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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basic_human_anatomy_labeled.jpg is used for the Human Anatomy article - maybe it'd be appropriate here, too? Soriak ( talk) 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
These are not mentioned in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.172.240 ( talk) 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How did the cows get a nude Wikipedia photoshoot anyway? Our natural state seems to only exist as a cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.92.84 ( talk) 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"The cows?" What does that refer to?
I do agree with your comment about the illustration. I think that the reason for a drawing being used instead of an actual photograph is that using a picture of a single person would give them a seemingly elevated position, which would conflict with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.150.158 ( talk) 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this section of the article resembles a brief synposis of articles on economics, war, etc, rather than emphasizing what place they have within human behaviour and sociology. I think it needs to be rewritten to convey specifically how humans have evolved these concepts, and what differentiates them from other species in that regard.
Ie. "Because of their technological development, humans have developed far more complex and destructive ways of conflict than any other species..." Something like that.
Does anyone agree?-- 24.85.171.109 10:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do. 211.28.239.27 ( talk) 05:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed 'shock and awe' from the sentence "Techniques have nearly always included hand to hand combat, the use of ranged weapons, propaganda and ethnic cleansing.". The shock and awe page states this doctrine was written in 1996, so it can't have been included before. I might look into this paragraph further. Calamarain 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
When I looked at this article, a section on "Destructive effects on the Environment" was written in a fairly harsh manner, and was also filled with typographical errors. I've tried to balance it out a little while still recognizing the inherent criticism. It could still use some more balance in terms of information, however.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 24 inches, use 24 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 24 inches.
[?]{{fact}}
s.
[?]Thanks, ffm ✎talk 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to use a photo of a human, instead of a drawing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.161.44 ( talk) on 20:27, 30 May 2007
"From AD 1800 to 2000, the human population increased from one to six billion." This is clearly an inaccuracy in the article and should be corrected.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.179.181 ( talk • contribs) 11 June 2007
See World population, figure is correct. TimVickers 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem. Yes, one billion to six billion would be much clearer. TimVickers 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this
History / Evolution
"Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago."
be changed to
"Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 164,000 years ago."
?
This article refers: http://asunews.asu.edu/20071016_earlyhumans
Markp93 13:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
(12/19/2007)
Good, someone already brought it up: 160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.245.211 ( talk) 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(12/19/2007)
Or perhaps older yet, 195,000 years old.
Fossils Push Human Emergence Back to 195,000 Years Ago http://web.utah.edu/unews/releases/05/feb/homosapiens.html
World's oldest human fossils identified http://info.anu.edu.au/ovc/media/Media_Releases/_2005/_February/_170205_kibish.asp
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.245.211 ( talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to discuss the "see also" section, which currently contains two articles about fossils and one about history. Why should the article for "Human" primarily link to fossils, of all things? Wouldn't "see also" links to, say, Man, Woman, Race, People, and other such basic concepts related to "Human" be more appropriate? I mean, when I think about concepts related to "Human", list of fossil sites really isn't very high on the list. -- Ashenai 09:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 64.252.251.159 ( talk) 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)anonymous user, removed an umlaut.
The discovery of evolution should be mentioned in this section because it makes evident our knowledge of conscious existence. We know where we came from and that is a major breakthrough for a species. We are aware of what we really are. -- Antonio.sierra 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe this article should be edited as to only include facts, and remove any information that would be considered religious beliefs or scientific theories, such as creation (religious) or the big bang(scientific). All should be facts, period. ThundertamerS 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If this article were to refer only to factual information, it could not include the evolution theory, as by definition a theory has not been proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumyr ( talk • contribs) 19:34, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Evolution has been proven but changing the envirnments animals live in, such as oxygen concentration and temperature, the animals then develop differently to suit the environment better, which is the purpose of evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddieebo ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Show me your proof that Gravity actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.77.30 ( talk) 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Massive objects attract matter through a fundamental force known as gravity. Its existence is never disputed, a lead sphere of sufficient mass can bend a copper wire for example. As for evolution, it is not a fact; the existence of fact in the scientific realm is debatable. Nearly every scientific axiom is a model that approximates some natural function. To know something as fact would imply that we know the true nature of the universe, and this is simply not so. Evolution is a trend seen in organic life forms over long periods of time, nothing more, nothing less. Its exact implementation (and by exact I mean completly precise) over the course of human history is not well characterized, especially on the molecular level. This does not mean it is false or true, merely that it is definately not fact. Whiteknight521 ( talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
are there or have there ever been homo sapiens of a subspecies other than sapiens?
In the religion section, there are two images, both of Hinduism. Should one be changed to represent another major religion? There are also two Rodin sculptures in this article (The Kiss and The Thinker). Should The Kiss be changed to another image representing love/sexuality? If so, does anyone have any ideas. The market picture under economics is also very hard to make out. Is there a better image that could be used? Calliopejen1 05:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Is the paragraph on the Big Bang and Age of the Universe really relevant to the article on 'Human'. Science has discovered many things, why is this singled out for inclusion (in such a long winded fashion). I think it should be chopped or reduced to a single sentence. Ashmoo 10:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Science and Technology: Description of science Current epistemology does not see knowledge as a discovery but as a (not arbitrary) construction. Thus I would define science as the construction of knowledge through verifiable means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.230.2 ( talk) 13:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have a picture of a human or humans (perhaps images of people from several different races and of different age such as children or elderly people) rather than a black and white picture? Most animal articles use a photograph or at least a life-like colour illustration at the main image. The problem here of course is whether to have a clothed or naked human, but since most people wear clothes in their normal behavior I see no reason not to just have pictures of normal people; if a crab camouflages itself with algae and such debris in it's normal behavior I doubt a picture of it would be deemed unsatisfactory unless it was removed. Of course, an morphological and/or anatomical picture, but that could go further down (though we don't seem to have an anatomy section?) Richard001 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not to be laughed at! Physicology needs editing and I'm only a chemist do i don't really into Phsicology.
if you are a phsycologist it would be very good if you edit the page.
Hey idiot, psychology or physiology?, I didn't see an article combining the two eg. "physichology" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddieebo ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Humans are an eukaryotic species." Should it not be "Humans are a eukaryotic species", since 'eukaryote' is pronounced 'you-karyote'? Aristeaus 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
"Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion."
Shouldn't be mythology understood, in this context, as "ancient religion"? I think there's no reason to separate both here. What do you think? -- Taraborn 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well shouldn't religion be included in mythology, there is the same amount of truth to anciet religions as modern day ones? Why is Jesus and God/Allah (whatever) considered real but the Romans are told that there religion is a myth, or the Aborigines, Egyptians, Greeks, Incas ect...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddieebo ( talk • contribs)
It would be wise for someone to insert a summary about human reproduction. For example, if you go to the wolf page, in article section 1.2 (designated "Courtship and mating") and article section 1.3 (designated "Reproduction"), you can see that there is a very clear outline of wolves natural reproductive behaviour. I believe the same outline should be given for humans natural reproductive behavior.
I believe the information contained in the human article section 2.2 (designated "Life cycle") and article section 3.3 (designated "Love and sexuality"), is insufficient and should be more detailed. I realise that humans are adaptive creatures and depending on their social beliefs and culture their sexual behaviour can change to suit the needs of that society of which they belong to, but there is a natural instinctive reproductive behaviour in humans, as with other animals, which should be addressed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.43.198 ( talk) 01:20, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
{{RFCsci!!reason=Should the Human article contain a section on Dysgenics?}} As the article is protected and I don't have an account, could someone please get rid of this lame "Dysgenics" section? It's clearly racist, pointless in its self-contradiction, and generally a poor contribution to this article. 206.253.219.50 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobel Prize winner William Shockley has put forward the theory that the average individual in a civilization may eventually become weaker through the process of dysgenics. In his book Shockley on Eugenics and Race, Shockley claims that this process occurs because the most intelligent actually reproduce least leaving the population less able to perform higher functions. This effect is presently being observed in almost every country on earth in a process known as the Demographic-economic paradox. Shockley further claims that the high population growth rate of blacks and intermarriage between blacks and other races are likely to cause another global societal collapse, due to their lower IQs (see Race and intelligence).
Demographic studies generally indicate that the more intelligent and better educated women in affluent nations have much lower reproductive rates than the less educated, which has led to concern regarding the future of intelligence in these nations. The most cited work is Vining's 1982 study on the fertility of 2,539 U.S. women aged 25 to 34; the average fertility is correlated at -0.86 in IQ for white women and -0.96 for black women, and indicated a drop in the genotypic average IQ of 1.6 per generation for the white population and 2.4 points per generation for the black population. A 2004 study by Richard Lynn and Marian Van Court returned similar results, with the genotypic decline measuring at 0.9 IQ points per generation for the total sample and 0.75 IQ points for whites only. [1] In contradiction with this finding is the "Flynn Effect" [2], based upon the fact that "performance on IQ tests has increased with each generation". [3] For example with Raven's Progressive Matricies "People tested in 1992 scored 27 points higher on average than people of the same age had scored in 1942". Discussing these effects, Science reporter John Horgan concludes "The Flynn effect highlights the vital (if mysterious) role that culture plays in intelligence, at least as it is measured by IQ tests. It also suggests that, contrary to The Bell Curve, environmental interventions may close the gaps in IQ scores between different groups.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
On an article such as this the onus is on people adding material to show it is an improvement, not the other way around. When people have worked on an article for several years and got it up to GA status, it doesn't require a detailed discussion before material can be removed. There is already a large amount on culture and society. I tend to agree with Tim that it is a bit long in relation to other sections, and I also point out too much of it is on intelligence. A very concise summary of the article, at most half its current length, may be appropriate. It would be advisable to discuss it first and then add it if it has approval. Richard001 03:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with TimVickers that this is at best placing undue weight on this topic. The article probably merits a very brief mention of intelligence and heredity, but little if any of this material is appropriate. If any such material is included it should come from review articles and/or textbooks; it's such a contentious area that anyone trying to write a balanced treatment directly from the work of proponents of each side of the argument will almost inevitably cross the border into original research in order to distill the material into an appropriate concise chunk. For the time being at least, that section should be removed from the article.-- ragesoss 04:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase dharmic religions is an obscure neologism with almost only fringe sources using it and should be removed from articles that do not describe this theoriess or their main proponents. This is not just my personal crusade to reduce use of this phrase in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions. Andries 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I replaced Abrahamic religions with Judaism and Dharmic religions with Hinduism. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism did not exist at 2000BCE. Andries 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article sounds like Here, for it assumes that the reader is not human. Well, it does sound more encyclopedic like that, but still... Marlith T/ C 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps unwittingly, there were some biases in the article with regard to civilization. For instance, there was no mention that some human communities still live successfully as hunter-gatherers and there was a point about stable food sources only existing with agriculture (I doubt the countless other animals would agree).
I will be reading over this article in depth later to see if there is anything else that could be changed.
Humans have only lived in civilizations for the past 10,000 years and it looks like the older way was working out better for us, for more information see works by:
Derrick Jensen,
Daniel Quinn,
John Zerzan. Or see:
anarcho-primitivism
--
Briansaccount
03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sinebot, that's actually incorrect. More and more evidence is being unearthed that show that humans have lived in 'civilised' communities, some of them very advanced, for over 10,000 years. Some people have found evidence that humans have been around in their present evolutionary state for up to 1.8 million years, with other, more intelligent species preceding us. Obviously, this type of information usually causes a stir, so I will refer you to Graham Hancock, John Anthony West, Robert Bauval and John Gordon who have gathered information from many reputable archaeologists, palaeontologists, geologists and many other sources. -- Eat and buy Certified Organic products - they're good for you and good for the environment ( talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The best way to get information about these ancient societies is to make it up yourself, that way your only getting your own fantasies and no one else's. The simple truth is that there is no evidence one way or the other - most archeology is basically guesswork. - However Occam's razor says that all things being equal we were no more than other animals until quite recently - (20K to 7K yr) when we began to store our thoughts as writing and began to evolve into 'sentient' things/beings. Lucien86 ( talk) 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They say Wikipedia can sound a bit impersonal, but it has really out done itself in this sentence: "It is said that humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago ... but they now inhabit every continent....
Who was this article written by and for? Have dogs been trained to read or aliens contacted? I think that when talking about the human species, if at no time else, we may use some personal pronouns!
Bendykst 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
WOW, just give me a minute here.... I've got a lot to write.
- Dren ( talk) 16:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Origin:
Science's goal is finding truth. Which is the same goal as religion. Sadly both periodically fail miserably and evolution is as much of a theory or mythos as creationism, both of which are generally accepted truths. As such, I think it's important to point out these widely accepted scientific and religious beliefs objectively in the section related to the origin of the human species - since that is exactly what they relate to. In addition to that the creationism theory pre-dates the evolutionary theory therefore I find it incredibly odd that this part is left out of the section on origin. Any other modern theories related to the origin of the human species should probably be briefly brushed upon as well.
This section is completely one sided and assumes that all readers accept the theory of evolution. See the beginning of paragraph 4 quoted below.
"Human evolution is characterized by a number of important morphological..."
Maybe human evolution should have a section on it's own or be discussed at this length in a separate article?
- Dren ( talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Examples of Other Orgin of Life Theories
Here is some food for thought for the writers who want to undertake the task of rewriting this section. In the discussion of the human species these views are an inseparable from human history as well as daily human life in modern times. These ideas related to human origin are equally valid beliefs or truths held by the vast majority of humans. No single idea about human origin has been proved. As such, these widely accepted truths absolutely must be touched upon, preferably in a brief and concise manner. Ideally, this will provide a more accurate depiction humans and explain the human species in an encyclopedic and objective manner.
Quote from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm
disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." Quote from: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
There are other theories besides these three, but I think these three distinct theories - which to some left brained people may seem to overlap (and can, depending on personal beliefs) - encompass the basics of human belief on it's own origin. If you become aware of additional theories not encompassed by these three in addition to evolution then please add a brief description and sources here.
- Dren ( talk) 15:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Rise of civilization
Whoever the writers are for this section need a lot more citations. Also, the last paragraph is completely disjointed from the earlier paragraphs. It is not made clear how changes result in globalization which leads to technology, clashes, WMD, environmental destruction and polution ? Is this related to the rise of civilization? Maybe the last paragraph should be reworded.
- Dren ( talk) 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Life Cycle
I removed this...
"This is because of both the relatively large fetal head circumference (for housing the brain) and the mother's relatively narrow pelvis? (a trait required for successful bipedalism, by way of natural selection)."
This simply isn't accurate and the language isn't consistent with the articles cited. Child birthing problems are mostly determined by the shapes of the mothers hips, that is the distance between the hips. Not the narrowness. In a female, the pelvic inlet is round or oval with respect to the heart-shaped pelvic inlet in the male. Dimorphism is discussed in the cited articles, and that is when a female has heart-shaped or hips that are not shaped with the expected norm. Hip shape is one of the main causes of problematic child birthing.
Source: http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/ana/newpage45.htm
- Dren ( talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Spirituality and religion
I don't know why these are grouped together. I can't even begin to touch on this on the level of the scope of humanity as a whole... or I would rewrite it myself. However, this isn't even close to neutral.
For example, the language is highly inappropriate and vague... "spirituality is unique in that it focuses on mystical or supernatural concepts such as [karma] and God." ???
If that's accurate then I'd like to know why "karma" is not in the spirituality article on wiki. Since, it's actually a religious concept and not a spiritual concept. In addition to that there are quite a few organizations that do embody spiritual concepts but don't accept the existence of God. For example, AA has spiritual elements where they look to a higher power (not necessarily God). I think that the language in this section should be expanded, reconsidered, or omitted. With expansion it should probably be confined to another article.
Also, I think this section is highly encyclopedic in canter and tone. Not only is it highly unencyclopedia but it's highly inaccurate, for example... when did religion become equated with spirituality, i.e.
"a majority of humans profess some variety of religious or spiritual belief, some are irreligious, that is lacking or rejecting belief in the supernatural or spiritual"
There are very large portion of irreligious people who are highly spiritual and involved heavily in the supernatural. For example, chaos magicians, "new agers", energy workers, etc...
In short, this whole section on spirituality and religion needs to be confined to one topic or the other, or needs to be completely rewritten. My humble suggestion is that this section is split up into two sections which are brief, encyclopedic, and objective. These topics can be discussed at lengths in their appropriate existing articles in wikipedia.
- Dren ( talk) 14:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Remove the stance "with only small minorities fully heterosexual or homosexual". You can compare the number of fully heterosexals with that of fully homosexuals only if you are a real (and read REAL) idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.34.226 ( talk) 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
While its true that babies don't show any preference for sexual partners (and it would not benefit them evolutionarily to either) i do not think anyone can say for sure that sexuality is learned behaviour. 90% of human males spend most of their time with other males, but they generally (90% of the time) dont get sexual feelings for each other, and i don't think its down to internal logical paradigms. you only have to look at somewhere like the prison system, where a small percentage of the population do find themselves attracted to the same sex. in this case we have a highly aggressive situation with 100% of the population being the same sex, where it is in no way easy to be homosexual, but still a limited few do discover an attraction to the same sex, and whilst it could be argued that some men just want to get theirs regardless, homosexual practice is not widespread in situations of incarceration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.29.243 ( talk) 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the human population continues to undergo evolution, a topic which has gained renewed interest when the new research was published. I added the section in the light of the overwhelming evidence supporting inherent differences and fertility between humans. Gold Nitrate 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Some very primitive human being wrote: "go around. and suck each others balls(:" after the "Culture" subdivision. I couldn't fix it, as the page is protected.
Please correct. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.248.220 ( talk) 06:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if this have been discussed before. I think it is a good idea to replace the top image with a photograph of one human, in his/her natural environment, (like a inside house, out in the nature, in a village etc.). Most other articles about mammals do it this way. The person should also have clothes, because most humen where clothes. You do not have a picture of a naked hermit crab do you? Helpsloose 11:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the same one that the Voyager spacecraft people had to face: What single image would suffice to depict all of humanity, by showing only two individuals. Any image with clothing would put the culture that clothing is from above all other cultures. Humans are not naturally clothed - we have to make/buy our clothes and wear them. This is not natural, but it is a societal norm. But which clothes we make/buy/wear is a societal variable. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Helploose's points are valid. We don't use drawings for other species' articles; using one for this one suggests bias. The fact that no human could possibly represent the whole variety of all humans is beyond irrelevant; we need an example of a human at the top, not a representative or archetype of all humanity, much like our articles on frog or house use an example. The drawing's been used so far only because we couldn't find an adequate replacement; it is not ideal, because drawings provide less information than photographs and are thus less useful to readers.
Please see Talk:Human/Image. - Silence 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read the entire argument, but the image should be changed for many reasons. One, it's a drawing, not a photo. It should be a photo, there's no reason to use a drawing. Two, the humans depicted don't look like real people. They are disproportionate. Three, they are badly drawn.
I think people should stop trying to find one single human to represent all humanity, and all races. Such a person doesn't exist, so we shouldn't try find one. Just use a high quality photo of a human being. Malamockq ( talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This image is inaccurate. It doesn't depict the woman's vulva. It doesn't depict hair other than on the head and eyebrows. It doesn't appear to depict fingernails. All of these are certainly important features of the human body. The lack of this depiction would be acceptable if the humans were located in an environment, or enacting a task, or showing a unique human trait... but they are merely standing naked - this is one of the worst images that could be used.
Alternatives are easy, in fact, a good alternative is on the page itself. Image:Two_young_girls_at_Camp_Christmas_Seals.jpg shows a male and female, it shows interaction, it shows two forms of emotion, it shows clothing, it is an actual photograph... I would change it myself, but I fear that there is reasoning for the current image's use. Otherwise, I will happily change it. -- Teggles ( talk) 09:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I have expressed my opinion. Just one more thing before I move on. I would think that one of the purposes of the first picture is to make people want to read the article. For me the picture of the Russian man or the Indian woman would, while the Pioneer picture does the opposite. (Disclaimer: I happen to dislike Carl Sagan, the main person behind the plaque and I am sure this influences my feelings about it.) Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
While the Pioneer plaque featured at the top of the article is a widely recognized representation of the human form, it has a strong sexist undertone; the male genitals are drawn in full detail, while those of the female are ignored and marginilised. Additionally, the male is giving the greeting while the female is passive. -- Nick, 9:47 EST, 9 December, 2007.
If people want a single image to represent Humans I'd suggest something like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/San_tribesman.jpg it's probably the closest image to a universal ancestor. Although the Pioneer Plaque seems fine to me. -- Boreas Talk 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make trouble. :-) However I am interested in hearing what people think is the purpose of this article. Anyone who would ever read it already knows at least a thousand times more about humans than is written in the article. Thanks. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this edit because it inserted new information in such as a way as to make it look like it was from the source cited at the end of the sentence.
I reverted this edit because it replaced the Pioneer plaque image against consensus without any discussion.
The reversion of his last edit, moving an image from one side of the page to the other, was a by-product of reverting his earlier edits. -- Donald Albury 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the following text of the article Water to be included under the diet headline.
The human body is anywhere from 55% to 78% water depending on body size.[12] To function properly, the body requires between one and seven liters of water per day to avoid dehydration; the precise amount depends on the level of activity, temperature, humidity, and other factors. Most of this is ingested through foods or beverages other than drinking straight water. It is not clear how much water intake is needed by healthy people, though most advocates agree that 8–10 glasses of water (approximately 2 liters) daily is the minimum to maintain proper hydration.[13] Medical literature favors a lower consumption, typically 1 liter of water for an average male, excluding extra requirements due to fluid loss from exercise or warm weather.[14] For those who have healthy kidneys, it is rather difficult to drink too much water, but (especially in warm humid weather and while exercising) it is dangerous to drink too little. People can drink far more water than necessary while exercising, however, putting them at risk of water intoxication (hyperhydration), which can be fatal. The "fact" that a person should consume eight glasses of water per day cannot be traced back to a scientific source.[15] There are other myths such as the effect of water on weight loss and constipation that have been dispelled.[16]
Is it necessary to have an image depicting copulation explicitly (that too with a laptop computer on the bed!)? Such pictures may enhance articles like Love or sex but it seems redundant here. 198.62.10.11 ( talk) 13:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the image was removed with an edit on 20 December 2007 ( [5]), and was never added back. Any reason not to have it? Or, is it even missed? -- LQ ( talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(moved from top of page, customary to add new sections at bottom of talk pages) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basic_human_anatomy_labeled.jpg is used for the Human Anatomy article - maybe it'd be appropriate here, too? Soriak ( talk) 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Physiology and genetics section, I just changed some text about skin color and UV radiation. Before anyone changes it back, please read the Jablonski article that is cited. It was previously used as a citation for a point that it was explicitly arguing against, namely that skin color is an adaptation to protect against UV radiation. - Fenevad ( talk) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone tell me exactly what sagittal upper/lower means in exercise? Ian—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.92.193 ( talk • contribs)
In order to uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
January 1,
2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
Humans are omnivores based on the idea that humans can digest both animal and plant foods, which is true. But there should be included the debate over the idea that omnivorism is best suited for human anatomy. It is not universally accepted that humans are natural omnivores, many scientists believe humans are herbivores, or partial omnivores, that is, animal products without animal meat is best suited for the human diet. I was thinking something like is at omnivore, which I added to that article based on refs from vegetarianism. This other viewpoint desrves brief mention, at least. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I know by now this link title may have some evolution,though an opinion of it may not be advisable,since when at a time i had tried this and now will be for sure my last attempt,it may appear that it realy does matter how long something is until it is coherent meaning a post in reference with it some things take time . I had search for it on wikipedia though no foundation was of it i did though study some other links elsewhere concerning sciences and the likeings of researchings though again no real foundation the most capable research i had found was consisting of water and another was an organism type solution a solution here in my discription is the solutions that were being studied through the sciences,found it very interest though when i attempted to distribute my matter thought wich for some time i've allways had and well may not be a beleife for why i am in contravercy sort of anyway. It is also in my question in why something that realy has'nt been formatted as a true exsistance and calculation would be a format towards the adversery of a lible or a slander who is being condemed if there is'nt a thing of sureness ,would then perhaps be me,if i was the attempt and an attempt was towards me i would then see it as a concerning thought and pehaps a calculation towards the effort,the studies continue through the help and concerns of those that may have some solid answer note the word some has now been protected as being a form of meaning study and or the aprenteces fact leading to i hope that was ok Thank You D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass 3:24 p.m. e.s.t. David George DeLancey ( talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This section needs to revised or, I would suggest, deleted. The problem is that, in discussing early human civilization's development of warfare and empire, the Western Hemisphere is ignored. Besides the bias of ignoring indigenous Americans, this creates a false impression that human history has proceeded along a single time line of progression. Such an observation ignores the rise and fall of empires through warfare and other means throughout human history. A more inclusive history would acknowledge the Meso-American and South American civilizations that flourished without substantial contact with the Eastern Hemisphere. Also, the citations from the Old World are misleading, in that they indicate a general trend toward the use of warfare and the rise of empires as emerging only at a certain point of human social and political evolution. In fact, there is ample evidence of warfare going back to paleolithic times, albeit with much more minimal social and political structure than would be seen later. Even in early historic times, evidence for the trend toward empires also goes back further to at least the Egyptians, Hittites and Akkadians. But to claim it started with any of these groups in the Old World is equally problematic. We don't know enough about other early civilizations -- the Harappans, the Uruk civiliation, the Minoans -- to understand whether the "empire" concept has strong roots in earlier times. As such, I recommend striking this entire discussion as too complicated and not really germane to the main entry in question. Ftjrwrites ( talk) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A christmas day edit lost us half the LEAD and the job was completed with this edit here. I have restored the LEAD as it was on 24th Dec. David D. (Talk) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Where is criticism? 70.89.165.91 ( talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi - 20 or so somewhat major revisions to this article in one day is a lot. Can we agree to leave it alone for a bit, fix spelling mistakes and fine tune this prior to another major bunch of changes? And disucss the changes prior to making major ones? I glanced at these and they seem good for the most part, but they will require going over a bit more when there is time. /Thanks Bob98133 ( talk) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
elephants can paint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying that humans are unique in that they create art is not true since elephants and other great apes also create art - some apparently on their own without instruction from humans, although I'd have to find a reference for that. In any event, this art is sold as art created by these animals, so there is certainly some basis for claiming that it is art. Large whales spontaneously create music, as do a variety of birds. Much of this music is original. It is a human prejudice to exclude this as art simply because humans do not appreciate it as art, but tend to call it nature or learned behavior. However, human art did not originally have the same place in human culture that it currently has. Does this article also say that language and culture are unique to humans? Changing the reference to the creation of art occuring concurrently with the ability to think is also valid. That would mean that no other animal can think, since they don't create art - maybe art causes a difference in thinking but it doesn't turn it on or off. My suggested changes are:
Artistic works have existed for almost as long as humankind, from early pre-historic art to contemporary art. Art is one of the most unusual aspects of human behavior, shared only with elephants [7], other great apes [8] and possibly cetaceans. Human art has only been around for last 35,000 years which might suggest that this was the time when humans changed the way in which they ' think'. citation needed
The page is protected so I cannot edit this trivial minor mistake: the caption on the embryo photograph claims it is "A living human embryo at 5 weeks", however Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg#Summary describes it as a "formalin-fixed specimen" and so it cannot be living, therefore "living" needs to be removed from the caption. 87.127.20.50 ( talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
in the section 'life cycle', the second sentence has a "]" erroneously inserted after the word 'uterus'. i would change it myself but the page is protected.
actually, there are a couple more in the 'war' section. idk why they are put there ok, they must be from someone trying and failing to make the indivdual words into links, but they are everywhere in this article
What I'm trying to convey .. is difficult without ripping out half the text. It argues that one point of validity of us being omnivores is the fact an all meat or all vegetarian diet leads to deficiencies, whilst yes there is a source cited for that, common sense would make anyone slightly curious dig a little deeper. If we turn to Vitamin B12 we will see that folic acid is an equal substitute for B12.
Then, gasp shock horror, if we turn to the folic acid article we then find ..
So that kind of shoots a whole in that whole concept and makes Wiki look diki. :( Perhaps someone could think of a better way to structure it? As a meatatarian I am well aware that vegetarian diets are vastly healthier, and I've read much compelling evidence that eating meat has horrible side effects and hell, I've even read extensively compelling evidence that we are not omnivores at all, but herbivores and like many herbivores have the capacity to consume flesh in times of starvation or need. The arguments as to us being omnivores I've found are pretty piss weak, a simple look at the length of the GI tract of any other omnivores, or carnivores (whom have significantly extensively shorter and straighter GI tracts).
It's just kind of dissapointing that if I, as an avowed meatatarian to the point where I'd eat you, the reader, if it were legal just for farts and giggles, can concede we are herbivorous with optional omnivority given the evidence out there that the only argument put forward that we are omnivores is .. well, so flawed two clicks and you can see that it's impossible for there to be a deficiency. :/ Jachin ( talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request squeezing xenophobia into the psychology section of the human article... Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I find it a somewhat prominent psychological trait of humans and felt that I missed it's inclusion in the article. Anyone for? Anyone against? 217.209.222.7 ( talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The text of mirror test does not agree with this article in the species it lists, there are more than six species and whether pigeons should be listed is highly disputed. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
On the sub section of origin in the section of history, in the sentence that begins with: "Modern humans" are... the article states that Homo sapiens idaltu is the other known subspecies of Homo sapien yet on the Homo (genus) page it states a total of 5 subspecies. Why is there such a discrepancy and why can´t the page be edited to include that information.
I was reading the diet section. It seems there is clear bias there towards vegetarianism. What it currently says is:
and to me this is comparing apples to oranges. The apples of a "planned vegetarian diet" to the "unplanned ombivorous diet". Almost diametrically opposed I'd say. If the same could be said about a planned omnivorus diet I'd say it's a valid comparison, but to me, this seems like it's strongly biased towards vegetarian diet.
What I'd like to ask is if it would be considered bias if we provided similar statistics regarding a planned omnivorous diet versus an unplanned vegetarian diet? Or am I missing something? Jigme Datse ( talk) 09:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've looked through over half a dozen pages I expected would explain the effects of cranial expansion. The cranial expansion of humans have left marked contrast between us and apes, our closest extant primate relatives. By lengthening the duration of our postnatal skull development extraproportionally, it decreased the precociousness of the human infant. By increasing the amount of prenatal skull development extraportionally, it forced a widening of the hips in adult females. By pushing our whole face forward, it decreased snout length, or the distance between the lips and the proboscis supporting cranial aperture. This in turn increased the range of airflow positions lips and a tongue of a given length could articulate, helping vocalization, and forced a nose lengthening to prevent our smothering during meals or sleep and a convexing of the breasts in adult females to avoid smothering breastfeeding infants. By stretching our skulls thin, it made our skulls more susceptible to breakage, and increased our chances of brain damage. By stretching the anchor points of our jaw muscles forward, it decreased our jaw strength but increased our jaw dexterity. This in turn, decreased our potential range of our food sources and ability to inflict damge through biting but helped our ability to articulate vocalization. This isn't OR, but the part on breast convexing was only published in the last few years, by a breastfeeding anthropologist. :)-- Thecurran ( talk) 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Under Human#Diet, we reference a source, http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm , that writes the following three sentences within its abstract:
Citing this source, we write the sentences:
In particular, I find suspect the clause:
I would accept:
But the way we have it now, we rely on a position paper that treats this claim as a foregone conclusion in its abstract, as evidence for this claim that, no matter how true it is, is extraordinary. That's just not scholarly. It's just not cricket. ^_^ I propose the clause's change here because I assume it will hit some raw nerves, that may need time to adjust first. Besides, claiming a vegan diet is sufficient for every stage of life, including lactation, as the source does is nigh on oxymoronic. A vegan diet includes milk from no animal, so how can a breastfeeding infant be vegan? I only assume the intent would be that the infant receives a vegan diet with no milk and the mother lactates without breastfeeding. :)-- Thecurran ( talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"These species share the same common ancestor." This is a silly thing to say about humans and chimpanzees, because all animals share the same common ancestor. (Plus "the same" is redundant with "common" here.) - Silence ( talk) 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
~~CM~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corey manning ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do we have sections on the history and habitat of humans before we've even explained what humans are? Surely "biology" should go first. (Especially since the justification for keeping the lead section of Human so sparse on biological details has always been that we jump so quickly into explaining those details in the first section, Biology.) - Silence ( talk) 03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Consistency
Future writers should bring consistency to use the British spelling of words or the American spelling of words.
e.g. behavior, behaviour
Keep these spelling conventions the same throughout the whole article.
2. Verifiability
A large portion of this article expresses opinions which don't correlate properly with citations, or include weasel words. When citing articles please accurately depict the content inside the article. If you have some great desire to express your opinion then find research or a researcher that backs up your opinion and cite that research or researcher. Please remember that this article is not a place for expressing your own opinions, but a reservoir for original research.
e.g. These are weasel words, in the article on emotion...
"Some people might define it as the..."
"Others define it as...."
Who says it? You say it? Your friends? A researcher? If it's generally accepted then it should not be hard to find the evidence and cite it.
- Dren ( talk) 10:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, with the latest find in a cave in spain of homo sapien remains dating 1.2+ million years in age, along with various German and other European finds over the past decade, and noting in every article in journals on the subject that they would always state that this find changes our view on human life within <insert zone / region here> after our emergence from Africa I started to wonder how old the African evidence must be. I was kind of surprised to read: -
I think there's a bog in the outback toilet here that's older than that. That really surprised me. If that's the case, why are we saying everywhere that we (homo sapiens) emerged from Africa when there's clear evidence pre-dating that by now at least one million years that we emerged from western Europe?
Perhaps a re-write of that section of the article pertaining to our history should include that according to latest finds the Africa theory is swiss cheese right now? 122.107.42.146 ( talk) 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Human race redirects here, but there's no mention of the term in the article. Shouldn't there be? Richard001 ( talk) 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be a real naked human on the picture at the top. -- 212.247.27.141 ( talk) 14:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say on the one hand modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago when later you say some believe modern humans came from the Late Pleistocene. Anatomically modern humans appeared 200,000 but truly modern man, with his special brain, probably did not show up until the Cro Magnon man era, 50,000 BCE or thereabouts. Check out the references in Last Common Ancestor (Wiki). Saying 200,000 - 50,000 for the birthday of modern man would be the balanced approach. 98.196.237.162 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this item not redundant if the same status is not applied to all other Wiki animal entries? Checking Rat, Mouse and Gerbil no Conservation Status is listed. Lion does have a Conservation Status. What is the point in saying Humans are the Least Concern when they are the only animals that actually make up these Barometers. If humans die out it is unlikely that the gerbils will update the Wikipage accordingly. I strongly suggest the Conservation Status for Humans be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.92.28 ( talk) 22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree solely because I find the fact that the conservation status is listed on this page quite humorous. Although I'll admit that you do make a good point.
I'm gonna change it back to "Extinct in the Wild" and no one will be able to stop me for ~1.7 minutes Yashgaroth ( talk) 07:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the conservation status should be returned to the article. It doesn't matter that if we go extinct Wikipedia won't be updated, that's irrelevant. Our status as displayed in the taxobox is perfectly relevant to the article. I'm going to add it back in. 76.87.253.141 ( talk) 20:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why have humans been listed as extinct in the wild? according to wikipedia's own extinct int he wild page that means that they can only be found in "captivity or as a naturalized population outside its historic range" it's simple to see that humans are not in some type of alien zoo, so it can't be the first half of that, and humans are living on every continent of the earth, that would seem to suggest to me that we have expanded beyond our "historic range" am I wrong with this thougth? is there some reasoning to this status? Lyynn 00:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a conservation status for humans? Only humans update the Wiki anyway, its not like a gorilla will try to search "human" on the website. 72.205.55.209 ( talk) 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the World Conservation Union has not given humans a classification. The page Least_Concern says "Humans qualify for this category, although they have not been formally assessed by the IUCN for obvious reasons." In other words, humans don't actually have an official status at all: somebody made it up. Secondly, the categorization is offensive in the sense that it overlooks the starvation and genocide happening in the world and implies that the IUCN cares more about animals than about human beings. I therefore strongly suggest it be deleted. MutantChair ( talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If the US attacks Iran, I think we should move the status to NT, and if they attack China, it should be moved to EN. Canada-kawaii ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Conservation status? What, are we saving this information for a future of sentient cockroaches that will read Wiki that want to see a conservation status? Load of bull. The Fear ( talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the main reason to include the conservation status for humans (and perhaps other unthreatened species) is to provide a baseline with which to compare endangered species: if humans, for all the risks and threats and dangers facing them in the world today, are nevertheless considered of "least concern", it just shows how truly precarious the survival of officially "endangered" species really is. However, as noted above, we should find a source for the status to make sure that it's not just the fabrication of editors here. - Silence ( talk) 03:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why the classification shouldn't include Subfamily: Homininae, Tribe: Hominini and Subtribe: Hominina. I believe it used to list all three. Why was it cut down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmologyProfessor ( talk • contribs)
To my mind it sounds weird and a bit exaggerated to call the sheer human presence for scientific purpose in the low orbit an "inhabitation" of it. People are there for science and research, so they are working, but not really living there. I think, the term "living" would be justified, if they would spent their complete live up there with free time, work, family etc.
Otherwise you could also say, humans were "inhabiting" (parts of) the oceans. (on oil platforms.) To say so would be ridiculous as well. So I think, "presence" is something different than "inhabitation". 84.44.128.59 ( talk) 10:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)anonymous
"The developed world generally aging, with the median age around 40 years (highest in Monaco at 45.1 years). In the developing world the median age is between 15 and 20 years. Life expectancy at birth in Hong Kong, China is 84.8 years for a female and 78.9 for a male, while in Swaziland, primarily because of AIDS, it is 31.3 years for both sexes.[42] While one in five Europeans is 60 years of age or older, only one in twenty Africans is 60 years of age or older.[43] The number of centenarians (humans of age 100 years or older) in the world was estimated by the United Nations at 210,000 in 2002.[44] At least one person, Jeanne Calment, is known to have reached the age of 122 years; higher ages have been claimed but they are not well substantiated. Worldwide, there are 81 men aged 60 or older for every 100 women of that age group, and among the oldest, there are 53 men for every 100 women."
This is a bunch of gibberish and unrelated statistics. could anyone put this into an understandable form? if i have some time i'll check it ou myself.-- 71.97.138.104 ( talk) 10:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basic_human_anatomy_labeled.jpg is used for the Human Anatomy article - maybe it'd be appropriate here, too? Soriak ( talk) 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
These are not mentioned in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.172.240 ( talk) 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How did the cows get a nude Wikipedia photoshoot anyway? Our natural state seems to only exist as a cartoon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.92.84 ( talk) 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"The cows?" What does that refer to?
I do agree with your comment about the illustration. I think that the reason for a drawing being used instead of an actual photograph is that using a picture of a single person would give them a seemingly elevated position, which would conflict with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.150.158 ( talk) 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this section of the article resembles a brief synposis of articles on economics, war, etc, rather than emphasizing what place they have within human behaviour and sociology. I think it needs to be rewritten to convey specifically how humans have evolved these concepts, and what differentiates them from other species in that regard.
Ie. "Because of their technological development, humans have developed far more complex and destructive ways of conflict than any other species..." Something like that.
Does anyone agree?-- 24.85.171.109 10:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do. 211.28.239.27 ( talk) 05:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed 'shock and awe' from the sentence "Techniques have nearly always included hand to hand combat, the use of ranged weapons, propaganda and ethnic cleansing.". The shock and awe page states this doctrine was written in 1996, so it can't have been included before. I might look into this paragraph further. Calamarain 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
When I looked at this article, a section on "Destructive effects on the Environment" was written in a fairly harsh manner, and was also filled with typographical errors. I've tried to balance it out a little while still recognizing the inherent criticism. It could still use some more balance in terms of information, however.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 24 inches, use 24 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 24 inches.
[?]{{fact}}
s.
[?]Thanks, ffm ✎talk 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to use a photo of a human, instead of a drawing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.161.44 ( talk) on 20:27, 30 May 2007
"From AD 1800 to 2000, the human population increased from one to six billion." This is clearly an inaccuracy in the article and should be corrected.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.179.181 ( talk • contribs) 11 June 2007
See World population, figure is correct. TimVickers 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem. Yes, one billion to six billion would be much clearer. TimVickers 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Should this
History / Evolution
"Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago."
be changed to
"Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 164,000 years ago."
?
This article refers: http://asunews.asu.edu/20071016_earlyhumans
Markp93 13:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
(12/19/2007)
Good, someone already brought it up: 160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.245.211 ( talk) 01:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(12/19/2007)
Or perhaps older yet, 195,000 years old.
Fossils Push Human Emergence Back to 195,000 Years Ago http://web.utah.edu/unews/releases/05/feb/homosapiens.html
World's oldest human fossils identified http://info.anu.edu.au/ovc/media/Media_Releases/_2005/_February/_170205_kibish.asp
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.245.211 ( talk) 01:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to discuss the "see also" section, which currently contains two articles about fossils and one about history. Why should the article for "Human" primarily link to fossils, of all things? Wouldn't "see also" links to, say, Man, Woman, Race, People, and other such basic concepts related to "Human" be more appropriate? I mean, when I think about concepts related to "Human", list of fossil sites really isn't very high on the list. -- Ashenai 09:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC) 64.252.251.159 ( talk) 00:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)anonymous user, removed an umlaut.
The discovery of evolution should be mentioned in this section because it makes evident our knowledge of conscious existence. We know where we came from and that is a major breakthrough for a species. We are aware of what we really are. -- Antonio.sierra 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe this article should be edited as to only include facts, and remove any information that would be considered religious beliefs or scientific theories, such as creation (religious) or the big bang(scientific). All should be facts, period. ThundertamerS 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If this article were to refer only to factual information, it could not include the evolution theory, as by definition a theory has not been proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumyr ( talk • contribs) 19:34, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Evolution has been proven but changing the envirnments animals live in, such as oxygen concentration and temperature, the animals then develop differently to suit the environment better, which is the purpose of evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddieebo ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Show me your proof that Gravity actually exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.77.30 ( talk) 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Massive objects attract matter through a fundamental force known as gravity. Its existence is never disputed, a lead sphere of sufficient mass can bend a copper wire for example. As for evolution, it is not a fact; the existence of fact in the scientific realm is debatable. Nearly every scientific axiom is a model that approximates some natural function. To know something as fact would imply that we know the true nature of the universe, and this is simply not so. Evolution is a trend seen in organic life forms over long periods of time, nothing more, nothing less. Its exact implementation (and by exact I mean completly precise) over the course of human history is not well characterized, especially on the molecular level. This does not mean it is false or true, merely that it is definately not fact. Whiteknight521 ( talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
are there or have there ever been homo sapiens of a subspecies other than sapiens?
In the religion section, there are two images, both of Hinduism. Should one be changed to represent another major religion? There are also two Rodin sculptures in this article (The Kiss and The Thinker). Should The Kiss be changed to another image representing love/sexuality? If so, does anyone have any ideas. The market picture under economics is also very hard to make out. Is there a better image that could be used? Calliopejen1 05:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Is the paragraph on the Big Bang and Age of the Universe really relevant to the article on 'Human'. Science has discovered many things, why is this singled out for inclusion (in such a long winded fashion). I think it should be chopped or reduced to a single sentence. Ashmoo 10:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Science and Technology: Description of science Current epistemology does not see knowledge as a discovery but as a (not arbitrary) construction. Thus I would define science as the construction of knowledge through verifiable means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.230.2 ( talk) 13:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we have a picture of a human or humans (perhaps images of people from several different races and of different age such as children or elderly people) rather than a black and white picture? Most animal articles use a photograph or at least a life-like colour illustration at the main image. The problem here of course is whether to have a clothed or naked human, but since most people wear clothes in their normal behavior I see no reason not to just have pictures of normal people; if a crab camouflages itself with algae and such debris in it's normal behavior I doubt a picture of it would be deemed unsatisfactory unless it was removed. Of course, an morphological and/or anatomical picture, but that could go further down (though we don't seem to have an anatomy section?) Richard001 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not to be laughed at! Physicology needs editing and I'm only a chemist do i don't really into Phsicology.
if you are a phsycologist it would be very good if you edit the page.
Hey idiot, psychology or physiology?, I didn't see an article combining the two eg. "physichology" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddieebo ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Humans are an eukaryotic species." Should it not be "Humans are a eukaryotic species", since 'eukaryote' is pronounced 'you-karyote'? Aristeaus 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
"Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion."
Shouldn't be mythology understood, in this context, as "ancient religion"? I think there's no reason to separate both here. What do you think? -- Taraborn 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well shouldn't religion be included in mythology, there is the same amount of truth to anciet religions as modern day ones? Why is Jesus and God/Allah (whatever) considered real but the Romans are told that there religion is a myth, or the Aborigines, Egyptians, Greeks, Incas ect...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddieebo ( talk • contribs)
It would be wise for someone to insert a summary about human reproduction. For example, if you go to the wolf page, in article section 1.2 (designated "Courtship and mating") and article section 1.3 (designated "Reproduction"), you can see that there is a very clear outline of wolves natural reproductive behaviour. I believe the same outline should be given for humans natural reproductive behavior.
I believe the information contained in the human article section 2.2 (designated "Life cycle") and article section 3.3 (designated "Love and sexuality"), is insufficient and should be more detailed. I realise that humans are adaptive creatures and depending on their social beliefs and culture their sexual behaviour can change to suit the needs of that society of which they belong to, but there is a natural instinctive reproductive behaviour in humans, as with other animals, which should be addressed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.43.198 ( talk) 01:20, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
{{RFCsci!!reason=Should the Human article contain a section on Dysgenics?}} As the article is protected and I don't have an account, could someone please get rid of this lame "Dysgenics" section? It's clearly racist, pointless in its self-contradiction, and generally a poor contribution to this article. 206.253.219.50 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobel Prize winner William Shockley has put forward the theory that the average individual in a civilization may eventually become weaker through the process of dysgenics. In his book Shockley on Eugenics and Race, Shockley claims that this process occurs because the most intelligent actually reproduce least leaving the population less able to perform higher functions. This effect is presently being observed in almost every country on earth in a process known as the Demographic-economic paradox. Shockley further claims that the high population growth rate of blacks and intermarriage between blacks and other races are likely to cause another global societal collapse, due to their lower IQs (see Race and intelligence).
Demographic studies generally indicate that the more intelligent and better educated women in affluent nations have much lower reproductive rates than the less educated, which has led to concern regarding the future of intelligence in these nations. The most cited work is Vining's 1982 study on the fertility of 2,539 U.S. women aged 25 to 34; the average fertility is correlated at -0.86 in IQ for white women and -0.96 for black women, and indicated a drop in the genotypic average IQ of 1.6 per generation for the white population and 2.4 points per generation for the black population. A 2004 study by Richard Lynn and Marian Van Court returned similar results, with the genotypic decline measuring at 0.9 IQ points per generation for the total sample and 0.75 IQ points for whites only. [1] In contradiction with this finding is the "Flynn Effect" [2], based upon the fact that "performance on IQ tests has increased with each generation". [3] For example with Raven's Progressive Matricies "People tested in 1992 scored 27 points higher on average than people of the same age had scored in 1942". Discussing these effects, Science reporter John Horgan concludes "The Flynn effect highlights the vital (if mysterious) role that culture plays in intelligence, at least as it is measured by IQ tests. It also suggests that, contrary to The Bell Curve, environmental interventions may close the gaps in IQ scores between different groups.
{{
cite journal}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
On an article such as this the onus is on people adding material to show it is an improvement, not the other way around. When people have worked on an article for several years and got it up to GA status, it doesn't require a detailed discussion before material can be removed. There is already a large amount on culture and society. I tend to agree with Tim that it is a bit long in relation to other sections, and I also point out too much of it is on intelligence. A very concise summary of the article, at most half its current length, may be appropriate. It would be advisable to discuss it first and then add it if it has approval. Richard001 03:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with TimVickers that this is at best placing undue weight on this topic. The article probably merits a very brief mention of intelligence and heredity, but little if any of this material is appropriate. If any such material is included it should come from review articles and/or textbooks; it's such a contentious area that anyone trying to write a balanced treatment directly from the work of proponents of each side of the argument will almost inevitably cross the border into original research in order to distill the material into an appropriate concise chunk. For the time being at least, that section should be removed from the article.-- ragesoss 04:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase dharmic religions is an obscure neologism with almost only fringe sources using it and should be removed from articles that do not describe this theoriess or their main proponents. This is not just my personal crusade to reduce use of this phrase in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions. Andries 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I replaced Abrahamic religions with Judaism and Dharmic religions with Hinduism. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism did not exist at 2000BCE. Andries 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article sounds like Here, for it assumes that the reader is not human. Well, it does sound more encyclopedic like that, but still... Marlith T/ C 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps unwittingly, there were some biases in the article with regard to civilization. For instance, there was no mention that some human communities still live successfully as hunter-gatherers and there was a point about stable food sources only existing with agriculture (I doubt the countless other animals would agree).
I will be reading over this article in depth later to see if there is anything else that could be changed.
Humans have only lived in civilizations for the past 10,000 years and it looks like the older way was working out better for us, for more information see works by:
Derrick Jensen,
Daniel Quinn,
John Zerzan. Or see:
anarcho-primitivism
--
Briansaccount
03:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sinebot, that's actually incorrect. More and more evidence is being unearthed that show that humans have lived in 'civilised' communities, some of them very advanced, for over 10,000 years. Some people have found evidence that humans have been around in their present evolutionary state for up to 1.8 million years, with other, more intelligent species preceding us. Obviously, this type of information usually causes a stir, so I will refer you to Graham Hancock, John Anthony West, Robert Bauval and John Gordon who have gathered information from many reputable archaeologists, palaeontologists, geologists and many other sources. -- Eat and buy Certified Organic products - they're good for you and good for the environment ( talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The best way to get information about these ancient societies is to make it up yourself, that way your only getting your own fantasies and no one else's. The simple truth is that there is no evidence one way or the other - most archeology is basically guesswork. - However Occam's razor says that all things being equal we were no more than other animals until quite recently - (20K to 7K yr) when we began to store our thoughts as writing and began to evolve into 'sentient' things/beings. Lucien86 ( talk) 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
They say Wikipedia can sound a bit impersonal, but it has really out done itself in this sentence: "It is said that humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago ... but they now inhabit every continent....
Who was this article written by and for? Have dogs been trained to read or aliens contacted? I think that when talking about the human species, if at no time else, we may use some personal pronouns!
Bendykst 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
WOW, just give me a minute here.... I've got a lot to write.
- Dren ( talk) 16:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Origin:
Science's goal is finding truth. Which is the same goal as religion. Sadly both periodically fail miserably and evolution is as much of a theory or mythos as creationism, both of which are generally accepted truths. As such, I think it's important to point out these widely accepted scientific and religious beliefs objectively in the section related to the origin of the human species - since that is exactly what they relate to. In addition to that the creationism theory pre-dates the evolutionary theory therefore I find it incredibly odd that this part is left out of the section on origin. Any other modern theories related to the origin of the human species should probably be briefly brushed upon as well.
This section is completely one sided and assumes that all readers accept the theory of evolution. See the beginning of paragraph 4 quoted below.
"Human evolution is characterized by a number of important morphological..."
Maybe human evolution should have a section on it's own or be discussed at this length in a separate article?
- Dren ( talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Examples of Other Orgin of Life Theories
Here is some food for thought for the writers who want to undertake the task of rewriting this section. In the discussion of the human species these views are an inseparable from human history as well as daily human life in modern times. These ideas related to human origin are equally valid beliefs or truths held by the vast majority of humans. No single idea about human origin has been proved. As such, these widely accepted truths absolutely must be touched upon, preferably in a brief and concise manner. Ideally, this will provide a more accurate depiction humans and explain the human species in an encyclopedic and objective manner.
Quote from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm
disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." Quote from: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
There are other theories besides these three, but I think these three distinct theories - which to some left brained people may seem to overlap (and can, depending on personal beliefs) - encompass the basics of human belief on it's own origin. If you become aware of additional theories not encompassed by these three in addition to evolution then please add a brief description and sources here.
- Dren ( talk) 15:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Rise of civilization
Whoever the writers are for this section need a lot more citations. Also, the last paragraph is completely disjointed from the earlier paragraphs. It is not made clear how changes result in globalization which leads to technology, clashes, WMD, environmental destruction and polution ? Is this related to the rise of civilization? Maybe the last paragraph should be reworded.
- Dren ( talk) 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Life Cycle
I removed this...
"This is because of both the relatively large fetal head circumference (for housing the brain) and the mother's relatively narrow pelvis? (a trait required for successful bipedalism, by way of natural selection)."
This simply isn't accurate and the language isn't consistent with the articles cited. Child birthing problems are mostly determined by the shapes of the mothers hips, that is the distance between the hips. Not the narrowness. In a female, the pelvic inlet is round or oval with respect to the heart-shaped pelvic inlet in the male. Dimorphism is discussed in the cited articles, and that is when a female has heart-shaped or hips that are not shaped with the expected norm. Hip shape is one of the main causes of problematic child birthing.
Source: http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/ana/newpage45.htm
- Dren ( talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Spirituality and religion
I don't know why these are grouped together. I can't even begin to touch on this on the level of the scope of humanity as a whole... or I would rewrite it myself. However, this isn't even close to neutral.
For example, the language is highly inappropriate and vague... "spirituality is unique in that it focuses on mystical or supernatural concepts such as [karma] and God." ???
If that's accurate then I'd like to know why "karma" is not in the spirituality article on wiki. Since, it's actually a religious concept and not a spiritual concept. In addition to that there are quite a few organizations that do embody spiritual concepts but don't accept the existence of God. For example, AA has spiritual elements where they look to a higher power (not necessarily God). I think that the language in this section should be expanded, reconsidered, or omitted. With expansion it should probably be confined to another article.
Also, I think this section is highly encyclopedic in canter and tone. Not only is it highly unencyclopedia but it's highly inaccurate, for example... when did religion become equated with spirituality, i.e.
"a majority of humans profess some variety of religious or spiritual belief, some are irreligious, that is lacking or rejecting belief in the supernatural or spiritual"
There are very large portion of irreligious people who are highly spiritual and involved heavily in the supernatural. For example, chaos magicians, "new agers", energy workers, etc...
In short, this whole section on spirituality and religion needs to be confined to one topic or the other, or needs to be completely rewritten. My humble suggestion is that this section is split up into two sections which are brief, encyclopedic, and objective. These topics can be discussed at lengths in their appropriate existing articles in wikipedia.
- Dren ( talk) 14:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Remove the stance "with only small minorities fully heterosexual or homosexual". You can compare the number of fully heterosexals with that of fully homosexuals only if you are a real (and read REAL) idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.34.226 ( talk) 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
While its true that babies don't show any preference for sexual partners (and it would not benefit them evolutionarily to either) i do not think anyone can say for sure that sexuality is learned behaviour. 90% of human males spend most of their time with other males, but they generally (90% of the time) dont get sexual feelings for each other, and i don't think its down to internal logical paradigms. you only have to look at somewhere like the prison system, where a small percentage of the population do find themselves attracted to the same sex. in this case we have a highly aggressive situation with 100% of the population being the same sex, where it is in no way easy to be homosexual, but still a limited few do discover an attraction to the same sex, and whilst it could be argued that some men just want to get theirs regardless, homosexual practice is not widespread in situations of incarceration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.29.243 ( talk) 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the human population continues to undergo evolution, a topic which has gained renewed interest when the new research was published. I added the section in the light of the overwhelming evidence supporting inherent differences and fertility between humans. Gold Nitrate 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Some very primitive human being wrote: "go around. and suck each others balls(:" after the "Culture" subdivision. I couldn't fix it, as the page is protected.
Please correct. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.248.220 ( talk) 06:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if this have been discussed before. I think it is a good idea to replace the top image with a photograph of one human, in his/her natural environment, (like a inside house, out in the nature, in a village etc.). Most other articles about mammals do it this way. The person should also have clothes, because most humen where clothes. You do not have a picture of a naked hermit crab do you? Helpsloose 11:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the same one that the Voyager spacecraft people had to face: What single image would suffice to depict all of humanity, by showing only two individuals. Any image with clothing would put the culture that clothing is from above all other cultures. Humans are not naturally clothed - we have to make/buy our clothes and wear them. This is not natural, but it is a societal norm. But which clothes we make/buy/wear is a societal variable. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Helploose's points are valid. We don't use drawings for other species' articles; using one for this one suggests bias. The fact that no human could possibly represent the whole variety of all humans is beyond irrelevant; we need an example of a human at the top, not a representative or archetype of all humanity, much like our articles on frog or house use an example. The drawing's been used so far only because we couldn't find an adequate replacement; it is not ideal, because drawings provide less information than photographs and are thus less useful to readers.
Please see Talk:Human/Image. - Silence 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read the entire argument, but the image should be changed for many reasons. One, it's a drawing, not a photo. It should be a photo, there's no reason to use a drawing. Two, the humans depicted don't look like real people. They are disproportionate. Three, they are badly drawn.
I think people should stop trying to find one single human to represent all humanity, and all races. Such a person doesn't exist, so we shouldn't try find one. Just use a high quality photo of a human being. Malamockq ( talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This image is inaccurate. It doesn't depict the woman's vulva. It doesn't depict hair other than on the head and eyebrows. It doesn't appear to depict fingernails. All of these are certainly important features of the human body. The lack of this depiction would be acceptable if the humans were located in an environment, or enacting a task, or showing a unique human trait... but they are merely standing naked - this is one of the worst images that could be used.
Alternatives are easy, in fact, a good alternative is on the page itself. Image:Two_young_girls_at_Camp_Christmas_Seals.jpg shows a male and female, it shows interaction, it shows two forms of emotion, it shows clothing, it is an actual photograph... I would change it myself, but I fear that there is reasoning for the current image's use. Otherwise, I will happily change it. -- Teggles ( talk) 09:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I have expressed my opinion. Just one more thing before I move on. I would think that one of the purposes of the first picture is to make people want to read the article. For me the picture of the Russian man or the Indian woman would, while the Pioneer picture does the opposite. (Disclaimer: I happen to dislike Carl Sagan, the main person behind the plaque and I am sure this influences my feelings about it.) Steve Dufour ( talk) 15:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
While the Pioneer plaque featured at the top of the article is a widely recognized representation of the human form, it has a strong sexist undertone; the male genitals are drawn in full detail, while those of the female are ignored and marginilised. Additionally, the male is giving the greeting while the female is passive. -- Nick, 9:47 EST, 9 December, 2007.
If people want a single image to represent Humans I'd suggest something like http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/San_tribesman.jpg it's probably the closest image to a universal ancestor. Although the Pioneer Plaque seems fine to me. -- Boreas Talk 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make trouble. :-) However I am interested in hearing what people think is the purpose of this article. Anyone who would ever read it already knows at least a thousand times more about humans than is written in the article. Thanks. Steve Dufour ( talk) 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this edit because it inserted new information in such as a way as to make it look like it was from the source cited at the end of the sentence.
I reverted this edit because it replaced the Pioneer plaque image against consensus without any discussion.
The reversion of his last edit, moving an image from one side of the page to the other, was a by-product of reverting his earlier edits. -- Donald Albury 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the following text of the article Water to be included under the diet headline.
The human body is anywhere from 55% to 78% water depending on body size.[12] To function properly, the body requires between one and seven liters of water per day to avoid dehydration; the precise amount depends on the level of activity, temperature, humidity, and other factors. Most of this is ingested through foods or beverages other than drinking straight water. It is not clear how much water intake is needed by healthy people, though most advocates agree that 8–10 glasses of water (approximately 2 liters) daily is the minimum to maintain proper hydration.[13] Medical literature favors a lower consumption, typically 1 liter of water for an average male, excluding extra requirements due to fluid loss from exercise or warm weather.[14] For those who have healthy kidneys, it is rather difficult to drink too much water, but (especially in warm humid weather and while exercising) it is dangerous to drink too little. People can drink far more water than necessary while exercising, however, putting them at risk of water intoxication (hyperhydration), which can be fatal. The "fact" that a person should consume eight glasses of water per day cannot be traced back to a scientific source.[15] There are other myths such as the effect of water on weight loss and constipation that have been dispelled.[16]
Is it necessary to have an image depicting copulation explicitly (that too with a laptop computer on the bed!)? Such pictures may enhance articles like Love or sex but it seems redundant here. 198.62.10.11 ( talk) 13:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the image was removed with an edit on 20 December 2007 ( [5]), and was never added back. Any reason not to have it? Or, is it even missed? -- LQ ( talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
(moved from top of page, customary to add new sections at bottom of talk pages) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basic_human_anatomy_labeled.jpg is used for the Human Anatomy article - maybe it'd be appropriate here, too? Soriak ( talk) 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In the Physiology and genetics section, I just changed some text about skin color and UV radiation. Before anyone changes it back, please read the Jablonski article that is cited. It was previously used as a citation for a point that it was explicitly arguing against, namely that skin color is an adaptation to protect against UV radiation. - Fenevad ( talk) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone tell me exactly what sagittal upper/lower means in exercise? Ian—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.92.193 ( talk • contribs)
In order to uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
January 1,
2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
Humans are omnivores based on the idea that humans can digest both animal and plant foods, which is true. But there should be included the debate over the idea that omnivorism is best suited for human anatomy. It is not universally accepted that humans are natural omnivores, many scientists believe humans are herbivores, or partial omnivores, that is, animal products without animal meat is best suited for the human diet. I was thinking something like is at omnivore, which I added to that article based on refs from vegetarianism. This other viewpoint desrves brief mention, at least. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I know by now this link title may have some evolution,though an opinion of it may not be advisable,since when at a time i had tried this and now will be for sure my last attempt,it may appear that it realy does matter how long something is until it is coherent meaning a post in reference with it some things take time . I had search for it on wikipedia though no foundation was of it i did though study some other links elsewhere concerning sciences and the likeings of researchings though again no real foundation the most capable research i had found was consisting of water and another was an organism type solution a solution here in my discription is the solutions that were being studied through the sciences,found it very interest though when i attempted to distribute my matter thought wich for some time i've allways had and well may not be a beleife for why i am in contravercy sort of anyway. It is also in my question in why something that realy has'nt been formatted as a true exsistance and calculation would be a format towards the adversery of a lible or a slander who is being condemed if there is'nt a thing of sureness ,would then perhaps be me,if i was the attempt and an attempt was towards me i would then see it as a concerning thought and pehaps a calculation towards the effort,the studies continue through the help and concerns of those that may have some solid answer note the word some has now been protected as being a form of meaning study and or the aprenteces fact leading to i hope that was ok Thank You D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass 3:24 p.m. e.s.t. David George DeLancey ( talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This section needs to revised or, I would suggest, deleted. The problem is that, in discussing early human civilization's development of warfare and empire, the Western Hemisphere is ignored. Besides the bias of ignoring indigenous Americans, this creates a false impression that human history has proceeded along a single time line of progression. Such an observation ignores the rise and fall of empires through warfare and other means throughout human history. A more inclusive history would acknowledge the Meso-American and South American civilizations that flourished without substantial contact with the Eastern Hemisphere. Also, the citations from the Old World are misleading, in that they indicate a general trend toward the use of warfare and the rise of empires as emerging only at a certain point of human social and political evolution. In fact, there is ample evidence of warfare going back to paleolithic times, albeit with much more minimal social and political structure than would be seen later. Even in early historic times, evidence for the trend toward empires also goes back further to at least the Egyptians, Hittites and Akkadians. But to claim it started with any of these groups in the Old World is equally problematic. We don't know enough about other early civilizations -- the Harappans, the Uruk civiliation, the Minoans -- to understand whether the "empire" concept has strong roots in earlier times. As such, I recommend striking this entire discussion as too complicated and not really germane to the main entry in question. Ftjrwrites ( talk) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A christmas day edit lost us half the LEAD and the job was completed with this edit here. I have restored the LEAD as it was on 24th Dec. David D. (Talk) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Where is criticism? 70.89.165.91 ( talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi - 20 or so somewhat major revisions to this article in one day is a lot. Can we agree to leave it alone for a bit, fix spelling mistakes and fine tune this prior to another major bunch of changes? And disucss the changes prior to making major ones? I glanced at these and they seem good for the most part, but they will require going over a bit more when there is time. /Thanks Bob98133 ( talk) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
elephants can paint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs ( talk • contribs) 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying that humans are unique in that they create art is not true since elephants and other great apes also create art - some apparently on their own without instruction from humans, although I'd have to find a reference for that. In any event, this art is sold as art created by these animals, so there is certainly some basis for claiming that it is art. Large whales spontaneously create music, as do a variety of birds. Much of this music is original. It is a human prejudice to exclude this as art simply because humans do not appreciate it as art, but tend to call it nature or learned behavior. However, human art did not originally have the same place in human culture that it currently has. Does this article also say that language and culture are unique to humans? Changing the reference to the creation of art occuring concurrently with the ability to think is also valid. That would mean that no other animal can think, since they don't create art - maybe art causes a difference in thinking but it doesn't turn it on or off. My suggested changes are:
Artistic works have existed for almost as long as humankind, from early pre-historic art to contemporary art. Art is one of the most unusual aspects of human behavior, shared only with elephants [7], other great apes [8] and possibly cetaceans. Human art has only been around for last 35,000 years which might suggest that this was the time when humans changed the way in which they ' think'. citation needed
The page is protected so I cannot edit this trivial minor mistake: the caption on the embryo photograph claims it is "A living human embryo at 5 weeks", however Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg#Summary describes it as a "formalin-fixed specimen" and so it cannot be living, therefore "living" needs to be removed from the caption. 87.127.20.50 ( talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
in the section 'life cycle', the second sentence has a "]" erroneously inserted after the word 'uterus'. i would change it myself but the page is protected.
actually, there are a couple more in the 'war' section. idk why they are put there ok, they must be from someone trying and failing to make the indivdual words into links, but they are everywhere in this article
What I'm trying to convey .. is difficult without ripping out half the text. It argues that one point of validity of us being omnivores is the fact an all meat or all vegetarian diet leads to deficiencies, whilst yes there is a source cited for that, common sense would make anyone slightly curious dig a little deeper. If we turn to Vitamin B12 we will see that folic acid is an equal substitute for B12.
Then, gasp shock horror, if we turn to the folic acid article we then find ..
So that kind of shoots a whole in that whole concept and makes Wiki look diki. :( Perhaps someone could think of a better way to structure it? As a meatatarian I am well aware that vegetarian diets are vastly healthier, and I've read much compelling evidence that eating meat has horrible side effects and hell, I've even read extensively compelling evidence that we are not omnivores at all, but herbivores and like many herbivores have the capacity to consume flesh in times of starvation or need. The arguments as to us being omnivores I've found are pretty piss weak, a simple look at the length of the GI tract of any other omnivores, or carnivores (whom have significantly extensively shorter and straighter GI tracts).
It's just kind of dissapointing that if I, as an avowed meatatarian to the point where I'd eat you, the reader, if it were legal just for farts and giggles, can concede we are herbivorous with optional omnivority given the evidence out there that the only argument put forward that we are omnivores is .. well, so flawed two clicks and you can see that it's impossible for there to be a deficiency. :/ Jachin ( talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to request squeezing xenophobia into the psychology section of the human article... Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I find it a somewhat prominent psychological trait of humans and felt that I missed it's inclusion in the article. Anyone for? Anyone against? 217.209.222.7 ( talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The text of mirror test does not agree with this article in the species it lists, there are more than six species and whether pigeons should be listed is highly disputed. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
On the sub section of origin in the section of history, in the sentence that begins with: "Modern humans" are... the article states that Homo sapiens idaltu is the other known subspecies of Homo sapien yet on the Homo (genus) page it states a total of 5 subspecies. Why is there such a discrepancy and why can´t the page be edited to include that information.
I was reading the diet section. It seems there is clear bias there towards vegetarianism. What it currently says is:
and to me this is comparing apples to oranges. The apples of a "planned vegetarian diet" to the "unplanned ombivorous diet". Almost diametrically opposed I'd say. If the same could be said about a planned omnivorus diet I'd say it's a valid comparison, but to me, this seems like it's strongly biased towards vegetarian diet.
What I'd like to ask is if it would be considered bias if we provided similar statistics regarding a planned omnivorous diet versus an unplanned vegetarian diet? Or am I missing something? Jigme Datse ( talk) 09:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've looked through over half a dozen pages I expected would explain the effects of cranial expansion. The cranial expansion of humans have left marked contrast between us and apes, our closest extant primate relatives. By lengthening the duration of our postnatal skull development extraproportionally, it decreased the precociousness of the human infant. By increasing the amount of prenatal skull development extraportionally, it forced a widening of the hips in adult females. By pushing our whole face forward, it decreased snout length, or the distance between the lips and the proboscis supporting cranial aperture. This in turn increased the range of airflow positions lips and a tongue of a given length could articulate, helping vocalization, and forced a nose lengthening to prevent our smothering during meals or sleep and a convexing of the breasts in adult females to avoid smothering breastfeeding infants. By stretching our skulls thin, it made our skulls more susceptible to breakage, and increased our chances of brain damage. By stretching the anchor points of our jaw muscles forward, it decreased our jaw strength but increased our jaw dexterity. This in turn, decreased our potential range of our food sources and ability to inflict damge through biting but helped our ability to articulate vocalization. This isn't OR, but the part on breast convexing was only published in the last few years, by a breastfeeding anthropologist. :)-- Thecurran ( talk) 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Under Human#Diet, we reference a source, http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm , that writes the following three sentences within its abstract:
Citing this source, we write the sentences:
In particular, I find suspect the clause:
I would accept:
But the way we have it now, we rely on a position paper that treats this claim as a foregone conclusion in its abstract, as evidence for this claim that, no matter how true it is, is extraordinary. That's just not scholarly. It's just not cricket. ^_^ I propose the clause's change here because I assume it will hit some raw nerves, that may need time to adjust first. Besides, claiming a vegan diet is sufficient for every stage of life, including lactation, as the source does is nigh on oxymoronic. A vegan diet includes milk from no animal, so how can a breastfeeding infant be vegan? I only assume the intent would be that the infant receives a vegan diet with no milk and the mother lactates without breastfeeding. :)-- Thecurran ( talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"These species share the same common ancestor." This is a silly thing to say about humans and chimpanzees, because all animals share the same common ancestor. (Plus "the same" is redundant with "common" here.) - Silence ( talk) 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
~~CM~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corey manning ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do we have sections on the history and habitat of humans before we've even explained what humans are? Surely "biology" should go first. (Especially since the justification for keeping the lead section of Human so sparse on biological details has always been that we jump so quickly into explaining those details in the first section, Biology.) - Silence ( talk) 03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Consistency
Future writers should bring consistency to use the British spelling of words or the American spelling of words.
e.g. behavior, behaviour
Keep these spelling conventions the same throughout the whole article.
2. Verifiability
A large portion of this article expresses opinions which don't correlate properly with citations, or include weasel words. When citing articles please accurately depict the content inside the article. If you have some great desire to express your opinion then find research or a researcher that backs up your opinion and cite that research or researcher. Please remember that this article is not a place for expressing your own opinions, but a reservoir for original research.
e.g. These are weasel words, in the article on emotion...
"Some people might define it as the..."
"Others define it as...."
Who says it? You say it? Your friends? A researcher? If it's generally accepted then it should not be hard to find the evidence and cite it.
- Dren ( talk) 10:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You know, with the latest find in a cave in spain of homo sapien remains dating 1.2+ million years in age, along with various German and other European finds over the past decade, and noting in every article in journals on the subject that they would always state that this find changes our view on human life within <insert zone / region here> after our emergence from Africa I started to wonder how old the African evidence must be. I was kind of surprised to read: -
I think there's a bog in the outback toilet here that's older than that. That really surprised me. If that's the case, why are we saying everywhere that we (homo sapiens) emerged from Africa when there's clear evidence pre-dating that by now at least one million years that we emerged from western Europe?
Perhaps a re-write of that section of the article pertaining to our history should include that according to latest finds the Africa theory is swiss cheese right now? 122.107.42.146 ( talk) 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Human race redirects here, but there's no mention of the term in the article. Shouldn't there be? Richard001 ( talk) 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be a real naked human on the picture at the top. -- 212.247.27.141 ( talk) 14:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It is incorrect to say on the one hand modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago when later you say some believe modern humans came from the Late Pleistocene. Anatomically modern humans appeared 200,000 but truly modern man, with his special brain, probably did not show up until the Cro Magnon man era, 50,000 BCE or thereabouts. Check out the references in Last Common Ancestor (Wiki). Saying 200,000 - 50,000 for the birthday of modern man would be the balanced approach. 98.196.237.162 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this item not redundant if the same status is not applied to all other Wiki animal entries? Checking Rat, Mouse and Gerbil no Conservation Status is listed. Lion does have a Conservation Status. What is the point in saying Humans are the Least Concern when they are the only animals that actually make up these Barometers. If humans die out it is unlikely that the gerbils will update the Wikipage accordingly. I strongly suggest the Conservation Status for Humans be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.92.28 ( talk) 22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree solely because I find the fact that the conservation status is listed on this page quite humorous. Although I'll admit that you do make a good point.
I'm gonna change it back to "Extinct in the Wild" and no one will be able to stop me for ~1.7 minutes Yashgaroth ( talk) 07:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the conservation status should be returned to the article. It doesn't matter that if we go extinct Wikipedia won't be updated, that's irrelevant. Our status as displayed in the taxobox is perfectly relevant to the article. I'm going to add it back in. 76.87.253.141 ( talk) 20:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why have humans been listed as extinct in the wild? according to wikipedia's own extinct int he wild page that means that they can only be found in "captivity or as a naturalized population outside its historic range" it's simple to see that humans are not in some type of alien zoo, so it can't be the first half of that, and humans are living on every continent of the earth, that would seem to suggest to me that we have expanded beyond our "historic range" am I wrong with this thougth? is there some reasoning to this status? Lyynn 00:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a conservation status for humans? Only humans update the Wiki anyway, its not like a gorilla will try to search "human" on the website. 72.205.55.209 ( talk) 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the World Conservation Union has not given humans a classification. The page Least_Concern says "Humans qualify for this category, although they have not been formally assessed by the IUCN for obvious reasons." In other words, humans don't actually have an official status at all: somebody made it up. Secondly, the categorization is offensive in the sense that it overlooks the starvation and genocide happening in the world and implies that the IUCN cares more about animals than about human beings. I therefore strongly suggest it be deleted. MutantChair ( talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If the US attacks Iran, I think we should move the status to NT, and if they attack China, it should be moved to EN. Canada-kawaii ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Conservation status? What, are we saving this information for a future of sentient cockroaches that will read Wiki that want to see a conservation status? Load of bull. The Fear ( talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the main reason to include the conservation status for humans (and perhaps other unthreatened species) is to provide a baseline with which to compare endangered species: if humans, for all the risks and threats and dangers facing them in the world today, are nevertheless considered of "least concern", it just shows how truly precarious the survival of officially "endangered" species really is. However, as noted above, we should find a source for the status to make sure that it's not just the fabrication of editors here. - Silence ( talk) 03:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why the classification shouldn't include Subfamily: Homininae, Tribe: Hominini and Subtribe: Hominina. I believe it used to list all three. Why was it cut down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmologyProfessor ( talk • contribs)
To my mind it sounds weird and a bit exaggerated to call the sheer human presence for scientific purpose in the low orbit an "inhabitation" of it. People are there for science and research, so they are working, but not really living there. I think, the term "living" would be justified, if they would spent their complete live up there with free time, work, family etc.
Otherwise you could also say, humans were "inhabiting" (parts of) the oceans. (on oil platforms.) To say so would be ridiculous as well. So I think, "presence" is something different than "inhabitation". 84.44.128.59 ( talk) 10:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)anonymous
"The developed world generally aging, with the median age around 40 years (highest in Monaco at 45.1 years). In the developing world the median age is between 15 and 20 years. Life expectancy at birth in Hong Kong, China is 84.8 years for a female and 78.9 for a male, while in Swaziland, primarily because of AIDS, it is 31.3 years for both sexes.[42] While one in five Europeans is 60 years of age or older, only one in twenty Africans is 60 years of age or older.[43] The number of centenarians (humans of age 100 years or older) in the world was estimated by the United Nations at 210,000 in 2002.[44] At least one person, Jeanne Calment, is known to have reached the age of 122 years; higher ages have been claimed but they are not well substantiated. Worldwide, there are 81 men aged 60 or older for every 100 women of that age group, and among the oldest, there are 53 men for every 100 women."
This is a bunch of gibberish and unrelated statistics. could anyone put this into an understandable form? if i have some time i'll check it ou myself.-- 71.97.138.104 ( talk) 10:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)