create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics important aspects of human society. Humans build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relation between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view. Many believe Humans are beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue.
Here is a new table with the version that Sam has endorsed. I have removed the 3 (from original FA) from the table to conserve space. It can be found in the table above. Version4 is the version Sam posted for consideration (above). David D. (Talk) 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Part | Version 1 | Version 2 | Version 4 |
---|---|---|---|
Intro | Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Bipedal locomotion appears to have evolved before the development of a large brain. The origins of bipedal locomotion and of its role in the evolution of the human brain are topics of ongoing research. | Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes). [2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species of animal. | Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae [3]. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Like all primates, humans are an inherently social animal. |
Society / Culture | Humans are distinguished from other animals in many ways. They create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans are the only living beings that build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This natural curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans also have a unique appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music. | Like most primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music. | Culturally, humans create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics important aspects of human society. Humans build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music. |
Mind / Spirit (?) | Spiritual perspectives on humans state that they are spiritual beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue. | Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythologyology. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies. It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and God, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities. | The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relation between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view. Many believe Humans are beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characteried by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue. |
Endorsed by users: |
goethean, schwael |
Avedomni, David D., Clawed, Hitchhiker89, Jim62sch, KillerChihuahua, Knowledge Seeker, Silence, Ashenai, Tzepish |
Sam Spade |
Please to not edit the content of the table above unless it is to add your name to endorse one of the versions.
I really don't like these charts, and the appearence that they are some sort of a vote. Some of these people listed have not been active here, and should not be listed. Sam Spade 20:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposed version synthesizing from all three above. It needs polishing, though. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I really like that, jossi. That is about what I would expect from Wikipedia. Not in-your-face Catholic Encyclopedia, but not ignoring things like clothes, fire, or soul either. Nice job. Tom Haws 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
reduce for easy reading Humans', or human beings have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans are the only species that build fires, cook their food, and clothe themselves. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
Humans are categorized as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes). [5]. Like all primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are distinguished from other animals in many ways and are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas.
The human mind has several distinct attributes and it is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Humans are also noted for their curiosity and their desire to understand and influence the world around them by developing elaborate sciences, technologies, philosophies, and mythologies. Human's natural curiosity also factors into the self-awareness of humans, leading to sel-reflection and the development of distinct personalities. Human religious perspectives often emphasize the existence of a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits.
I have started a new approach at
User:Goethean/Human4. —
goethean
ॐ
23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposed merge (minor); Version 2, 2nd 3rd paragraph, last sentence currently reads: "It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and God, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities." There are two issues with this - bias and highly questionable accuracy of the second half. The cause, or mosre probably causes, of distinct personalities could be debated ad nauseum, but the desire to understand and influence is more properly part of our nature, not a cause. I propose we take Sam's sentence: "Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characteried by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits." which is much more NPOV, without the Jewish/Christian only view in version 2. Follow with a philosophy statement if desired, or end the paragraph there.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
10:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I remember that version. Its my preferred version, far more strongly than the current version or any of the proposed versions. It seems to have been dumped, so I am trying to work with what appears to be a closer-to-consensus version. It needs a little copyedit (thus, hence, etc trimmed.) And yes I meant 3rd, I shouldn't edit at 5 am before coffee, thanks for catching that. KillerChihuahua ?!? 10:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
<<Made some minor changes to current version. If not agreeable, please restore previous. Note that I have done other edits not related to the intro. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to note why I added my name to version 1 above. I have not been involved in this discussion before because I only just stumbled upon it, and I have not read beyond this point into the discussion, so this is just going to be based on my personal first impressions. I like starting off noting the biological point of view. It might not seem neccissary in the context of scientific articles, but when human is linked from philosophical or religious articles, the biological language doesn't fit as well. Secondly, I like the use of the word spiritual in the 1st version rather than religious as n the 4th version. It's a minor preference based on my own associations between religion and things like culture and community, where as I associate spirituality more directly with theology.
Schwael
19:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Goethean, Sam, JoshuaZ, Duncharis. Regarding your recent reverts:
In my experience editing Wikipedia for the last few years (and I am sure in yours as well), I have yet to see an article about which there are competing views, in which a side manages to "win" and the other side to "lose". The four content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT are a very strong framework and able to repel POV pushing, and assist in the development of articles that are factually accurate, verifiable, and encyclopedic. "Edit warriors" always lose in Wikipedia. I reminder that it is best to refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. Remember WP:3RR, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This article made FA for one reason and one reason alone: constant correction. This is probably the hardest article to edit of any on the encyclopedia, because of the periodic interest of diverse persons (all of whom biased by being human). Some people here helped this article to FA status; others forced it from that position by their POV advocacy. Have a look at the article before I started editing it: [11]
I have edited longer than most, and I have learned that the majority is usually wrong. There is a reason the wikipedia is not a democracy, and why NPOV is non-negotiable. Sam Spade 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Insisting on neutrality and policy adherence is not trolling. I've told you guys over and over this has nothing to do w my personal POV. Personally, spiritual evolution is a law of nature. That is however irrelevant when a spiritual POV dominates the article (as it did in the past), or a skeptic POV dominates (as it does today). Both are against the articles best interest, and thus I oppose them.
As far as my seemingly contradictory statements regarding the majority, you are missing the subtleties. According to NPOV, minority views among the public (like secular humanism) should not be over emphasized. Again, according to policy; majority views among editors have no special status. My "the majority is usually wrong" was ment to apply to editors, but can apply to the general public as well. The truth is, wikipedia articles are not about absolute truth. They are about cataloging human knowledge in a neutral, verifiable manner. If that knowledge is wrong (and alot of it is), so be it. Sam Spade 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting that the "Humans, or Human beings, are classified as..." intro be left in place until a better concensus can be achieved. While it is not preferred by the larger majority, it does appear to be the most widely accepted (as a temporary solution if nothing else) at the moment, and this constant rv-edit warring is doing nothing for the discussion. This particular point will not severely affect the impressions of readers, nor will it drastically affect the overall POV of the article — is it something that needs to be settled, yes; is it so imperative that it needs to be "fixed" everytime someone changes it, no. Avedomni 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Silence, what you are saying is that you are unwilling to find a compromise. You coud have said that in one sentence. I am trying to find a way that could accommodate all what is being discussed, with the intention to achieve an intro that will leave us all with the feeling that maybe we are not 100% happy with, biut that we can all live with it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi or Silence is there any section that is better suited for the end of the article? War seems a little depressing. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Last edit of the intro could work! It follows the structure of the article itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
These sections require a lot of work. As these stand now they look more like article stubs about these subject and without relation to "Human". My proposal is to make "War" a subsection of "Government and politics" (as most wars, if not all are related to these) and to re-write these to add value to this article rather than parrot the article about these subjects. The additional benefit of this restructuring is that we will not end the article with "War" but with "Trade and economics". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
To settle this matter once and for all:
Category:Religion and Category:Spirituality are both subcategories of Category:Society, Category:Culture, and Category:Belief (meaning they fit comfortably and uncontroversially into each category)
Ergo Wikipedia's current position is that religion and spirituality is a subcategory of culture/society—whether it's true or not is immaterial, it's still an important aspect, and there's no better way to classify or organize it. To detach it from "culture/society" in human is deeply POVed, because it implies that the article's editors believe that religion is too "special" or profound to possibly be related to things as mundane and earthly as language, science, philosophy, art, literature, music, and emotion, which are all still subcategories of "culture/society". Making "spirit" the exception to the rule and giving it its own top-level section is not only a huge mistake organizationally (and has given Sam Spade license to bloat the section once again with far too much trivial detail, even though we should currently all be working together to trim down sections like that, not overwhelm them with lengthy lists!), but also inconsistent with the current state of all religion articles on Wikipedia, deeply POVed, and just plain pointless. It's just as ridiculous and inconsistent to argue that religion isn't an aspect of culture/society (even if it's more than that as well, it's still an aspect!! putting something in a category or section or attributing a label to it doesn't mean it's only that!) while all the religion and spirituality articles currently claim it is (by being categorized under both society and culture) as it is to argue that humans aren't primates, apes or animals, when the primate, ape and animal articles all clearly and uncontroversially state that humans are all of the above. Why must this article always be the one place you seek to use to further your POV, while ignoring all the rest of Wikipedia? Come on, now. Do we need to take a vote as to whether "spirituality/religion" can be categorized under "society/culture" or not? Perhaps you should propose a Wikipedia-wise RfC to discuss and vote on the matter, since clearly you're trying to upset the very fundamental structure of Wikipedia's treatment of religion and spirituality, by advocating and trying to force on others your view that it is biased to categorize religion/spirituality under society/culture. Yeesh. - Silence 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Where was anything agreed to by "all of us"? There has been long standing consensus for the quadratic FA format, dividing the article into biology, culture, mind and spirit. Sam Spade 17:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
According to an skeptic. Read mysticism, revelation, and Perennial Philosophy.
Once and for all, there is nothing neutral about a skeptical POV. Sam Spade 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing neutral about pandering to a spiritual POV, either.-- 71.112.234.168 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the problem with using "classified as" in the first sentence. Is that incorrect, not-factual, not verifiable, etc? What exactly? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no specific objection to the phrase; I don't really thing it's misleading or biased or anything like that. It just seems a little silly/redundant. " Star Trek: The Next Generation is classified as a science fiction television series..."? My cursory search didn't show any other articles using "are classified as" instead of "are". But if enough people feel it adds something to the article, that's fine with me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the version that seems to have been up for a couple of days now. I really like it. And here is why:
I have a few small reservations with it, like the fact it doesn't say humans are the "only" beings known to wear clothes, etc. But I could live with this version without dispute. Tom Haws 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with these "humans are the only being who" claims is they nearly always have exceptions. Tool usage for example, or cloths ;) Sam Spade 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. We need to say only. So we need to limit the list to Fire, Clothes, and Reading and Writing. Tools are not an only. Tom Haws 15:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This material was in the section Philosophy and self-reflection. It does not belong there, and could not find anothre home for it. So I am placing it here with the hope that editors can refactor it back somehwre else. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
In reviewing 10 completed versions of the “Human” article in 10 languages, I noted the following regarding word count, and mention of religion and spirituality
Of the three featured articles, the only one I can read is the German article [12], which I have translated for your elucidation:
Bottom line is this: the intro is too long, and is out of step with 10 other fully completed articles. In fact, even the incomplete articles and stubs do not mention religion or spiritually in what is likely to become their intros. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens? Thank you. -- Abdull 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Needed in the article, not on the talk page! ;) This is not the first time this complaint has come up, and it is a valid one. Sam Spade 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Its a tiny speck. What I was asking for is a lengthier discussion of idaltu, as well as a discussion of mankinds future evolution. Clearly were not going to be Homo sapiens sapiens forever, are we? Sam Spade 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, my apologies if I'm stating the obvious (for some). I have little to no experience with this article. I feel, though, that there are things seriously wrong with it that are immediately apparent.
To be specific: I feel that the article places massive and undue emphasis on the "spiritual" aspect. The waffling about soul, atma, etc simply does not belong in the intro. In fact, I don't think religion/spirituality belongs in the intro at all.
Similarly, the section on "spirit" is stupidly long. All that stuff belongs in the "religion" or "spirit" article, not in "human".
I've read this talk page, and I see that I'm not saying anything new here. I just thought the views of someone taking a "fresh look" at the article might be welcome.
As it is, the article really really feels like religious propaganda, just barely toeing the line of NPOV. -- Ashenai 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I restored the the previous version as a subsection of Socitey and culture. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
well, I don't see any prima facie difference between the Human biology article and the [human] spirituality article in relation to this page. So, no, it is not absurdly long, any argument that stuff can be taken from the spirituality section to the main article holds just as much for the "biology" and "society" sections. This article has long had a tripartite division body/mind/soul (biology/society/spirituality), and the spirituality section is shortest as it is. So I would emphatically support making the "religion" section h2; of course it is related to society and culture, but then society and culture is also related to biology etc.. It is another question whether the Spirituality section is "waffling", but that doesn't seem to be the case; indeed, it appears to succinctly link the core topics, taking only about a third of either the "biology" or the "society" section. dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Great work, guys, the article is looking much better. For those of you worried about compromise, please consider that sexuality is at least as fundamental a part of humans as spirituality, and still only merits a small subsection.
Anyway, we're definitely in the right ballpark now. Please let's not screw it up. :) -- Ashenai 20:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there some kind of bug w this talk page or what? Will somebody archive it already? Sam Spade 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Either way this page is at about 300k, and needs archiving bad. I'm not sure my laptop is up for it. Sam Spade 22:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I can accept what is there for now. Now lets follow its example, and make sure the article is at least as balanced. Spirituality is not a cultural phenomena, and suggesting so is unacceptably biased. As there are 4 sections for the intro (biology, culture, mind and spirit), let there be 4 sections for the body of the article as well. Sam Spade 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Spirituality is a cultural phenomenon. Geez. A simple proof would be to point out to you communities or cultures that aren't spiritual. I can think of many. -- Cyde Weys 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
if you bother to glance at the archives, you will note that this very discussion was had a year ago, and an incredibly detailed compromise was beaten out with sweat and tears. Of course, it was then torn down and the discussion started over. Yes, the point is that these points of view are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Therefore, it is not a "controversy" as such, but rather a question which aspects you are more interested in. You can ponder matter from a mental pov, or the mind from a material pov, that's both fine and interesting, you just cannot reduce both views to a single blend or compromise (that's unnecessary too, they do fine each on their own). dab (ᛏ) 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Albert Einstein
Sam you keep adding this version of the introduction (the one i pasted above) and referring to it as the compromise version. What exactly do you mean by that? No one has discussed this version as far as i am aware. David D. (Talk) 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Gee, and here I thought frogs had a spirit. Guess not.
"Frog is the common name for amphibians in the order Anura. Adult frogs are characterised by long hind legs, a short body, webbed digits, protruding eyes and the absence of a tail. Most frogs move by jumping or climbing. Most frogs have a semi-aquatic lifestyle. They typically lay their eggs in puddles, ponds or lakes, and their larvae, called tadpoles, have gills and develop in water. Adult frogs follow a carnivorous diet, mostly of arthropods, annelids and gastropods. Frogs are most noticeable through their call, which can be widely heard during the mating season. The distribution of frogs ranges from tropic to subarctic regions, with most of the species found in tropical rainforests. With over 5,000 species described, they are among the most diverse groups of vertebrates. However, their declining numbers are increasingly giving cause for concern. A distinction is often made between frogs and toads on the basis of their appearance, prompted by the convergent adaptation of so-called toads to dry environments; however, this distinction has no taxonomic basis."
•Jim62sch• 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ashenai: nine editors supporting one version and five editors opposed to it is not consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. — goethean ॐ 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
hello? so there are 14 editors involved here at the moment? Has any of you considered that the article you found has been discussed before? voted upon by dozens of editors even? So if you're going to talk of consensus, kindly check the polls in the archives. Of course you are free to refactor the article. However, I am not prepared to give up the long-standing tripartite division, viz. biology, individual and society; or, zoon, zoon logos echon, and zoon politikon, or yet again, humans as seen by zoologists, humans as 'monads' (emotion, spirituality), and humans as seen by each other (society). I think the content of the article is quite fair, but it seems arbitrary to lump spirituality and emotion under "society and culture"; of course it has consequences for society and culture, but by that argument, we could list the entire "society and culture" as a subsection of "biology" in the first place. See in particular Talk:Human/Archive_14 for past discussions of what belongs in the intro, and Talk:Human/Archive3 for extended discussion of taxobox placement (which is fine with me as it is, but it will be interesting for Ashenai to see how difficult it was to etablish consensus that this article should even primarily be about biology, never mind deleting the spirituality aspect altogether). See also Talk:Human/Archive5#Spirituality_and_religion. It's all very well to be bold, but with articles that have histories of intense discussion going back two years, you want to look at its history before you make quick assumptions about 'consensus'. Incidentially, I object to the assumptions that this is a conflict between religious and non-religious editors. It is a simple matter of religion & spirituality being an encyclopedic topic, and if I insist on giving it due prominence here, this is because of its notability in human history and not because of any personal beliefs I may or may not hold. dab (ᛏ) 09:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I checked out what other encyclopedias have to say about Human, and found the following:
Encyclopedia Britannica: a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, ... (rest of article subscription-only)
MSN Encarta: full article here. Reference to spirituality: two words; religion is mentioned under "cultural attributes" once, and under "other definitions" once.
Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia.com have no Human article, only links to anthropology, human evolution, and race, none of which deal with spirituality, obviously.
Every encyclopedia I found that was not specifically and admittedly POV (The Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance) has far less information (both absolutely and relatively speaking) about spirituality under Human than we do. I don't believe this is a coincidence, but if anyone can find a general encyclopedia with a Human article that has more to say about spirituality, please show us! -- Ashenai 11:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This is irrelevant, as these encyclopedias all have different policies from wikipedia. Although I do note that our "bipedal primate" is actually more reductive than Britannica's "culture-bearing primate". This issue has been discussed extensively in the archives. — goethean ॐ 15:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Article says:
There is no need to discuss spirituality in the intro. I don't know particularly that it even needs to be in the article. Some humans are spiritually inclined. Others are not. We are saying what doesn't need to be said. And we are failing to say what needs to be said: that humans are widely defined and described in terms of spirit, soul, or what have you. Or to be more NPOV/NOR compliant, "According to the three largest religions, that together have adherents totalling 70% of the world, humans are beings of soul." Tom Haws 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
To be fully NPOV/NOR compliant, that sentence also needs a footnote to the following:
-- Tom Haws 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought on spiritual discussion- Human beings believe in things- they are animals who symbolise and create: in this way they are inately spiritual and imaginative . Is it necessary to go into details here about religion? The article doen't go into the same detail in Art Music and Literature , for example.
I have just read it right through carefully and thought you might like to have a general impression from someone not involved as a contributor on this subject (or you might not but here it is):
War: should war be treated as an isolated subject? Human aggression and Human cooperation are part of human behaviour.If modern warfare is mentioned the most significant aspect is the threat to humans as a species from ourselves. There are human attempts to stop war eg Hague, Geneva and United Nations Agreements and a growing International Peace Movement which could be mentioned, to give a balanced view.
To someone not american looking up the term HUMAN, there is a strong US bias, both visually (the NASA image is a give away) and in the text ,and most of the references are from American sources .
paula clare 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
A couple of ideas. One white family and one Asian boy with nice imagery on both. I could not find a decent looking group shot with mixed ethnic and age groups represented. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
For reference this has been discussed in recent history. Talk:Human/Archive_19#human_picture and Talk:Human/Archive_20#Image_to_represent_Human. David D. (Talk) 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I find the family picture a little heterosexist. I'm all for a picture of male and female humans, humans of different ethnicities, and humans in various stages of development, but this image encodes an exclusive definition of human relationships. Fishhead64 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
What happened? We had a discussion week ago bout the organization of this article. Suddenly, all of that is thrown away without even a mention beyond a edit summary I insistI insist on three sections, viz. zoon, zoon logos echon, and zoon politikon? What about showing some respect for editors efforts? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
yes, hardly 'unilateral', this was throughly discussed not a week but months and months ago, and I linked to those discussions. Try to take them into account too, I know it's additional bother, but if you only maintain a memory of two weeks' worth of discussion, this talkpage is doomed to going round and round in circles. Glance through the 20 or so archives for an impression of just how redundant they are. Of course both ToC and content still need fine-tuning. Hey, our objective here should be to get back to FA status. This article was once (briefly) featured. What went wrong, how can we get it back there? The talk archives are a pretty exhaustive thesaurus of what people may think is wrong with this article, build your consensus on that, and not on the four or five random people active at a given moment; if you do that, you may beat out a 'consensus' that will predictably collapse as soon as one of the common objections is reiterated yet another time.
dab
(ᛏ)
11:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I found it... •Jim62sch• 11:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
what's wrong with a "society and culture" h2? why does "Political and Economic structure" need to be h2? A h3 "Colonization and Slavery" is a terrible recentism, the section title should treat all of human migration. "Emotion and sexuality" is also a weird combination, what's wrong with a section about the "individual" which can then include spiritual aspects. If sexuality is not treated for its subjective aspects, it belongs under biology. If it is, it overlaps with emotion and spirituality, viz. the subjective aspect. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
See the begining of this page and notice that this article is part of "WikiProject Primates". To me, this would indicate that a separate article on humanity would be a good idea. •Jim62sch• 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my summary was truncated. My understanding is that the word Human in the image is in Urdu, not Arabic so it doesn't matter which is more prevelant. They use the same alphabet, but then so do English and most western European languages, and to call a word "English" when it is in French simply because the letters are all from our usual 26 is absurd. If the word is the same in both languages, that is a different matter. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
can we not just kill the image? It seems extremely arbitrary and silly to illustrate this article by words for "human" in seven random languages, apparently selected for their (to the compiler) 'exotic scripts'. What exactly is the informative value of that? If you are serious about collecting this sort of information, do a proper terms for humans in the world's languages or something. Or see writing system for an overview of writing systems. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Up goes the POV tag again. Sam is it this intro you are objecting too?
Your own preference seems to be this new version.
First where did your preferred version come from since i have not seen a paragraph starting with "
Psychologically the human
mind has several distinct attributes " in any version discussed to date. Second what is your problem with the first intro? Everything is mentioned in the first intro. What is the POV that you object to so much?
David D.
(Talk)
20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam, for your consistent efforts on this. I essentially agree with Sam. The Religious paragraph needs to be separate. But I would remove its confusing second sentence. The paragraph should be about the religious perspective on humans, not about the religiosity of many humans. Tom Haws 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You want me to cite my talk page opinions? Sorry, but I feel free to say what I want (within reason, and on topic of course ;) on the talk page! I can give you plenty of cites for spiritual experts stating that man is 100% spirit btw (look up Mary Baker Eddy and Sri Sankaracharya for a start...) Sam Spade 11:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think this article needs to reflect this intro, as the consensus FA version did. I notice you are ignoring the fact that I cited my opinion in favor of arguing w me and trying to make me look bad? Is your purpose a logical and rigourous one, or merely rhetorical in nature? Sam Spade 11:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is neutral, and all sources are biased. That’s why NPOV involved the citing of verifiable POV's, rather than achieving absolute truth. A neutral article will be one which gives balanced emphasis to all the various POV's.
Oh, and I certainly accept your apology, no hard feelings. My complaint was less specific to you, and more about the general polarisation of this talk page, and the improper motivation of so much of what has been said (even a comment or two of my own, I'll admit :) Sam Spade 12:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
While we all appreciate a fresh eye and new ideas, I sympathize with dab in that many of the new editors on this article fail to appreciate the history involved here, and that some of us have been personally present for months of debate. dab and I were working on this article in September 2004. Yes, that's 18 months of history and continuity. I don't want to be stodgy, but it does get hard to rehash the same points again and again. Dearly valued newer contributors, please try to be respectful of the possibility that some of us (see my user page for a little list) may have considered many times the issues central to this article. That said, my understanding and approach are refining and evolving still. Tom Haws 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus today. There was consensus regarding the FA version. That long standing consensus trumps the majority of views here, at the very least until a new consensus is formed. Sam Spade 11:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Having just re-read Talk:Human/Archive1, it's clear to me that dab's original point is the best summary of why this page will never meet Wikipedia neutrality guidelines.
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)
The term "Homo sapiens" is the term for humans-as-animal. The term "Humanity" stands for what distinguishes us from animals. To have both of these terms redirect to the human page, apart from being simplistic, has made writing this article in a neutral way very difficult. Predictably, this difficulty has been compounded by extreme difference in opinion regarding the essence of humanity, as well as an unwillingness to include the beliefs of others rather than insisting that the article only reflect one's own view. The two concepts, homo sapiens and humanity can be disambiguated within the article, or they can be seperated into two seperate articles. But to define humans on this merged page in strictly biological terms ("humans are bipedal primates") is simply inaccurate. — goethean ॐ 17:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I also agree to split this article into two. one for Homo sapiens sapiens and one for Humanity. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
<< I like this idea a lot. Finally it feels like we are collaborating rather that doing something else. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I've reverted the disambig page for now, because it was a horrible mess of disambig links that redirected back and forth in circles. As I said, I'm not against a forking disambig solution, but I think the transition, if any, should be as seamless as possible. Please let's only have
Human be a disambig page when all the links actually point somewhere. --
Ashenai
19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, here's my current outline: Go ahead and modify this. — goethean ॐ 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Four articles:
I think Human should be the disabmig page. Psychology can be discussed on both, in different ways. On Homo Sapiens it can be discussed from a biological/behaviorist POV (brain chemicals and all that). On Humanity it can be discussed from a spiritual or humanist POV, taking into account freud and jung and other somewhat "philosophical" views. Sam Spade 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The focus of this page seems fine the way it is, but Homo sapien clearly should be an anthropological page, similar to Homo sapiens idaltu.-- Nectar 23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the entire discussion yet, but my suggestion is that the article should be structured almost like a cross between a portal and a long article. It should serve as an introduction to the numerous "human-related" articles on Wikipedia, written summary style, with each section having a link to the main article for that section. As long as there is a summary in this article, the other articles will not be POV forks. I repeat, a POV fork is only when neither article mentions the other article or misrepresents that article's POV. One thing for sure, the "human evolution" box at the bottom should go. I would recommend that it is replaced with an infobox at the top that summarises all the articles linked from the sections. In other words, treat Human as a subject disambiguation and summary page (a meta-data page, if you like), and keep Human (disambiguation) to distinguish between articles and other objects of similar name. Carcharoth 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade - I've started the RfC on Sam Spade based on his reverting and avoidance of discussions on various articles. Feel free to comment, but please remain civil. -- infinity 0 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The two sides are pathological skepticism and NPOV. Sam Spade 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
'[Curiosity]...has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.'
That seems like a bit of a reach- I don't know about fish or bacteria, but plenty of animals have distinct personalities. I have not seen any evidence of 'self-reflection' taking place with my friends' cats, but they all of quite distinct personalities.
Why does the second paragraph say that human beings are especially notable for trying to understand and alter their environment? Our relative ability to do both is notable, but how can we know what other creatures desire? That is not a verifiable statement.
If no one objects, I'm going to change that section to be a bit more grounded. MilesVorkosigan 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Miles. The "logical progression" can work in other directions. Putting it as a one-dimentional, unidirectional progression is only one way of looking at it. Some other POVs are that it works in the opposite direction, or that the different factors may play off of each other in a more organic, non-linear manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You'll note that I didn't put my comment about other animals' personality in the article, of course. It is OR- Just as the current article's claim that curiosity leads to the development of personality. This claim is also, as far as I can see, unverifiable. Do we have any sources for claiming that only humans are curious, only humans change their environments, or that only humans have different personalities? How would you go about constructing an experiment to prove this? MilesVorkosigan 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think instead of the anatomy drawing of a human we should have an actual photo of a human. Since that's how it is for most animal articles. -- FlareNUKE 09:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I request that the NPOV tag be returned to the article. Defining human beings in exclusively biological terms — as the first sentence of this article does — is not neutral. — goethean ॐ 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The article as it stands needs a dispute header, but I thought we had all agreed to splitting the content of this article into homo sapiens and Humanity, with Human as the disambig? Sam Spade 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have nothing else to offer than this ad hominem attack? I don't think my POV is clear at all. Name a specific issue in the article, and ask me my stance. I insist my position regarding content is driven not the promotion of my personal beliefs, but rather is based on neutrality, balance and citations. Do you offer yourself up to such a rigorous inspection? Do you deny that you have been promoting a skeptical POV here? Sam Spade 23:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
How about you go read my replies there, and focus on the matter at hand here. Sam Spade 08:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Silence, can you explain the removal of this image? I think that it is a nice addition, and it was there during the FA status. If you think that it is not useful, it would be nice if you first ask other editors. And, please keep your reply short and to the point. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll begin with the fetus. Nothing against good old Leonardo, but I think a diagram showing at least four stages of a fetus growing inside the womb and maybe the mother giving birth would be more "encyclopedic" than this draw.
I don't like the Inuit woman either, but ok, we have to keep the multicultural stuff, don't we? Maybe a more COLORFUL image would help. This goes for the skeleton, the two young girls and so on. My white toilet has more color than the first six images of the article. : D
The fruits... ok, it's a nice pic, but I think it's just not human enough to make it to the article. How about a HUMAN eating fruit, or any other food? ; )
The brain is ok, but the "human face" showing the "senses" is by far the UGLIEST and SCARIEST thing I've ever seen. And guess what? It's in... BLACK AND WHITE! Yippie!
Adam is not too bad, but I would prefer the Mona Lisa or something like that.
Now we come to Tio Paquete, which is the SECOND UGLIEST thing I've ever seen! How about a PIC of someone with a cute smiling? Or at least a happy face hahaha...
The kiss... black and white... that's a rock, they aren't humans... how about a PIC of a couple sharing a nice french kiss?
Now, a SCULPTURE of a man meditating... A MAN, not a ROCK doing yoga would be better. (I have nothing against paintings or sculptures, but this is the HUMAN article, not the ART article.)
The largest religious gathering is interesting. Plato and Aristotle is excellent. The thinker is good (if you remove the man meditating... having both images is a little redundant). The astronaut is great.
That was the most visually attractive part in the article.
The bomb... it's black and white, but I guess it's an important pic. And if someone changes the pics above with some more colorful ones, it'll be ok.
The Chichicastenango image is not very clear in its purpose... You can't see the trading directly from the picture. I would hardly notice that the image has something to do with trading without the note under it. A trading ship, currency, a stand on a modern supermarket or something like that would be better.
Finally, how about getting the images in a STRICT "left, right, left, right, left" order? That would look nice... : D
Now, if you agree with me, please don't come and say "I agree"... do something! Look for better, nicer pics... we can make this an excellent article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.125.244 ( talk • contribs)
I deleted the following edit from the article page because I got no hits on Google for 'heto-panubutiosis':
...but some diseases like heto-panubutiosis makes it impossible for these people to lose weight. This is a diseases that infects the intestines, keeping them from functioning properly. (i.e for people with this it is impossible for them to relieve themselfs of their own solid waste products.)
This one will require a good solid set of sources to be allowed back into the article. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
To have African looking people as the picture for Homo Sapiens, them being first.
-- Vehgah 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no specfic image suggestion, but perhaps someone that is Nilotic.
-- Vehgah 05:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't wish to open up a complicated discussion, but I would like to explain my removal of "As of 2006, humans are the only beings known to be sentient." If this statement is to be included, it should specify known to whom (with a citation, preferably), since both scientific perspectives and many religious perspectives appear to consider other animals to be sentient as well. Certainly according to the definition ( Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary), it seems quite apparent to me that we're not the only sentient creatures around. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Its been a while since I studied latin but thought man was just a common preconception.
I thought homo is a prefix for different. -- FlareNUKE 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following text from Human#Terminology: "(though terms such as 'man' for humankind are in a sense pejorative, given women's statistical majority in the population of Homo sapiens on earth)". I find the speculation dubious, and would require sourcing at least. Thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the last sentences in the intro reads that humans are one of the few species who have sex for fun. The next sentence starts with "This natural curiosity..." and it seems ambiguous - does it refer to the previous sentence?
It seems to me that the following sentence:
Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythology.
which is right near the top of "Human" - is terribly flawed!
The problem is that although humans seek to explain and manipulate the world around them, the very idea that Religion or Philosophy are also attempts to "manipulate" reeks of irreligiousity... to fix this it's simple to add (or participate) so that manipulation isn't the sine qua non. It seems to me that WINKI is the place where this should be gotten Right!
Phillip 14:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you are saying that Religion itself! is an attempt to explain... this is absurd! You cannot explain Religion as an explanation of anything, only as a (possibly wrongly) belief that one Participates (somehow) with what is holy. I hope that helps explain my position on this and I do enjoy getting to know what it is that you think that you mean... I am still not happy with the sentence, nor - need I say - with your explanation. When one goes into a church, one is not going into a 'school' - these need to be kept somewhat separate, I believe > though you'll certainly find a lot of dogmatic types in either abode...
I'm not a neutral anthropologist, my background is philosophy (so perhaps this page is out of my league..) > Philosophically speaking I guess I'd have to disagree and Even MORE so, that God doesn't intervene (hasn't been observed to) is really quite shocking to me: Didn't he send his only begotten Son to save mankind? Isn't this quite central to Christianity? - At least to my understanding of it -> if you assume that all of this is mythologizing, and the only things that exist are things that you can dissect under a microscope or peer at through a telescope... then since Christ doesn't show up very well either with unaided human vision, microscope or telescope, then perhaps this is your gist >> mine is that this is a matter that has to be viewed from within and for me the Heart and Mind are not Dis-Connected (or rather they tend to be and this CAN BE a problem... > One HAS Knowledge >> One IS religious (having religion is fraut with Bush, a sophist right from the get-go... >> this is what I'd say in answer to your query >> see Erich Fromm fine work on the difference between Having & Being - If you are interested in what's behind my fundamental objection evident in all of the above. yours Phillip 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) ps: thanks for entering into discussion on this, I'm new at the game and think that Human may be a good place to begin...
--
I suggest that you might work up the citations for this edit on this TalkPage first. Is this idea written and clarified in some book by a recognized expert on what human is? We need the citation. -- Rednblu 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean it as a joke; it's curious to me that you don't see the other side of the coin. As regards 'citations' I did mention Erich Fromm (famous Psychologist/HUMANIST) who has a book called "To Have or To BE" ... and a lot of other books too. What I find to be a joke is the sentence that I was trying to fix which put Religion as either (take your choice) manipulation of spiritual things or explanantion of them; so- probably explanation... This leads one to have to say that going into a temple is another way of going to school,to learn about spiritual things... which may have a little truth but I think is fundamentally flawed. Obviously, here we don't care about my personal views (which is fine by me) but about the truth... Of course, truth is known within, not through a telescope or a microscope.
Now, I will either have to go get some quote from Fromm or perhaps somebody will remark that there is a good point in all of this - since (as I indicated)the way the sentence now has been reverted back to read means pretty much that religion is mythology - and this is the crass nonsense that I don't like... being a mere human. Phillip 20:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, a lot of people do make idiots of themselves; there are churches that have a good reason to exist and there are also terrorist cells full of people who go to prayers 5 times a day... In either event, they are opening themselves to something: Goodness in the 1st instance and pure evil in the 2nd.. I hope that this helps; it seems that 'particpation' is voted out from a friendly fellow (see below) so, I'll rest my case... sorry if you found me to be POV. Phillip 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your query, 1st, I only would want to give up if it seemed that I had little to no chance... which is somewhat open at this point; 2ndly: as regards "tool" - I actually was using it as it "was there" - ie: right in the paragraph under comment > that we humans make tools of fire, sticks and stones, etc so as to "manipulate" our environment >>>> BUT ALSO, because Plato uses the metaphor of 'tools' in his investigation into sophistry > that, namely, Sophists make tools of themselves to pursue what they "suppose" is in their interest.... so there were 2 reasons for the tool metaphor, neither of which anyone seemed to have understood >> and I guess I should also mention that phrases such as "sharpen your wits" seem to imply that one's capactities can be improved (spiritual as well as material) through a litte hard work! 3rdly: AS Regards the word "LUMP" - it is derisive, I agree, but that's just my point, the sentence [paragraph] under discussion LUMPS > Science, Philos, Religion & MYTHOLOGY - ALL together as if this made a bit of sense!!!! which was my core objection. I hope this is a bit clearer and I will check back tomorrow to see if continued debate is worthwhile or if the level of discourse seems non-conducive to further debate.... thanks for your encouragement to not give up without at least a little bit of explanantion(s). Phillip 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Info! - I was sort of getting this impression and have better things to do than try to confince the 'powers that be' that they're missing half the picture. Phillip 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
We do not "seek to ... participate in nature". We particpate in nature (weather affects us, seasons affect us, etc) regardless of whether we seek to participate in these occurances or not. -
UtherSRG
(talk)
17:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You appear to me to be rather Heavy Handed !!! There is alot more than what you realize in your simply putting things back >> Do you realize that you've have just thrown out all of Ethical behavior!
Perhaps you should UNDERSTAND the above commentary thoroughly and discuss this issue for ONE or TWO days > there has been substantial commentary and it seems you haven't got a clue as to what this is discussion about...
I'm putting it BACK. Talk - & discuss, then change. ps: I know that we don't SEEK to participate in Nature, this is the explain and manipulate part, learn how to focus your mind... Phillip 17:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, we do actually seek to participate in natural phenomena QUITE a LOT, and naturally we participate in natural phenomena whether or not we are seeking to do so too > that is: I seek to get some dinner so that I participate in the natural state of digestion; it seems that you imply this as well with your use of "irregardless" above. Phillip 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
ps: I hope nobody changes things any more without understanding the problem > I guess some people don't see what's right there before them, me included, which is why I had to add this on to my earlier...—Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipLundberg ( talk • contribs)
Phillip your current favored version is the following:
I agree with the editor that reverted your edits that using the phrase "latter three" is a bit confusing. Mentioned are "desire to understand", "desire to influence", "seeking to explain" and "seeking to manipulate". I have bolded what I think you are referring to with respect to the latter three. The reason I am confused is that the way I read this, explain and manipulate are the actions of "understand" and influence, consequently, referring to the latter three is an odd turn of phrase since there appear to be only two concepts being discussed. The version that is currently in place reads as follows.
Now that I read the current version, I agree that "explain and manipulate" is better. What I do not understand is the need to include participate. Is this not directly implied by the use of the words understand and influence? Is it possible to explain and manipulate without participating? It seems to be redundant. David D. (Talk) 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
NO, - wrongo > I tried to make it as clear as I possibly could with the awkward phrase, the "latter" three are Philos.,Religion & Mythology - the first of the 4 being,of course, Science >> hence you have totally missed my point too. Though, then to, to understand something,INDEED, we do need to 'participate' in it in an essential way, a way that goes beyond our narrow prejudices. Let me study this a bit more and see if I can't find a better start. Phillip 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
we could call it an End! - because it's now as clear as day - not that the sentence which lumps science, philos, religion and mythology cannot help but be murky as deepest night. Phillip 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
WOOPs > I guess that we don't have a start after all, at least not with UtherSRG who still hasn't at all understood what all of the Hullaballoo is about. You only can only understand the nature of Religion by participating in it - those who don't participate, have nothing but explanations, hence nothing genuinely meaningful. I have been trying over and over and over again to wake others up to the Root Flaw and I can hardly believe that an open minded person could read ALL of the above and still come out and say that we all participate in nature > NATURE OF WHAT ?? - this is the issue, the lumping of the sort of understanding that is always on the outside and exists in the anthropologist/scientist is quite different from the sort of understanding that exists in a mystic. I am beginning to see the point that that Goethe individual was dead-on and I have been simply wasting my time, it's too bad that along with the mystic, we also lose any participation in the 'good' as this, obviously is one thing to one person, something else to another and has now become totally relative to....[fill in the blank with your explanations, the ever-changing edits]. I have no intentions of fixing the problem and leave it for good, bye, Phillip 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
A question from a newcomer to the Human article: why doesn't this article have featured status? It is cleanly, concisely and elegantly written, and provides some of the best coverage of a complex subject that I have seen on Wikipedia. Killdevil 14:44, 22 May 2006 (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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
A section of the article reads:
"Most sexologists, starting with the pioneers Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey, believe that the majority of homo sapiens are attracted to males and females, being inherently bisexual. This belief is based upon the human species close relatives' sexual habits such as the bonobo, and historical records."
There are many problems with this section:
The fact that this article says "Conservation Status: Secure" is a lesson in absurdity. Please excuse me if this has already been mentioned. -- Weldingfish 13:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
How about: "N/A" 'Conservation' of a species has to be done by someone, applying a status to humans would be assuming other animals (or perhaps super-animals; god(s), aliens etc.) read Wiki and consequently decide wether or not to start a breeding program?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.173.3 ( talk • contribs)
Whatever is decided, can we please decide it on the talk page rather than get into a revert war? My own opinion is that Homo sapiens should not be treated any differently than any other animal. It sounds like there is a project afoot to create a series of articles dealing with the various aspects of human existence, and hopefully that will settle the matter. Fishhead64 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that a consensus would be to leave the conservation status in at this time. Even though I think it makes Wikipedia look very silly, I'll drop this subject for now. -- Yath 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What should we do when this reaches 30 archives?? 40?? 50?? Georgia guy 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC) F
This article, even more so than wikipedia, is difficult for all of us to retain neutrality regarding. Bias takes a whole new meaning when we are talking about ourselves. As Sun Tzu said, :
Sam Spade 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hear Hear.
NPOV is " absolute and non-negotiable", no matter how many humans are biased.
(I had an edit conflict, so the rest is @ DD)
I apologize if you misunderstood my quote. I highly recommend you read that book.
The problem with the article is it's expressly secular humanist POV. Spirituality has become a sub-section of culture. The first sentences of both the first paragraphs refer to us as unqualified primates. The intro reads like the intro of a human biology textbook. From top to bottom this article has been savaged by aggressive POV, forcing it from FA status.
Nobody here is trying to suppress the skeptical POV. Instead, were trying to balance it. Sam Spade 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The following remark by User:Goethean, deleted by User:FeloniousMonk, has been restored with the ostensibly offensive sentence removed: (— goethean ॐ 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
I am considering Silence's arguments above. But there is something else that needs to be said, and that is that the reaction to Sam Spade on the part of User:Silence, User:Jim62sch User:FeloniousMonk and User:KillerChihuahua has been unconscionable. Sam Spade, I, and any other Wikipedia editor who feels like it has every right to contest the neutrality of this article to their heart's content. It doesn't matter how many degrees they have. There is no hierarchy here. This is the way that Wikipedia works. If you don't like chaotic operating procedures, then you don't like the very idea of Wikipedia. If you don't like discussing odd subjects with internet cranks, tough shit. That is part of being an Wikipedia editor. If there is a Wikipedia policy that says that one person objecting to an article does not constitute a valid objection, please point me to it. [COMMENT REDACTED] It needs to stop, or be brought to the attention of the wider Wikipedia community. It has been repeatedly claimed that "only one of two editors object" to this version of the article, with the implication that that does not constitute a valid objection. Both the assertion and the implication are false. [COMMENT REDACTED] [2] [3] [4] [5]— goethean ॐ 18:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Goethean's personal attack has been removed. If you can't make your case without resorting to disruption and personal attacks, then there are 1,037,993 other articles where you can contribute to without being a source of strife. FeloniousMonk 19:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The following might have been written by C3PO, R2D2, an angel, or a muskrat abiding by NPOV and NOR, being only able to cite human "knowledge". Tom Haws 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-- Tom Haws 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow oh wow, delete that bit of silliness with extreme haste. -- Cyde Weys 19:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Sam Spade 09:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hold your horses. 100% of people are homo sapiens according to you. Were not here to discuss our own opinions. We are here to attribute and catalogue the opinions of others. Humans are homo sapiens in latin, or according to anthropology. 'According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church a human is a being of body and soul in the image of God. According to Islam, every human "is composed of three parts—spirit, carnal soul, and body" [1] and humans are the "vice-regents of God" [2]. According to Hindu Advaita thought, "no such thing as a human exists. The human phenomenon (supposed to consist of the mind, vital energy, and physical body) is an illusion. Only God exists." And according to Hindu Dvaita thought, "humans, like all creatures, are souls of God (or divinity) enclosed within a complex of bodies ranging from very gross (the physical body) to very subtle (the ego). Humans, however, are unique among living things in that they have the potential to realize their divinity."'
Please, leave your POV at the door. Were here to write an encyclopedia article, not to enforce our personal paradigms on others.
Sam Spade 10:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
According to who? Opinions vary, as should be clear by now. You can read over Tom Haws posting above, or my quote from it. If you want to know what I think (which isn't relevant here), see User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. Sam Spade 11:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sam, your post does not illuminate. I am not speaking of opinions, or POV. I am speaking of terminology and accuracy. What is the issue with homo sapiens? What precisely is your objection? KillerChihuahua ?!? 11:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to homo sapiens, rather I am pointing out that is aterm (in latin) used in a certain field (anthropology) to express a certain paradigm (humans are a zoological animial). Clearly many other paradigms possess alternate views of humanity. Sam Spade 11:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I keep trying to explain, my private opinions don't matter. I will discuss my opinions, but I'd prefer not doing so here. As far as homo sapiens, obviously that should be mentioned, but only with the explanation that it is the latin term, used by anthropologists and zoologists. Most english speakers, expert and otherwise, use the english term. In any case, just as we can explain that zoologists call man homo sapiens and consider him a primate, we can also explain that theologians feel man is primarily a spiritual entity. Sam Spade 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi is right, homo sapiens is the zoological label, and should be explained as such. Theologically, man is possessed of a soul, and is primarily a spiritual entity. Culturally we are americans, europeans, sikhs and etc... Each of these catagories has validity.
To killer, what were not agreeing about is the definition of man. I think thats extremely obvious. Sam Spade 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
One possible solution would be to have separate articles for Human being, Homo Sapiens, and Humanity, rather than attempt the seemingly impossible task of synthesizing all these views. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
<< David, I find it very peculiar that you do not seem to understand what I am saying. It is very simple: Of course that Humans are the "homo sapiens" species. That is not disputed. What is disputed is to use the species as the principal way of defining what is human. The argument goes that defining humans as Homo Sapiens ONLY, is not NPOV as it does not present competing views, such as the one that asserts that Humans are not only a species of animal called "homo sapiens". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sam, you write above:
This implies that the Catholic church does not recognise and use the term Homo sapians. This is strange given that the Catholic church accepts evolution. Your analysis here is bordering on original research. As you, yourself, have said many times, "Please, leave your POV at the door. We're here to write an encyclopedia article, not to enforce our personal paradigms on others." Maybe you should heed your own words? David D. (Talk) 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae [1]. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Like all primates, humans are an inherently social animal.
Culturally, humans create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics important aspects of human society. Humans build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relation between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view. Many believe Humans are beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue.
Here is a new table with the version that Sam has endorsed. I have removed the 3 (from original FA) from the table to conserve space. It can be found in the table above. Version4 is the version Sam posted for consideration (above). David D. (Talk) 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Part | Version 1 | Version 2 | Version 4 |
---|---|---|---|
Intro | Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Bipedal locomotion appears to have evolved before the development of a large brain. The origins of bipedal locomotion and of its role in the evolution of the human brain are topics of ongoing research. | Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes). [2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species of animal. | Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae [3]. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Like all primates, humans are an inherently social animal. |
Society / Culture | Humans are distinguished from other animals in many ways. They create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans are the only living beings that build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This natural curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans also have a unique appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music. | Like most primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music. | Culturally, humans create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics important aspects of human society. Humans build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music. |
Mind / Spirit (?) | Spiritual perspectives on humans state that they are spiritual beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue. | Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythologyology. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies. It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and God, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities. | The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relation between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view. Many believe Humans are beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characteried by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue. |
Endorsed by users: |
goethean, schwael |
Avedomni, David D., Clawed, Hitchhiker89, Jim62sch, KillerChihuahua, Knowledge Seeker, Silence, Ashenai, Tzepish |
Sam Spade |
Please to not edit the content of the table above unless it is to add your name to endorse one of the versions.
I really don't like these charts, and the appearence that they are some sort of a vote. Some of these people listed have not been active here, and should not be listed. Sam Spade 20:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposed version synthesizing from all three above. It needs polishing, though. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I really like that, jossi. That is about what I would expect from Wikipedia. Not in-your-face Catholic Encyclopedia, but not ignoring things like clothes, fire, or soul either. Nice job. Tom Haws 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
reduce for easy reading Humans', or human beings have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans are the only species that build fires, cook their food, and clothe themselves. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
Humans are categorized as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens ( Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes). [5]. Like all primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are distinguished from other animals in many ways and are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas.
The human mind has several distinct attributes and it is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Humans are also noted for their curiosity and their desire to understand and influence the world around them by developing elaborate sciences, technologies, philosophies, and mythologies. Human's natural curiosity also factors into the self-awareness of humans, leading to sel-reflection and the development of distinct personalities. Human religious perspectives often emphasize the existence of a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits.
I have started a new approach at
User:Goethean/Human4. —
goethean
ॐ
23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposed merge (minor); Version 2, 2nd 3rd paragraph, last sentence currently reads: "It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and God, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities." There are two issues with this - bias and highly questionable accuracy of the second half. The cause, or mosre probably causes, of distinct personalities could be debated ad nauseum, but the desire to understand and influence is more properly part of our nature, not a cause. I propose we take Sam's sentence: "Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characteried by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits." which is much more NPOV, without the Jewish/Christian only view in version 2. Follow with a philosophy statement if desired, or end the paragraph there.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
10:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I remember that version. Its my preferred version, far more strongly than the current version or any of the proposed versions. It seems to have been dumped, so I am trying to work with what appears to be a closer-to-consensus version. It needs a little copyedit (thus, hence, etc trimmed.) And yes I meant 3rd, I shouldn't edit at 5 am before coffee, thanks for catching that. KillerChihuahua ?!? 10:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
<<Made some minor changes to current version. If not agreeable, please restore previous. Note that I have done other edits not related to the intro. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to note why I added my name to version 1 above. I have not been involved in this discussion before because I only just stumbled upon it, and I have not read beyond this point into the discussion, so this is just going to be based on my personal first impressions. I like starting off noting the biological point of view. It might not seem neccissary in the context of scientific articles, but when human is linked from philosophical or religious articles, the biological language doesn't fit as well. Secondly, I like the use of the word spiritual in the 1st version rather than religious as n the 4th version. It's a minor preference based on my own associations between religion and things like culture and community, where as I associate spirituality more directly with theology.
Schwael
19:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Goethean, Sam, JoshuaZ, Duncharis. Regarding your recent reverts:
In my experience editing Wikipedia for the last few years (and I am sure in yours as well), I have yet to see an article about which there are competing views, in which a side manages to "win" and the other side to "lose". The four content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT are a very strong framework and able to repel POV pushing, and assist in the development of articles that are factually accurate, verifiable, and encyclopedic. "Edit warriors" always lose in Wikipedia. I reminder that it is best to refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. Remember WP:3RR, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This article made FA for one reason and one reason alone: constant correction. This is probably the hardest article to edit of any on the encyclopedia, because of the periodic interest of diverse persons (all of whom biased by being human). Some people here helped this article to FA status; others forced it from that position by their POV advocacy. Have a look at the article before I started editing it: [11]
I have edited longer than most, and I have learned that the majority is usually wrong. There is a reason the wikipedia is not a democracy, and why NPOV is non-negotiable. Sam Spade 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Insisting on neutrality and policy adherence is not trolling. I've told you guys over and over this has nothing to do w my personal POV. Personally, spiritual evolution is a law of nature. That is however irrelevant when a spiritual POV dominates the article (as it did in the past), or a skeptic POV dominates (as it does today). Both are against the articles best interest, and thus I oppose them.
As far as my seemingly contradictory statements regarding the majority, you are missing the subtleties. According to NPOV, minority views among the public (like secular humanism) should not be over emphasized. Again, according to policy; majority views among editors have no special status. My "the majority is usually wrong" was ment to apply to editors, but can apply to the general public as well. The truth is, wikipedia articles are not about absolute truth. They are about cataloging human knowledge in a neutral, verifiable manner. If that knowledge is wrong (and alot of it is), so be it. Sam Spade 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting that the "Humans, or Human beings, are classified as..." intro be left in place until a better concensus can be achieved. While it is not preferred by the larger majority, it does appear to be the most widely accepted (as a temporary solution if nothing else) at the moment, and this constant rv-edit warring is doing nothing for the discussion. This particular point will not severely affect the impressions of readers, nor will it drastically affect the overall POV of the article — is it something that needs to be settled, yes; is it so imperative that it needs to be "fixed" everytime someone changes it, no. Avedomni 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Silence, what you are saying is that you are unwilling to find a compromise. You coud have said that in one sentence. I am trying to find a way that could accommodate all what is being discussed, with the intention to achieve an intro that will leave us all with the feeling that maybe we are not 100% happy with, biut that we can all live with it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Jossi or Silence is there any section that is better suited for the end of the article? War seems a little depressing. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Last edit of the intro could work! It follows the structure of the article itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
These sections require a lot of work. As these stand now they look more like article stubs about these subject and without relation to "Human". My proposal is to make "War" a subsection of "Government and politics" (as most wars, if not all are related to these) and to re-write these to add value to this article rather than parrot the article about these subjects. The additional benefit of this restructuring is that we will not end the article with "War" but with "Trade and economics". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
To settle this matter once and for all:
Category:Religion and Category:Spirituality are both subcategories of Category:Society, Category:Culture, and Category:Belief (meaning they fit comfortably and uncontroversially into each category)
Ergo Wikipedia's current position is that religion and spirituality is a subcategory of culture/society—whether it's true or not is immaterial, it's still an important aspect, and there's no better way to classify or organize it. To detach it from "culture/society" in human is deeply POVed, because it implies that the article's editors believe that religion is too "special" or profound to possibly be related to things as mundane and earthly as language, science, philosophy, art, literature, music, and emotion, which are all still subcategories of "culture/society". Making "spirit" the exception to the rule and giving it its own top-level section is not only a huge mistake organizationally (and has given Sam Spade license to bloat the section once again with far too much trivial detail, even though we should currently all be working together to trim down sections like that, not overwhelm them with lengthy lists!), but also inconsistent with the current state of all religion articles on Wikipedia, deeply POVed, and just plain pointless. It's just as ridiculous and inconsistent to argue that religion isn't an aspect of culture/society (even if it's more than that as well, it's still an aspect!! putting something in a category or section or attributing a label to it doesn't mean it's only that!) while all the religion and spirituality articles currently claim it is (by being categorized under both society and culture) as it is to argue that humans aren't primates, apes or animals, when the primate, ape and animal articles all clearly and uncontroversially state that humans are all of the above. Why must this article always be the one place you seek to use to further your POV, while ignoring all the rest of Wikipedia? Come on, now. Do we need to take a vote as to whether "spirituality/religion" can be categorized under "society/culture" or not? Perhaps you should propose a Wikipedia-wise RfC to discuss and vote on the matter, since clearly you're trying to upset the very fundamental structure of Wikipedia's treatment of religion and spirituality, by advocating and trying to force on others your view that it is biased to categorize religion/spirituality under society/culture. Yeesh. - Silence 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Where was anything agreed to by "all of us"? There has been long standing consensus for the quadratic FA format, dividing the article into biology, culture, mind and spirit. Sam Spade 17:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
According to an skeptic. Read mysticism, revelation, and Perennial Philosophy.
Once and for all, there is nothing neutral about a skeptical POV. Sam Spade 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing neutral about pandering to a spiritual POV, either.-- 71.112.234.168 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the problem with using "classified as" in the first sentence. Is that incorrect, not-factual, not verifiable, etc? What exactly? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no specific objection to the phrase; I don't really thing it's misleading or biased or anything like that. It just seems a little silly/redundant. " Star Trek: The Next Generation is classified as a science fiction television series..."? My cursory search didn't show any other articles using "are classified as" instead of "are". But if enough people feel it adds something to the article, that's fine with me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the version that seems to have been up for a couple of days now. I really like it. And here is why:
I have a few small reservations with it, like the fact it doesn't say humans are the "only" beings known to wear clothes, etc. But I could live with this version without dispute. Tom Haws 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with these "humans are the only being who" claims is they nearly always have exceptions. Tool usage for example, or cloths ;) Sam Spade 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. We need to say only. So we need to limit the list to Fire, Clothes, and Reading and Writing. Tools are not an only. Tom Haws 15:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This material was in the section Philosophy and self-reflection. It does not belong there, and could not find anothre home for it. So I am placing it here with the hope that editors can refactor it back somehwre else. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
In reviewing 10 completed versions of the “Human” article in 10 languages, I noted the following regarding word count, and mention of religion and spirituality
Of the three featured articles, the only one I can read is the German article [12], which I have translated for your elucidation:
Bottom line is this: the intro is too long, and is out of step with 10 other fully completed articles. In fact, even the incomplete articles and stubs do not mention religion or spiritually in what is likely to become their intros. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens? Thank you. -- Abdull 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Needed in the article, not on the talk page! ;) This is not the first time this complaint has come up, and it is a valid one. Sam Spade 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Its a tiny speck. What I was asking for is a lengthier discussion of idaltu, as well as a discussion of mankinds future evolution. Clearly were not going to be Homo sapiens sapiens forever, are we? Sam Spade 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, my apologies if I'm stating the obvious (for some). I have little to no experience with this article. I feel, though, that there are things seriously wrong with it that are immediately apparent.
To be specific: I feel that the article places massive and undue emphasis on the "spiritual" aspect. The waffling about soul, atma, etc simply does not belong in the intro. In fact, I don't think religion/spirituality belongs in the intro at all.
Similarly, the section on "spirit" is stupidly long. All that stuff belongs in the "religion" or "spirit" article, not in "human".
I've read this talk page, and I see that I'm not saying anything new here. I just thought the views of someone taking a "fresh look" at the article might be welcome.
As it is, the article really really feels like religious propaganda, just barely toeing the line of NPOV. -- Ashenai 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I restored the the previous version as a subsection of Socitey and culture. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
well, I don't see any prima facie difference between the Human biology article and the [human] spirituality article in relation to this page. So, no, it is not absurdly long, any argument that stuff can be taken from the spirituality section to the main article holds just as much for the "biology" and "society" sections. This article has long had a tripartite division body/mind/soul (biology/society/spirituality), and the spirituality section is shortest as it is. So I would emphatically support making the "religion" section h2; of course it is related to society and culture, but then society and culture is also related to biology etc.. It is another question whether the Spirituality section is "waffling", but that doesn't seem to be the case; indeed, it appears to succinctly link the core topics, taking only about a third of either the "biology" or the "society" section. dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Great work, guys, the article is looking much better. For those of you worried about compromise, please consider that sexuality is at least as fundamental a part of humans as spirituality, and still only merits a small subsection.
Anyway, we're definitely in the right ballpark now. Please let's not screw it up. :) -- Ashenai 20:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there some kind of bug w this talk page or what? Will somebody archive it already? Sam Spade 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Either way this page is at about 300k, and needs archiving bad. I'm not sure my laptop is up for it. Sam Spade 22:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I can accept what is there for now. Now lets follow its example, and make sure the article is at least as balanced. Spirituality is not a cultural phenomena, and suggesting so is unacceptably biased. As there are 4 sections for the intro (biology, culture, mind and spirit), let there be 4 sections for the body of the article as well. Sam Spade 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Spirituality is a cultural phenomenon. Geez. A simple proof would be to point out to you communities or cultures that aren't spiritual. I can think of many. -- Cyde Weys 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
if you bother to glance at the archives, you will note that this very discussion was had a year ago, and an incredibly detailed compromise was beaten out with sweat and tears. Of course, it was then torn down and the discussion started over. Yes, the point is that these points of view are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Therefore, it is not a "controversy" as such, but rather a question which aspects you are more interested in. You can ponder matter from a mental pov, or the mind from a material pov, that's both fine and interesting, you just cannot reduce both views to a single blend or compromise (that's unnecessary too, they do fine each on their own). dab (ᛏ) 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Albert Einstein
Sam you keep adding this version of the introduction (the one i pasted above) and referring to it as the compromise version. What exactly do you mean by that? No one has discussed this version as far as i am aware. David D. (Talk) 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Gee, and here I thought frogs had a spirit. Guess not.
"Frog is the common name for amphibians in the order Anura. Adult frogs are characterised by long hind legs, a short body, webbed digits, protruding eyes and the absence of a tail. Most frogs move by jumping or climbing. Most frogs have a semi-aquatic lifestyle. They typically lay their eggs in puddles, ponds or lakes, and their larvae, called tadpoles, have gills and develop in water. Adult frogs follow a carnivorous diet, mostly of arthropods, annelids and gastropods. Frogs are most noticeable through their call, which can be widely heard during the mating season. The distribution of frogs ranges from tropic to subarctic regions, with most of the species found in tropical rainforests. With over 5,000 species described, they are among the most diverse groups of vertebrates. However, their declining numbers are increasingly giving cause for concern. A distinction is often made between frogs and toads on the basis of their appearance, prompted by the convergent adaptation of so-called toads to dry environments; however, this distinction has no taxonomic basis."
•Jim62sch• 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ashenai: nine editors supporting one version and five editors opposed to it is not consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. — goethean ॐ 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
hello? so there are 14 editors involved here at the moment? Has any of you considered that the article you found has been discussed before? voted upon by dozens of editors even? So if you're going to talk of consensus, kindly check the polls in the archives. Of course you are free to refactor the article. However, I am not prepared to give up the long-standing tripartite division, viz. biology, individual and society; or, zoon, zoon logos echon, and zoon politikon, or yet again, humans as seen by zoologists, humans as 'monads' (emotion, spirituality), and humans as seen by each other (society). I think the content of the article is quite fair, but it seems arbitrary to lump spirituality and emotion under "society and culture"; of course it has consequences for society and culture, but by that argument, we could list the entire "society and culture" as a subsection of "biology" in the first place. See in particular Talk:Human/Archive_14 for past discussions of what belongs in the intro, and Talk:Human/Archive3 for extended discussion of taxobox placement (which is fine with me as it is, but it will be interesting for Ashenai to see how difficult it was to etablish consensus that this article should even primarily be about biology, never mind deleting the spirituality aspect altogether). See also Talk:Human/Archive5#Spirituality_and_religion. It's all very well to be bold, but with articles that have histories of intense discussion going back two years, you want to look at its history before you make quick assumptions about 'consensus'. Incidentially, I object to the assumptions that this is a conflict between religious and non-religious editors. It is a simple matter of religion & spirituality being an encyclopedic topic, and if I insist on giving it due prominence here, this is because of its notability in human history and not because of any personal beliefs I may or may not hold. dab (ᛏ) 09:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I checked out what other encyclopedias have to say about Human, and found the following:
Encyclopedia Britannica: a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, ... (rest of article subscription-only)
MSN Encarta: full article here. Reference to spirituality: two words; religion is mentioned under "cultural attributes" once, and under "other definitions" once.
Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia.com have no Human article, only links to anthropology, human evolution, and race, none of which deal with spirituality, obviously.
Every encyclopedia I found that was not specifically and admittedly POV (The Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance) has far less information (both absolutely and relatively speaking) about spirituality under Human than we do. I don't believe this is a coincidence, but if anyone can find a general encyclopedia with a Human article that has more to say about spirituality, please show us! -- Ashenai 11:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This is irrelevant, as these encyclopedias all have different policies from wikipedia. Although I do note that our "bipedal primate" is actually more reductive than Britannica's "culture-bearing primate". This issue has been discussed extensively in the archives. — goethean ॐ 15:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Article says:
There is no need to discuss spirituality in the intro. I don't know particularly that it even needs to be in the article. Some humans are spiritually inclined. Others are not. We are saying what doesn't need to be said. And we are failing to say what needs to be said: that humans are widely defined and described in terms of spirit, soul, or what have you. Or to be more NPOV/NOR compliant, "According to the three largest religions, that together have adherents totalling 70% of the world, humans are beings of soul." Tom Haws 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
To be fully NPOV/NOR compliant, that sentence also needs a footnote to the following:
-- Tom Haws 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought on spiritual discussion- Human beings believe in things- they are animals who symbolise and create: in this way they are inately spiritual and imaginative . Is it necessary to go into details here about religion? The article doen't go into the same detail in Art Music and Literature , for example.
I have just read it right through carefully and thought you might like to have a general impression from someone not involved as a contributor on this subject (or you might not but here it is):
War: should war be treated as an isolated subject? Human aggression and Human cooperation are part of human behaviour.If modern warfare is mentioned the most significant aspect is the threat to humans as a species from ourselves. There are human attempts to stop war eg Hague, Geneva and United Nations Agreements and a growing International Peace Movement which could be mentioned, to give a balanced view.
To someone not american looking up the term HUMAN, there is a strong US bias, both visually (the NASA image is a give away) and in the text ,and most of the references are from American sources .
paula clare 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
A couple of ideas. One white family and one Asian boy with nice imagery on both. I could not find a decent looking group shot with mixed ethnic and age groups represented. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
For reference this has been discussed in recent history. Talk:Human/Archive_19#human_picture and Talk:Human/Archive_20#Image_to_represent_Human. David D. (Talk) 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I find the family picture a little heterosexist. I'm all for a picture of male and female humans, humans of different ethnicities, and humans in various stages of development, but this image encodes an exclusive definition of human relationships. Fishhead64 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
What happened? We had a discussion week ago bout the organization of this article. Suddenly, all of that is thrown away without even a mention beyond a edit summary I insistI insist on three sections, viz. zoon, zoon logos echon, and zoon politikon? What about showing some respect for editors efforts? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
yes, hardly 'unilateral', this was throughly discussed not a week but months and months ago, and I linked to those discussions. Try to take them into account too, I know it's additional bother, but if you only maintain a memory of two weeks' worth of discussion, this talkpage is doomed to going round and round in circles. Glance through the 20 or so archives for an impression of just how redundant they are. Of course both ToC and content still need fine-tuning. Hey, our objective here should be to get back to FA status. This article was once (briefly) featured. What went wrong, how can we get it back there? The talk archives are a pretty exhaustive thesaurus of what people may think is wrong with this article, build your consensus on that, and not on the four or five random people active at a given moment; if you do that, you may beat out a 'consensus' that will predictably collapse as soon as one of the common objections is reiterated yet another time.
dab
(ᛏ)
11:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I found it... •Jim62sch• 11:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
what's wrong with a "society and culture" h2? why does "Political and Economic structure" need to be h2? A h3 "Colonization and Slavery" is a terrible recentism, the section title should treat all of human migration. "Emotion and sexuality" is also a weird combination, what's wrong with a section about the "individual" which can then include spiritual aspects. If sexuality is not treated for its subjective aspects, it belongs under biology. If it is, it overlaps with emotion and spirituality, viz. the subjective aspect. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
See the begining of this page and notice that this article is part of "WikiProject Primates". To me, this would indicate that a separate article on humanity would be a good idea. •Jim62sch• 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my summary was truncated. My understanding is that the word Human in the image is in Urdu, not Arabic so it doesn't matter which is more prevelant. They use the same alphabet, but then so do English and most western European languages, and to call a word "English" when it is in French simply because the letters are all from our usual 26 is absurd. If the word is the same in both languages, that is a different matter. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
can we not just kill the image? It seems extremely arbitrary and silly to illustrate this article by words for "human" in seven random languages, apparently selected for their (to the compiler) 'exotic scripts'. What exactly is the informative value of that? If you are serious about collecting this sort of information, do a proper terms for humans in the world's languages or something. Or see writing system for an overview of writing systems. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Up goes the POV tag again. Sam is it this intro you are objecting too?
Your own preference seems to be this new version.
First where did your preferred version come from since i have not seen a paragraph starting with "
Psychologically the human
mind has several distinct attributes " in any version discussed to date. Second what is your problem with the first intro? Everything is mentioned in the first intro. What is the POV that you object to so much?
David D.
(Talk)
20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam, for your consistent efforts on this. I essentially agree with Sam. The Religious paragraph needs to be separate. But I would remove its confusing second sentence. The paragraph should be about the religious perspective on humans, not about the religiosity of many humans. Tom Haws 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You want me to cite my talk page opinions? Sorry, but I feel free to say what I want (within reason, and on topic of course ;) on the talk page! I can give you plenty of cites for spiritual experts stating that man is 100% spirit btw (look up Mary Baker Eddy and Sri Sankaracharya for a start...) Sam Spade 11:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think this article needs to reflect this intro, as the consensus FA version did. I notice you are ignoring the fact that I cited my opinion in favor of arguing w me and trying to make me look bad? Is your purpose a logical and rigourous one, or merely rhetorical in nature? Sam Spade 11:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is neutral, and all sources are biased. That’s why NPOV involved the citing of verifiable POV's, rather than achieving absolute truth. A neutral article will be one which gives balanced emphasis to all the various POV's.
Oh, and I certainly accept your apology, no hard feelings. My complaint was less specific to you, and more about the general polarisation of this talk page, and the improper motivation of so much of what has been said (even a comment or two of my own, I'll admit :) Sam Spade 12:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
While we all appreciate a fresh eye and new ideas, I sympathize with dab in that many of the new editors on this article fail to appreciate the history involved here, and that some of us have been personally present for months of debate. dab and I were working on this article in September 2004. Yes, that's 18 months of history and continuity. I don't want to be stodgy, but it does get hard to rehash the same points again and again. Dearly valued newer contributors, please try to be respectful of the possibility that some of us (see my user page for a little list) may have considered many times the issues central to this article. That said, my understanding and approach are refining and evolving still. Tom Haws 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus today. There was consensus regarding the FA version. That long standing consensus trumps the majority of views here, at the very least until a new consensus is formed. Sam Spade 11:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Having just re-read Talk:Human/Archive1, it's clear to me that dab's original point is the best summary of why this page will never meet Wikipedia neutrality guidelines.
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)
The term "Homo sapiens" is the term for humans-as-animal. The term "Humanity" stands for what distinguishes us from animals. To have both of these terms redirect to the human page, apart from being simplistic, has made writing this article in a neutral way very difficult. Predictably, this difficulty has been compounded by extreme difference in opinion regarding the essence of humanity, as well as an unwillingness to include the beliefs of others rather than insisting that the article only reflect one's own view. The two concepts, homo sapiens and humanity can be disambiguated within the article, or they can be seperated into two seperate articles. But to define humans on this merged page in strictly biological terms ("humans are bipedal primates") is simply inaccurate. — goethean ॐ 17:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I also agree to split this article into two. one for Homo sapiens sapiens and one for Humanity. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
<< I like this idea a lot. Finally it feels like we are collaborating rather that doing something else. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I've reverted the disambig page for now, because it was a horrible mess of disambig links that redirected back and forth in circles. As I said, I'm not against a forking disambig solution, but I think the transition, if any, should be as seamless as possible. Please let's only have
Human be a disambig page when all the links actually point somewhere. --
Ashenai
19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, here's my current outline: Go ahead and modify this. — goethean ॐ 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Four articles:
I think Human should be the disabmig page. Psychology can be discussed on both, in different ways. On Homo Sapiens it can be discussed from a biological/behaviorist POV (brain chemicals and all that). On Humanity it can be discussed from a spiritual or humanist POV, taking into account freud and jung and other somewhat "philosophical" views. Sam Spade 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The focus of this page seems fine the way it is, but Homo sapien clearly should be an anthropological page, similar to Homo sapiens idaltu.-- Nectar 23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the entire discussion yet, but my suggestion is that the article should be structured almost like a cross between a portal and a long article. It should serve as an introduction to the numerous "human-related" articles on Wikipedia, written summary style, with each section having a link to the main article for that section. As long as there is a summary in this article, the other articles will not be POV forks. I repeat, a POV fork is only when neither article mentions the other article or misrepresents that article's POV. One thing for sure, the "human evolution" box at the bottom should go. I would recommend that it is replaced with an infobox at the top that summarises all the articles linked from the sections. In other words, treat Human as a subject disambiguation and summary page (a meta-data page, if you like), and keep Human (disambiguation) to distinguish between articles and other objects of similar name. Carcharoth 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade - I've started the RfC on Sam Spade based on his reverting and avoidance of discussions on various articles. Feel free to comment, but please remain civil. -- infinity 0 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The two sides are pathological skepticism and NPOV. Sam Spade 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
'[Curiosity]...has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.'
That seems like a bit of a reach- I don't know about fish or bacteria, but plenty of animals have distinct personalities. I have not seen any evidence of 'self-reflection' taking place with my friends' cats, but they all of quite distinct personalities.
Why does the second paragraph say that human beings are especially notable for trying to understand and alter their environment? Our relative ability to do both is notable, but how can we know what other creatures desire? That is not a verifiable statement.
If no one objects, I'm going to change that section to be a bit more grounded. MilesVorkosigan 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Miles. The "logical progression" can work in other directions. Putting it as a one-dimentional, unidirectional progression is only one way of looking at it. Some other POVs are that it works in the opposite direction, or that the different factors may play off of each other in a more organic, non-linear manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You'll note that I didn't put my comment about other animals' personality in the article, of course. It is OR- Just as the current article's claim that curiosity leads to the development of personality. This claim is also, as far as I can see, unverifiable. Do we have any sources for claiming that only humans are curious, only humans change their environments, or that only humans have different personalities? How would you go about constructing an experiment to prove this? MilesVorkosigan 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think instead of the anatomy drawing of a human we should have an actual photo of a human. Since that's how it is for most animal articles. -- FlareNUKE 09:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I request that the NPOV tag be returned to the article. Defining human beings in exclusively biological terms — as the first sentence of this article does — is not neutral. — goethean ॐ 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The article as it stands needs a dispute header, but I thought we had all agreed to splitting the content of this article into homo sapiens and Humanity, with Human as the disambig? Sam Spade 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have nothing else to offer than this ad hominem attack? I don't think my POV is clear at all. Name a specific issue in the article, and ask me my stance. I insist my position regarding content is driven not the promotion of my personal beliefs, but rather is based on neutrality, balance and citations. Do you offer yourself up to such a rigorous inspection? Do you deny that you have been promoting a skeptical POV here? Sam Spade 23:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
How about you go read my replies there, and focus on the matter at hand here. Sam Spade 08:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Silence, can you explain the removal of this image? I think that it is a nice addition, and it was there during the FA status. If you think that it is not useful, it would be nice if you first ask other editors. And, please keep your reply short and to the point. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll begin with the fetus. Nothing against good old Leonardo, but I think a diagram showing at least four stages of a fetus growing inside the womb and maybe the mother giving birth would be more "encyclopedic" than this draw.
I don't like the Inuit woman either, but ok, we have to keep the multicultural stuff, don't we? Maybe a more COLORFUL image would help. This goes for the skeleton, the two young girls and so on. My white toilet has more color than the first six images of the article. : D
The fruits... ok, it's a nice pic, but I think it's just not human enough to make it to the article. How about a HUMAN eating fruit, or any other food? ; )
The brain is ok, but the "human face" showing the "senses" is by far the UGLIEST and SCARIEST thing I've ever seen. And guess what? It's in... BLACK AND WHITE! Yippie!
Adam is not too bad, but I would prefer the Mona Lisa or something like that.
Now we come to Tio Paquete, which is the SECOND UGLIEST thing I've ever seen! How about a PIC of someone with a cute smiling? Or at least a happy face hahaha...
The kiss... black and white... that's a rock, they aren't humans... how about a PIC of a couple sharing a nice french kiss?
Now, a SCULPTURE of a man meditating... A MAN, not a ROCK doing yoga would be better. (I have nothing against paintings or sculptures, but this is the HUMAN article, not the ART article.)
The largest religious gathering is interesting. Plato and Aristotle is excellent. The thinker is good (if you remove the man meditating... having both images is a little redundant). The astronaut is great.
That was the most visually attractive part in the article.
The bomb... it's black and white, but I guess it's an important pic. And if someone changes the pics above with some more colorful ones, it'll be ok.
The Chichicastenango image is not very clear in its purpose... You can't see the trading directly from the picture. I would hardly notice that the image has something to do with trading without the note under it. A trading ship, currency, a stand on a modern supermarket or something like that would be better.
Finally, how about getting the images in a STRICT "left, right, left, right, left" order? That would look nice... : D
Now, if you agree with me, please don't come and say "I agree"... do something! Look for better, nicer pics... we can make this an excellent article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.125.244 ( talk • contribs)
I deleted the following edit from the article page because I got no hits on Google for 'heto-panubutiosis':
...but some diseases like heto-panubutiosis makes it impossible for these people to lose weight. This is a diseases that infects the intestines, keeping them from functioning properly. (i.e for people with this it is impossible for them to relieve themselfs of their own solid waste products.)
This one will require a good solid set of sources to be allowed back into the article. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
To have African looking people as the picture for Homo Sapiens, them being first.
-- Vehgah 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no specfic image suggestion, but perhaps someone that is Nilotic.
-- Vehgah 05:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't wish to open up a complicated discussion, but I would like to explain my removal of "As of 2006, humans are the only beings known to be sentient." If this statement is to be included, it should specify known to whom (with a citation, preferably), since both scientific perspectives and many religious perspectives appear to consider other animals to be sentient as well. Certainly according to the definition ( Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary), it seems quite apparent to me that we're not the only sentient creatures around. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Its been a while since I studied latin but thought man was just a common preconception.
I thought homo is a prefix for different. -- FlareNUKE 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following text from Human#Terminology: "(though terms such as 'man' for humankind are in a sense pejorative, given women's statistical majority in the population of Homo sapiens on earth)". I find the speculation dubious, and would require sourcing at least. Thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the last sentences in the intro reads that humans are one of the few species who have sex for fun. The next sentence starts with "This natural curiosity..." and it seems ambiguous - does it refer to the previous sentence?
It seems to me that the following sentence:
Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythology.
which is right near the top of "Human" - is terribly flawed!
The problem is that although humans seek to explain and manipulate the world around them, the very idea that Religion or Philosophy are also attempts to "manipulate" reeks of irreligiousity... to fix this it's simple to add (or participate) so that manipulation isn't the sine qua non. It seems to me that WINKI is the place where this should be gotten Right!
Phillip 14:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you are saying that Religion itself! is an attempt to explain... this is absurd! You cannot explain Religion as an explanation of anything, only as a (possibly wrongly) belief that one Participates (somehow) with what is holy. I hope that helps explain my position on this and I do enjoy getting to know what it is that you think that you mean... I am still not happy with the sentence, nor - need I say - with your explanation. When one goes into a church, one is not going into a 'school' - these need to be kept somewhat separate, I believe > though you'll certainly find a lot of dogmatic types in either abode...
I'm not a neutral anthropologist, my background is philosophy (so perhaps this page is out of my league..) > Philosophically speaking I guess I'd have to disagree and Even MORE so, that God doesn't intervene (hasn't been observed to) is really quite shocking to me: Didn't he send his only begotten Son to save mankind? Isn't this quite central to Christianity? - At least to my understanding of it -> if you assume that all of this is mythologizing, and the only things that exist are things that you can dissect under a microscope or peer at through a telescope... then since Christ doesn't show up very well either with unaided human vision, microscope or telescope, then perhaps this is your gist >> mine is that this is a matter that has to be viewed from within and for me the Heart and Mind are not Dis-Connected (or rather they tend to be and this CAN BE a problem... > One HAS Knowledge >> One IS religious (having religion is fraut with Bush, a sophist right from the get-go... >> this is what I'd say in answer to your query >> see Erich Fromm fine work on the difference between Having & Being - If you are interested in what's behind my fundamental objection evident in all of the above. yours Phillip 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) ps: thanks for entering into discussion on this, I'm new at the game and think that Human may be a good place to begin...
--
I suggest that you might work up the citations for this edit on this TalkPage first. Is this idea written and clarified in some book by a recognized expert on what human is? We need the citation. -- Rednblu 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean it as a joke; it's curious to me that you don't see the other side of the coin. As regards 'citations' I did mention Erich Fromm (famous Psychologist/HUMANIST) who has a book called "To Have or To BE" ... and a lot of other books too. What I find to be a joke is the sentence that I was trying to fix which put Religion as either (take your choice) manipulation of spiritual things or explanantion of them; so- probably explanation... This leads one to have to say that going into a temple is another way of going to school,to learn about spiritual things... which may have a little truth but I think is fundamentally flawed. Obviously, here we don't care about my personal views (which is fine by me) but about the truth... Of course, truth is known within, not through a telescope or a microscope.
Now, I will either have to go get some quote from Fromm or perhaps somebody will remark that there is a good point in all of this - since (as I indicated)the way the sentence now has been reverted back to read means pretty much that religion is mythology - and this is the crass nonsense that I don't like... being a mere human. Phillip 20:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, a lot of people do make idiots of themselves; there are churches that have a good reason to exist and there are also terrorist cells full of people who go to prayers 5 times a day... In either event, they are opening themselves to something: Goodness in the 1st instance and pure evil in the 2nd.. I hope that this helps; it seems that 'particpation' is voted out from a friendly fellow (see below) so, I'll rest my case... sorry if you found me to be POV. Phillip 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your query, 1st, I only would want to give up if it seemed that I had little to no chance... which is somewhat open at this point; 2ndly: as regards "tool" - I actually was using it as it "was there" - ie: right in the paragraph under comment > that we humans make tools of fire, sticks and stones, etc so as to "manipulate" our environment >>>> BUT ALSO, because Plato uses the metaphor of 'tools' in his investigation into sophistry > that, namely, Sophists make tools of themselves to pursue what they "suppose" is in their interest.... so there were 2 reasons for the tool metaphor, neither of which anyone seemed to have understood >> and I guess I should also mention that phrases such as "sharpen your wits" seem to imply that one's capactities can be improved (spiritual as well as material) through a litte hard work! 3rdly: AS Regards the word "LUMP" - it is derisive, I agree, but that's just my point, the sentence [paragraph] under discussion LUMPS > Science, Philos, Religion & MYTHOLOGY - ALL together as if this made a bit of sense!!!! which was my core objection. I hope this is a bit clearer and I will check back tomorrow to see if continued debate is worthwhile or if the level of discourse seems non-conducive to further debate.... thanks for your encouragement to not give up without at least a little bit of explanantion(s). Phillip 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the Info! - I was sort of getting this impression and have better things to do than try to confince the 'powers that be' that they're missing half the picture. Phillip 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
We do not "seek to ... participate in nature". We particpate in nature (weather affects us, seasons affect us, etc) regardless of whether we seek to participate in these occurances or not. -
UtherSRG
(talk)
17:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You appear to me to be rather Heavy Handed !!! There is alot more than what you realize in your simply putting things back >> Do you realize that you've have just thrown out all of Ethical behavior!
Perhaps you should UNDERSTAND the above commentary thoroughly and discuss this issue for ONE or TWO days > there has been substantial commentary and it seems you haven't got a clue as to what this is discussion about...
I'm putting it BACK. Talk - & discuss, then change. ps: I know that we don't SEEK to participate in Nature, this is the explain and manipulate part, learn how to focus your mind... Phillip 17:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, we do actually seek to participate in natural phenomena QUITE a LOT, and naturally we participate in natural phenomena whether or not we are seeking to do so too > that is: I seek to get some dinner so that I participate in the natural state of digestion; it seems that you imply this as well with your use of "irregardless" above. Phillip 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
ps: I hope nobody changes things any more without understanding the problem > I guess some people don't see what's right there before them, me included, which is why I had to add this on to my earlier...—Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipLundberg ( talk • contribs)
Phillip your current favored version is the following:
I agree with the editor that reverted your edits that using the phrase "latter three" is a bit confusing. Mentioned are "desire to understand", "desire to influence", "seeking to explain" and "seeking to manipulate". I have bolded what I think you are referring to with respect to the latter three. The reason I am confused is that the way I read this, explain and manipulate are the actions of "understand" and influence, consequently, referring to the latter three is an odd turn of phrase since there appear to be only two concepts being discussed. The version that is currently in place reads as follows.
Now that I read the current version, I agree that "explain and manipulate" is better. What I do not understand is the need to include participate. Is this not directly implied by the use of the words understand and influence? Is it possible to explain and manipulate without participating? It seems to be redundant. David D. (Talk) 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
NO, - wrongo > I tried to make it as clear as I possibly could with the awkward phrase, the "latter" three are Philos.,Religion & Mythology - the first of the 4 being,of course, Science >> hence you have totally missed my point too. Though, then to, to understand something,INDEED, we do need to 'participate' in it in an essential way, a way that goes beyond our narrow prejudices. Let me study this a bit more and see if I can't find a better start. Phillip 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
we could call it an End! - because it's now as clear as day - not that the sentence which lumps science, philos, religion and mythology cannot help but be murky as deepest night. Phillip 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
WOOPs > I guess that we don't have a start after all, at least not with UtherSRG who still hasn't at all understood what all of the Hullaballoo is about. You only can only understand the nature of Religion by participating in it - those who don't participate, have nothing but explanations, hence nothing genuinely meaningful. I have been trying over and over and over again to wake others up to the Root Flaw and I can hardly believe that an open minded person could read ALL of the above and still come out and say that we all participate in nature > NATURE OF WHAT ?? - this is the issue, the lumping of the sort of understanding that is always on the outside and exists in the anthropologist/scientist is quite different from the sort of understanding that exists in a mystic. I am beginning to see the point that that Goethe individual was dead-on and I have been simply wasting my time, it's too bad that along with the mystic, we also lose any participation in the 'good' as this, obviously is one thing to one person, something else to another and has now become totally relative to....[fill in the blank with your explanations, the ever-changing edits]. I have no intentions of fixing the problem and leave it for good, bye, Phillip 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
A question from a newcomer to the Human article: why doesn't this article have featured status? It is cleanly, concisely and elegantly written, and provides some of the best coverage of a complex subject that I have seen on Wikipedia. Killdevil 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)