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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Start manual fix of misconfigured auto-archive —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (
talk •
contribs)
Malformed 29 November 2008. Fixing archive. - Silence ( talk) 04:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this passage needs revising: "Menopause is believed to have arisen due to the Grandmother hypothesis, in which it is in the mother's reproductive interest to forego the risks of death from childbirth at older ages in exchange for investing in the viability of her already living offspring.[53]" it seems to say that Menopause came about because of the grandmother hypothesis. My suggestion: "Menopause is believed to have arisen due to the the risks of death from childbirth at older ages, when it is in the mother's reproductive interest to forego additional children of her own in exchange for investing in the viability of her already living offspring. This is know as the Grandmother hypothesis.[53]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.65.5 ( talk) 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that pesos are an important currency and thus, should be listed in the currency section of the human society statistics box. They should mention " peso in various countries" or something like that. It is more relevant than the Canadian Dollar at least. Xicoav ( talk) 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does "non-human" redirect here? And what if a child sees this article? I think the article should have a more appropriate picture. Elasmosaurus ( talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
just shut up im 13 and i dont see that as pornographic!!!!! just leave the man alone airliner!!! :P:P:P:P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.180.216 ( talk) 15:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd propose that non-human be set up as a disambiguation page, including the video game article, Non Human, a link to the Wiktionary definition and links to the articles on non-human apes and non-human intelligences. Mind you, it only has two incoming links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Non-human . -- Cedders tk 08:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Latin, like most other languages, distinguishes humans, men, and women. Homo sapiens means a wise human, not a wise man. The former may sound awkward because human comes from homo, but the latter is just incorrect. - TAKASUGI Shinji ( talk) 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Latin word homo means both human and man so Homo sapiens means both wise man and wise human. 88.112.99.229 ( talk) 09:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea, after all, this article is a well written, amazing piece of work. And, wouldn't it seem smart to feature the page for the human race, like going back to basics? This is a good article and no piece of it feels out of place currently. It's pictures are good and display the human race effectively, with its wars, technology and religion. And it cites every piece of evidence it has, look at that long citation list. Zombielegoman ( talk)
In 2001 scientists found a human skull that was seven million years old placing our species Homo Sapien at atleast 7 million years old. Here are some sources of one this important discovery.
http://www.bananasinpyjamas.com/science/articles/2002/07/15/605620.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2118055.stm
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-12032436,00.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Skull+shocker%3A+a+7-million-year-old+skull+has+scientists+asking+%22who+...-a099554847 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So write the article intended to be read by us, not some aliens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.34.152 ( talk) 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the rude person: we are indeed animals. We have a common ancestry with all animals, all living things ultimately, and we are part of teh same biosphere. We are animals, more specifically apes, and any pretence of separation is just delusional... and a bit silly!
212.139.85.134 (
talk)
20:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Postscriptum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae#Species :-D 212.139.85.134 ( talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
"Around 2,000–3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, India, China and Rome, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires. Influential religions, such as Judaism, originating in the Middle East, and Hinduism, a religious tradition that originated in South Asia, also rose to prominence at this time."
When I add Greece into this, it was denied.. Why is that so?
Considering the Makedonian Empire was before Rome, and Greece was around 6,000 years ago.
Also the belief in the 12 Gods was formed around this time, and then Christianity came into power via the Greeks 2000's years ago (and became the first and only Christian state during the 3rd - 4th centuries). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divius ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
When you talk about Greece I am presuming that you are talking about the Roman Empire, as the Greek city-states had been conquered by the Romans in the early second century. Also the entire Roman Empire had been converted to Christianity (on the surface anyway) by Constantine I in the year 330 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.27.16 ( talk) 08:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The article reads as if written by a human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.138 ( talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC) NOTE: +1 FOR HUMOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.139.175 ( talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think all these things need to be added to the Art, Music & Literature section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.150.104 ( talk) 00:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This article begins as an explanation of the human as a species of primate. However, within the introduction it uses the term "governments" to describe human settlement of Antarctica. That seems inappropriate. While thisargument is absurd because only humans would read this article and would surely know either that fact or the fact their own species was the subject of the article, we could clean up the writing (to the otherwise excellent standards) of the article to meet a more universal standard. 98.169.94.215 ( talk) 04:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
there appears to be multiple pages of the article "Human". Please correct as some of the other pages contain useless information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansta ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence is not entirely true: "Art is one of the most unusual aspects of human behavior and a key distinguishing feature of humans from other species, In fact the only species to do so." Other species have been known to create art. A number of elephants, for example, have been known to create paintings. (See: Elephant_intelligence#Art) Also, I believe hominids other than homo sapiens have created art, in particular Homo neanderthalensis, although I am not entirely sure if that has been definitively established. Voodoo Jobu ( talk) 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This sentence in the article bothers me a bit:
Humans have defined sapience so that only humans are capable of it. I don't think that this round-about way of thinking improves the understanding of the topic, except that humans desire to belong to a unique class or group. My vote would be to remove this sentence from the article, unless there is an explanation or objection. Basically, it just says, 'humans are the only species capable of fitting into this definition of humans' What's that? Tautological thinking? Thanks. Bob98133 ( talk) 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Wobble keeps reverting a section on continued evolition. There has been many papers recently written that refute the belief by social planners and even some scientists that evolution has stopped. I think there should be some commentary before such a vital section, in my view, is reverted again. It seems to conform to the sources section, although some have called it "fringe". The NY times has published the article as fact, and they are certainly not a fringe publication, nor was the sources that the claim was based off of. Verwoerd ( talk) 23:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's see:
I tend to agree with Bob, but this info is already in the article, the last paragraph of the section entitled "Origins" states: "The forces of selection continue to operate on human populations, with evidence that certain regions of the genome display recent positive selection." The NYTimes article by Nicholas Wade is cited. That selection still acts on the human population should not be particularly surprising, selection acts on all organisms. Whether one would consider this "evolution" is a matter of how one defines "evolution". Generally with human differences we are talking about microevolution rather than macroevolution, microevolutionary adaptation to localised environmental conditions is unlikely to produce speciation, whereas major changes due to large environmental change, that could for example lead to mass extinction, would lead to macroevolutionary pressures and more speciation events ( punctuated equilibrium). Selection is a more specific and less misunderstood/misused concept. As for dysgenics, it's massively fringe, is never discussed in serious academic circles, and when the occasional biologist does offer an opinion it's usually to simply state that it's bunk. A few right wing psychologists, who appear to have a very tenuous understanding of biology and genetics spout this nonsense for political reasons, there's no reason to include it here except for pov-pushing by right wing idealogues. Indeed I'd say that a user who chooses a username for the "architect of apartheid" ( Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd) lacks credibility. Alun ( talk) 05:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Evolutionary selection pressure only operates if conditions allow. In the history of any species, there will be long periods of stability where there is no clear selection pressure. Continuing evolution implies selection pressure to overcome poor adaptation to the evolutionary niche of the species, and will manifest itself in unequal reproduction rates between individuals.
In modern human society, nearly all individuals, of all social levels, marry and have children, so there is little or no selection pressure. Concern about alleged low intelligence among most people has been expressed for at least a century, but heavy spending on education was meant to compensate for any genetic shortcomings. People appear to breed largely at random, and this situation could continue for a long time, or change suddenly.
David Erskine 124.179.1.30 ( talk) 09:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Not a sports fan myself until very recently, why sports aren't mentioned, it has to be dug after via culture etc Yosef1987 ( talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Under: Art, music, and literature: Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon based on the three distinct and interrelated organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody. Listening to music is perhaps the most common and universal form of entertainment for humans
Sports, games should be included somewhere Yosef1987 ( talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Cannot find it. Yosef1987 ( talk) 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A continuing evolution section has been proposed to be added as a section after "Rise of Civilization". Is such a section appropiate, whether or not it is in the current form?
Delete this article, it sounds like it was written for an alien. Only an ignorant smitten retard would not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.123.156 ( talk) 15:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Freud may have been influential in the founding of psychology, however, his opinions on human sexuality are generally no longer cited as fact. Ever since the second psychologist (Jung), people have thought Freud's views on this were wrong. It should probably cite someone else in the Love and Sex section. 71.7.107.208 ( talk) 09:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The only thing Freud founded was his own irrational pseudoscience (think secular religion where "psychoanalysts" are the priests and the unconscious is the devil). I'm astonished he's quoted in this otherwise exceptional article. The quote given in the article is completely meaningless yet it brings the quality of the article into question, well to those who are familiar with Freud. If we quote Freud as an expert where does it end? Do we start quoting other pseudoscience advocates? Midnight Gardener ( talk) 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
He is acknowledged as a founder of psychology, but you would be hard pressed to find a psychologist who takes his actual theories seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkrockrunner ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In the discussion of the importance of agriculture to human civilization, there is an image of a person using a horse-driven plow. The caption simply mentions agriculture, not the domestication of animals (which presumably happened later). It seems to me that a better image to illustrate what the caption is about would be one of a human performing an agricultural activity by hand. Does anyone object to the change? LotLE× talk 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I just changed the caption of the horse-plow image to mention "domestication of animals" as well. Those are both early events in human civilization, so illustrating both in the same image isn't bad. I'd still somewhat prefer a picture that was just humans+agriculture though. LotLE× talk 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all clear that humans are at the "top of the food chain," or even that the concept of a food chain has any meaning on a global scale. Owen ( talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I just hid Template:Social Infobox/Human at the top of the Culture section because it was severely messing up the structure of the article. I'm not sure what changed in the template to cause the problem, but it was placing a References section at the top of the Culture section. -- Donald Albury 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Homo sapiens have it's own article separate from Homo sapiens sapiens, since the species isn't (or wasn't) monotypic? For example, if you were to click on "Homo sapiens" in the taxobox of Homo sapiens idaltu, you would be lead to an article which is largely about Homo sapiens sapiens, and this would be rather misleading. No other Wikipedia article I can think of about a species with several sub-species, extant or not, redirects to one particular sub-species. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
what about the key role of entrepreneurship and innovation? Bgoswami ( talk) 07:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This section is poorly written and poorly referenced. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.72.112.159 (
talk)
05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that all but two of the images in the article are either of or by Europeans. It would be nice to broaden the scope a bit. Additionally, all the images, except for the proto-human depict post-Hunter Gathers humans, which is also strange, considering the hunter/gatherer state lasted for 99% of human existence (and still does in some areas). Does any one have any objection to changing some pictures, under this criteria? Ashmoo ( talk) 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following section because a debate on the pros-and-cons of vegetarianism seems out of place in a general article on Humans. At most we should humans eat varied diets, by culture, and some cultures don't eat animal products at all. Preferably with hard data on the percentages.
Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. A pure animal or a pure vegetable diet can lead to deficiency diseases in humans. A pure animal diet, for instance, may lead to scurvy, a vitamin C deficiency, while a pure plant diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency. [1] However, properly planned vegetarian and vegan diets, often in conjunction with B12 supplements, have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life. [2]
Ashmoo ( talk) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the content is important, but it also reads too much like an argument of the pros and cons of different diets. Let me try something more neutral, how about this?
Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. Varying with available food source in regions of habitation, and also varying with cultural and religious norms, human groups have adopted both purely vegetarian and primarily carnivorous diets. In some cases, dietary restrictions in humans can lead to deficiency diseases; however, stable human groups have adapted to many dietary patterns through both genetic specialization and cultural conventions to utilize nutritionally balanced food sources [3]
I'm concerned in part to represent both the widespread patterns of vegetarian diets (both ecologically and culturally motivated) in much of the world and also the almost purely carnivorous diets of some limited groups like the Inuit. LotLE× talk 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Homo sapiens sapiens is a pseudoscientific and plain wrong classification! Our species is simply called Homo sapiens! -- Noirceuil ( talk) 12:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This article contradicts the wikipedia page on Mandarin which states 885 Million total speakers, and is cited, whereas it says in this article says 1.12 Billion, which I think is combining all the Chinese dialects. I think the "Mandarin" part should be removed. Kyprosサマ ( talk) 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we note that humans aren't the only ones on this planet that engage in war? NerdyNSK ( talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This section seems a little misguided. Notably, the 'Science' part. Since Science is a system of knowledge acquistion developed in post-Renaissance Europe it is hardly universal to 'Humans'. I think the section should focus on Tool Use and Technology with a short mention that in the last few hundred years Science has been used to develop technology. Does anyone object to this change? Ashmoo ( talk) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This wiki states that humans are not rated on the Conservation Status thing. But on the Chinese Wikipedia (I do know chinese), it says we are under "least concern" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.213.52 ( talk • contribs)
The Technology section needs a total revamp. I have started by removing some unsourced statements that seem to exhibit a bit of a folk understanding of how technological development occurred.
Improvements in technology are passed from one culture to another. For instance, the cultivation of crops arose in several different locations, but quickly spread to be an almost ubiquitous feature of human life. Similarly, advances in weapons, architecture and metallurgy are quickly disseminated.
I chopped these sentences because: The first sentence is unsourced and probably not true. My personal (also unsourced) understanding is that technology more often gets transmitted across cultures by assimilation of one of the cultures. The statements about the speed of technological dissemination are also unsourced, vague (how quick is quickly? one generation? a hundred thousand years?) and probably untrue, except in modern times. My understanding is that one of the mysteries of stone age archeology is the question of why some stone tool techniques lasted so long, without obvious improvements. The same goes for agriculture. It is not true that once developed it quickly spread.
For instance, in Papua New Guinea and Australia, agriculture has been known for tens of thousands of years, but never became widespread, because other food production techniques were more economic. Ashmoo ( talk) 10:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I also removed this paragraph:
Although such techniques can be passed on by oral tradition, the development of writing, itself a kind of technology, made it possible to pass information from generation to generation and from region to region with greater accuracy. Together, these developments made possible the commencement of civilization and urbanization, with their inherently complex social arrangements. Eventually this led to the institutionalization of the development of new technology, and the associated understanding of the way the world functions. This science now forms a central part of human culture. In recent times, physics and astrophysics have come to play a central role in shaping what is now known as physical cosmology, that is, the understanding of the universe through scientific observation and experiment.
because it is unsourced and totally wrong. Urbanization and civilization are the result of agriculture. Writing is a development of urbanization, not the other way around. I do think that writing and science both need to be mentioned in this section, but the above text is misleading. Ashmoo ( talk) 11:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't have drawings of other organisms where a freely available picture is available, so why do we not have an image of a human being in the infobox? Ase nine 13:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I just want to vote and say I agree with LotLE and Ttiotsw. Cadwaladr ( talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like any of the proposals so far nearly as much as the existing plaque. One danger of nude images is that they risk being overly sexualized/pornographic. Someone was putting up a "erotic photograph" a while back that suffered this (not explicitly pornographic, but suggestive). I don't see that particular problem with either the John&Yoko or the pregnant woman/man/child.
Compositionally and in content, I might like the John&Yoko. However, the fact it is a very specific and well known photo of famous people vastly overemphasizes those individuals for this article. I'm very strongly against using a celebrity picture for this lead. The family w/ pregnant woman gets a few things right. It concerns me, however, that it is yet another image of Europeans (so's the Pioneer, but the drawing form seems to make that concern slightly less). Using that image somewhere later (but not in a way that increased the European skew) might be nice.
In any case, the historic/cultural significance of the Pioneer drawing still makes it much preferable to me. Btw, to Martin Hogbin, I'm honestly and utterly baffled at how you could find the Pioneer drawing "offensive". I can understand (though not concur with) the idea that a photo is automatically better than a drawing, but finding the offensiveness in teh drawing eludes me entirely. LotLE× talk 16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, not directly related to what lead image to choose. I liked the Brazil Indian family image enough that I put it down in the "Habitat" section, and replaced the image of Hong Kong at night. As I explain in edit comments, the Hong Kong picture did not actually portray any humans directly, and only pertains to a recent habitat change of building very large cities. I think this new image works nicely where I placed it. LotLE× talk 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Human/Image. Many of the above points defending the Pioneer plaque have already been rebutted many times before. The plaque is only present because we haven't reached a consensus on a replacement. Not because it's in any way a good or useful image for explaining to readers what humans look like. - Silence ( talk) 13:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Martin I'm not sure I understand your point above: "Am I the only one that finds the plaque offensive?". Are you saying this because you feel it is censored (or self-censored, as pointed out by Sagan)? For me it has historical significance and to worry about it being anatomically correct or informative seems to miss the point of it being in the article. I can't imagine any other picture in there causing fewer arguments. I also think it adds something informative to readers who are not aware of pioneer. And it's one thing that is unique to humans, space technology. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Silence here. Again, I encourage people to review Talk:Human/Image, which does indeed reflect the consensus over several years, and many pages, of discussion about this very topic; I also encourage editors here to review the archives for this very talk page. But, first thing's first. Point-by-point.
One further point about the Pioneer plaque is that it shows humans in a bizarrely unrealistic situation. We a have people with typical western hairstyles, completely naked, presumably greeting outsiders of some kind. Where is this scenario meant to be taking place? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process. Use that. Start an
WP:RFC or something.
Ttiotsw (
talk)
06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This says that "Humans are the only known species known to... develop numerous other technologies." However, Chimpanzees and Gorillas have been known to develop technology as well. I'm taking this out until someone can argue otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.213.52 ( talk • contribs)
I agree with the initial statement. There seems to be a frantic desire amongst some humans to find some property that absolutely distinguishes us from other animals - things like we are the only animals to use tools, fire, etc. The problem is that definitive statements are invariably wrong and, at best, unverifiable. I would be happier with more comparative statements along the lines of, 'humans have developed/used to a greater extent than...'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Poll for it up there
What's continuing evolution, I know evolution it self Yosef1987 ( talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The article says the age of modern humans is 200 thousands years which is unsourced material obviously because no one knows. However the source provided says 130,000 years. So how old are humans? 200 thousand years old, 130 thousand years old, or the millions of other numbers that science has claimed? Wikkidd ( talk) 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The ability to make and use tools has made humans what we are today. The cranial capacity of homo erectus, neanderthalus and sapiens is similar, but we cannot know more than that about their intellectual abilities. The other anatomical differences between these varieties or sub species may not be important, so it is possible that erectus, neanderthalus and sapiens were moving together towards a common future and may have interbred significantly. If sapiens had never appeared, modified forms of erectus and neanderthalus might now be living as we do today.
David Erskine 124.179.1.30 ( talk) 09:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an Australian feature film, “Ten Canoes”, set in the remote past long before white settlement in Australia, and showing the minor dramas of daily life in a tribe in northern Australia. All the actors are Australian Aboriginal.
In some parts of Australia, Aborigines were living a largely traditional way of life just two or three generations ago. Their traditional way of life was presumably much the same as in the Pleistocene.
The film is of course a work of fiction, but is still interesting as attempting to show how we all lived before the last ice age.
David Erskine 124.179.1.30 ( talk) 10:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This discussion was put in the To-Do infobox, which seems just to hide it. If these are things to do, let's just talk about them here.
I think the section on language statistics would be closer to the truth if you add the secondary speaker populations to the primary speaker populations of each language. In doing so you get the following (and I believe more accurate) list: (number of speakers in parentheses)
Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion) English (480 million) Spanish (320 million) Russian (285 million) French (265 million) Hindi/Urdu (250 million) Arabic (221 million) Portuguese (188 million) Bengali (185 million) Japanese (133 million) German (109 million)
<This appears to have been done>
Race and Ethnicity
So this part leaves one hanging, instead of discussing race and ethnicity, why does it prefer to talk about the origins of humans and not anything else about race and ethnicity. It first states that some humans may identify themselves with race or ethnicity, but it never really talks about it. Why is racism being mentioned here anyway?
Origin of Humans
I recently read that the earliest human skull identical to our own is about about 90,000 years old. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article. Also the article should explicitly state the age of our subspecies H. s. sapiens. How old is our subspecies?
I disagree. This sub-species name no longer exists. It was used to distinguish us from homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Neanderthals are now thought to have been a different species - homo nealderthalensis, and we are homo sapiens Orlando098 ( talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we are H. s. sapiens. There is at least one other subspeices: H. s. idaltu. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
During the Pleistocene, homo sapiens lived in a magnificent and dangerous world, and may have regarded mammoths, aurochs and sabre toothed cats as lords of creation. Sapiens might have regarded themselves as just successful survivors, relying on fire and spears. Sapiens cave art suggests that sapiens painted animals that they admired, as well as animals that they ate.
David Erskine 58.165.167.146 ( talk) 10:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} The "Society, government, and politics" section makes the claim that most governments in the world are republics. To make such a claim, it needs to cite a source. Text: "The most common form of government worldwide is a republic, however other examples include..." JSpoons ( talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Well it all depends on HOW you classify "government". If you mean the social organisation and decision making of a a large group of people. then historically most governments have been up until very recently tribal. The very recent trend toward 'nation states' cannot be regarded as a norm, as it is new, plus we have no idea how long it will prevail.
How do qualify/quantify "most" anyway??? Per capita, per year, per unit of government??? I have no idea HOW this should be rewritten (a job for an anthropologist I reckon) but as it stands itis lacking. 212.139.85.134 ( talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
But the nation state is such a brief blip on humanity (within 1.5 centuries and mere decades in many if not most cases); it is plain wrong to suggest that is is a norm.
Richest states constitutional monarchies??? You surely aren't implying that the monarchical dictatorships of the Emirates pass as democracies? Are you also implying that there are only two models of government (republic & monarchy)?
The article is near-sightedly misleading and painfully Eurocentric. The nation state itself is a new development let alone speaking of republics. 88.109.98.246 ( talk) 10:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
So, that makes the 'nation state' the all-time natural choice of all communities??? LOL!
88.111.43.90 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment was added at
17:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC).
This section reads very Eurocentric. Agriculture/civilisation is very new to humanity. They way this section is written implies it is the norm... when clearly it can't be so easily regarded. Hunter-gatherer communities were far more prevalent for the larger part of human history. 212.139.85.134 ( talk) 20:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, can you repeat that in some sort of coherent statement? It sounds like waffle to me. You think that hunter gatherer societies were somehow less complex; sounds like a superiority judgement to me unless you can somehow empirically quantify. IOW= POV Again, agriculture & civilisation is fairly new, and still not universal. The emphasis is plain inaccurate. 88.111.43.90 ( talk) 17:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
"although the validity of the gene expression is not completely understood because human races as distinct like other biological categories such as gender or intelligence quotient is still questionable." This reads like a sop to ever-decreasing minority scientific opinions regarding the viability of "race". 212.139.85.134 ( talk) 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
"Language is closely tied to ritual and religion". This is an utterly pointless and hollow statement. Language is equally tied to all things deemed important to humans. Religion occupies no singularly outstanding prominence. It should be removed. 88.111.185.5 ( talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This whole article is brimming with extraneous references to religion and spirituality. Even the already tenuous section on 'sexuality' gets it crowbarred in. Someone needs to deflea this article BADLY! 88.111.185.5 ( talk) 10:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Start manual fix of misconfigured auto-archive —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (
talk •
contribs)
Malformed 29 November 2008. Fixing archive. - Silence ( talk) 04:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this passage needs revising: "Menopause is believed to have arisen due to the Grandmother hypothesis, in which it is in the mother's reproductive interest to forego the risks of death from childbirth at older ages in exchange for investing in the viability of her already living offspring.[53]" it seems to say that Menopause came about because of the grandmother hypothesis. My suggestion: "Menopause is believed to have arisen due to the the risks of death from childbirth at older ages, when it is in the mother's reproductive interest to forego additional children of her own in exchange for investing in the viability of her already living offspring. This is know as the Grandmother hypothesis.[53]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.65.5 ( talk) 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that pesos are an important currency and thus, should be listed in the currency section of the human society statistics box. They should mention " peso in various countries" or something like that. It is more relevant than the Canadian Dollar at least. Xicoav ( talk) 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does "non-human" redirect here? And what if a child sees this article? I think the article should have a more appropriate picture. Elasmosaurus ( talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
just shut up im 13 and i dont see that as pornographic!!!!! just leave the man alone airliner!!! :P:P:P:P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.180.216 ( talk) 15:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd propose that non-human be set up as a disambiguation page, including the video game article, Non Human, a link to the Wiktionary definition and links to the articles on non-human apes and non-human intelligences. Mind you, it only has two incoming links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Non-human . -- Cedders tk 08:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Latin, like most other languages, distinguishes humans, men, and women. Homo sapiens means a wise human, not a wise man. The former may sound awkward because human comes from homo, but the latter is just incorrect. - TAKASUGI Shinji ( talk) 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Latin word homo means both human and man so Homo sapiens means both wise man and wise human. 88.112.99.229 ( talk) 09:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea, after all, this article is a well written, amazing piece of work. And, wouldn't it seem smart to feature the page for the human race, like going back to basics? This is a good article and no piece of it feels out of place currently. It's pictures are good and display the human race effectively, with its wars, technology and religion. And it cites every piece of evidence it has, look at that long citation list. Zombielegoman ( talk)
In 2001 scientists found a human skull that was seven million years old placing our species Homo Sapien at atleast 7 million years old. Here are some sources of one this important discovery.
http://www.bananasinpyjamas.com/science/articles/2002/07/15/605620.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2118055.stm
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-12032436,00.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Skull+shocker%3A+a+7-million-year-old+skull+has+scientists+asking+%22who+...-a099554847 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek ( talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So write the article intended to be read by us, not some aliens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.34.152 ( talk) 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the rude person: we are indeed animals. We have a common ancestry with all animals, all living things ultimately, and we are part of teh same biosphere. We are animals, more specifically apes, and any pretence of separation is just delusional... and a bit silly!
212.139.85.134 (
talk)
20:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Postscriptum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae#Species :-D 212.139.85.134 ( talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
"Around 2,000–3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, India, China and Rome, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires. Influential religions, such as Judaism, originating in the Middle East, and Hinduism, a religious tradition that originated in South Asia, also rose to prominence at this time."
When I add Greece into this, it was denied.. Why is that so?
Considering the Makedonian Empire was before Rome, and Greece was around 6,000 years ago.
Also the belief in the 12 Gods was formed around this time, and then Christianity came into power via the Greeks 2000's years ago (and became the first and only Christian state during the 3rd - 4th centuries). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divius ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
When you talk about Greece I am presuming that you are talking about the Roman Empire, as the Greek city-states had been conquered by the Romans in the early second century. Also the entire Roman Empire had been converted to Christianity (on the surface anyway) by Constantine I in the year 330 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.27.16 ( talk) 08:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The article reads as if written by a human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.138 ( talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC) NOTE: +1 FOR HUMOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.139.175 ( talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think all these things need to be added to the Art, Music & Literature section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.150.104 ( talk) 00:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This article begins as an explanation of the human as a species of primate. However, within the introduction it uses the term "governments" to describe human settlement of Antarctica. That seems inappropriate. While thisargument is absurd because only humans would read this article and would surely know either that fact or the fact their own species was the subject of the article, we could clean up the writing (to the otherwise excellent standards) of the article to meet a more universal standard. 98.169.94.215 ( talk) 04:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
there appears to be multiple pages of the article "Human". Please correct as some of the other pages contain useless information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansta ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence is not entirely true: "Art is one of the most unusual aspects of human behavior and a key distinguishing feature of humans from other species, In fact the only species to do so." Other species have been known to create art. A number of elephants, for example, have been known to create paintings. (See: Elephant_intelligence#Art) Also, I believe hominids other than homo sapiens have created art, in particular Homo neanderthalensis, although I am not entirely sure if that has been definitively established. Voodoo Jobu ( talk) 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This sentence in the article bothers me a bit:
Humans have defined sapience so that only humans are capable of it. I don't think that this round-about way of thinking improves the understanding of the topic, except that humans desire to belong to a unique class or group. My vote would be to remove this sentence from the article, unless there is an explanation or objection. Basically, it just says, 'humans are the only species capable of fitting into this definition of humans' What's that? Tautological thinking? Thanks. Bob98133 ( talk) 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Wobble keeps reverting a section on continued evolition. There has been many papers recently written that refute the belief by social planners and even some scientists that evolution has stopped. I think there should be some commentary before such a vital section, in my view, is reverted again. It seems to conform to the sources section, although some have called it "fringe". The NY times has published the article as fact, and they are certainly not a fringe publication, nor was the sources that the claim was based off of. Verwoerd ( talk) 23:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's see:
I tend to agree with Bob, but this info is already in the article, the last paragraph of the section entitled "Origins" states: "The forces of selection continue to operate on human populations, with evidence that certain regions of the genome display recent positive selection." The NYTimes article by Nicholas Wade is cited. That selection still acts on the human population should not be particularly surprising, selection acts on all organisms. Whether one would consider this "evolution" is a matter of how one defines "evolution". Generally with human differences we are talking about microevolution rather than macroevolution, microevolutionary adaptation to localised environmental conditions is unlikely to produce speciation, whereas major changes due to large environmental change, that could for example lead to mass extinction, would lead to macroevolutionary pressures and more speciation events ( punctuated equilibrium). Selection is a more specific and less misunderstood/misused concept. As for dysgenics, it's massively fringe, is never discussed in serious academic circles, and when the occasional biologist does offer an opinion it's usually to simply state that it's bunk. A few right wing psychologists, who appear to have a very tenuous understanding of biology and genetics spout this nonsense for political reasons, there's no reason to include it here except for pov-pushing by right wing idealogues. Indeed I'd say that a user who chooses a username for the "architect of apartheid" ( Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd) lacks credibility. Alun ( talk) 05:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Evolutionary selection pressure only operates if conditions allow. In the history of any species, there will be long periods of stability where there is no clear selection pressure. Continuing evolution implies selection pressure to overcome poor adaptation to the evolutionary niche of the species, and will manifest itself in unequal reproduction rates between individuals.
In modern human society, nearly all individuals, of all social levels, marry and have children, so there is little or no selection pressure. Concern about alleged low intelligence among most people has been expressed for at least a century, but heavy spending on education was meant to compensate for any genetic shortcomings. People appear to breed largely at random, and this situation could continue for a long time, or change suddenly.
David Erskine 124.179.1.30 ( talk) 09:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Not a sports fan myself until very recently, why sports aren't mentioned, it has to be dug after via culture etc Yosef1987 ( talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Under: Art, music, and literature: Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon based on the three distinct and interrelated organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody. Listening to music is perhaps the most common and universal form of entertainment for humans
Sports, games should be included somewhere Yosef1987 ( talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Cannot find it. Yosef1987 ( talk) 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A continuing evolution section has been proposed to be added as a section after "Rise of Civilization". Is such a section appropiate, whether or not it is in the current form?
Delete this article, it sounds like it was written for an alien. Only an ignorant smitten retard would not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.123.156 ( talk) 15:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Freud may have been influential in the founding of psychology, however, his opinions on human sexuality are generally no longer cited as fact. Ever since the second psychologist (Jung), people have thought Freud's views on this were wrong. It should probably cite someone else in the Love and Sex section. 71.7.107.208 ( talk) 09:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The only thing Freud founded was his own irrational pseudoscience (think secular religion where "psychoanalysts" are the priests and the unconscious is the devil). I'm astonished he's quoted in this otherwise exceptional article. The quote given in the article is completely meaningless yet it brings the quality of the article into question, well to those who are familiar with Freud. If we quote Freud as an expert where does it end? Do we start quoting other pseudoscience advocates? Midnight Gardener ( talk) 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
He is acknowledged as a founder of psychology, but you would be hard pressed to find a psychologist who takes his actual theories seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkrockrunner ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In the discussion of the importance of agriculture to human civilization, there is an image of a person using a horse-driven plow. The caption simply mentions agriculture, not the domestication of animals (which presumably happened later). It seems to me that a better image to illustrate what the caption is about would be one of a human performing an agricultural activity by hand. Does anyone object to the change? LotLE× talk 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I just changed the caption of the horse-plow image to mention "domestication of animals" as well. Those are both early events in human civilization, so illustrating both in the same image isn't bad. I'd still somewhat prefer a picture that was just humans+agriculture though. LotLE× talk 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all clear that humans are at the "top of the food chain," or even that the concept of a food chain has any meaning on a global scale. Owen ( talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I just hid Template:Social Infobox/Human at the top of the Culture section because it was severely messing up the structure of the article. I'm not sure what changed in the template to cause the problem, but it was placing a References section at the top of the Culture section. -- Donald Albury 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Homo sapiens have it's own article separate from Homo sapiens sapiens, since the species isn't (or wasn't) monotypic? For example, if you were to click on "Homo sapiens" in the taxobox of Homo sapiens idaltu, you would be lead to an article which is largely about Homo sapiens sapiens, and this would be rather misleading. No other Wikipedia article I can think of about a species with several sub-species, extant or not, redirects to one particular sub-species. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
what about the key role of entrepreneurship and innovation? Bgoswami ( talk) 07:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This section is poorly written and poorly referenced. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.72.112.159 (
talk)
05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I notice that all but two of the images in the article are either of or by Europeans. It would be nice to broaden the scope a bit. Additionally, all the images, except for the proto-human depict post-Hunter Gathers humans, which is also strange, considering the hunter/gatherer state lasted for 99% of human existence (and still does in some areas). Does any one have any objection to changing some pictures, under this criteria? Ashmoo ( talk) 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following section because a debate on the pros-and-cons of vegetarianism seems out of place in a general article on Humans. At most we should humans eat varied diets, by culture, and some cultures don't eat animal products at all. Preferably with hard data on the percentages.
Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. A pure animal or a pure vegetable diet can lead to deficiency diseases in humans. A pure animal diet, for instance, may lead to scurvy, a vitamin C deficiency, while a pure plant diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency. [1] However, properly planned vegetarian and vegan diets, often in conjunction with B12 supplements, have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life. [2]
Ashmoo ( talk) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the content is important, but it also reads too much like an argument of the pros and cons of different diets. Let me try something more neutral, how about this?
Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. Varying with available food source in regions of habitation, and also varying with cultural and religious norms, human groups have adopted both purely vegetarian and primarily carnivorous diets. In some cases, dietary restrictions in humans can lead to deficiency diseases; however, stable human groups have adapted to many dietary patterns through both genetic specialization and cultural conventions to utilize nutritionally balanced food sources [3]
I'm concerned in part to represent both the widespread patterns of vegetarian diets (both ecologically and culturally motivated) in much of the world and also the almost purely carnivorous diets of some limited groups like the Inuit. LotLE× talk 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Homo sapiens sapiens is a pseudoscientific and plain wrong classification! Our species is simply called Homo sapiens! -- Noirceuil ( talk) 12:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
This article contradicts the wikipedia page on Mandarin which states 885 Million total speakers, and is cited, whereas it says in this article says 1.12 Billion, which I think is combining all the Chinese dialects. I think the "Mandarin" part should be removed. Kyprosサマ ( talk) 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we note that humans aren't the only ones on this planet that engage in war? NerdyNSK ( talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This section seems a little misguided. Notably, the 'Science' part. Since Science is a system of knowledge acquistion developed in post-Renaissance Europe it is hardly universal to 'Humans'. I think the section should focus on Tool Use and Technology with a short mention that in the last few hundred years Science has been used to develop technology. Does anyone object to this change? Ashmoo ( talk) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This wiki states that humans are not rated on the Conservation Status thing. But on the Chinese Wikipedia (I do know chinese), it says we are under "least concern" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.213.52 ( talk • contribs)
The Technology section needs a total revamp. I have started by removing some unsourced statements that seem to exhibit a bit of a folk understanding of how technological development occurred.
Improvements in technology are passed from one culture to another. For instance, the cultivation of crops arose in several different locations, but quickly spread to be an almost ubiquitous feature of human life. Similarly, advances in weapons, architecture and metallurgy are quickly disseminated.
I chopped these sentences because: The first sentence is unsourced and probably not true. My personal (also unsourced) understanding is that technology more often gets transmitted across cultures by assimilation of one of the cultures. The statements about the speed of technological dissemination are also unsourced, vague (how quick is quickly? one generation? a hundred thousand years?) and probably untrue, except in modern times. My understanding is that one of the mysteries of stone age archeology is the question of why some stone tool techniques lasted so long, without obvious improvements. The same goes for agriculture. It is not true that once developed it quickly spread.
For instance, in Papua New Guinea and Australia, agriculture has been known for tens of thousands of years, but never became widespread, because other food production techniques were more economic. Ashmoo ( talk) 10:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I also removed this paragraph:
Although such techniques can be passed on by oral tradition, the development of writing, itself a kind of technology, made it possible to pass information from generation to generation and from region to region with greater accuracy. Together, these developments made possible the commencement of civilization and urbanization, with their inherently complex social arrangements. Eventually this led to the institutionalization of the development of new technology, and the associated understanding of the way the world functions. This science now forms a central part of human culture. In recent times, physics and astrophysics have come to play a central role in shaping what is now known as physical cosmology, that is, the understanding of the universe through scientific observation and experiment.
because it is unsourced and totally wrong. Urbanization and civilization are the result of agriculture. Writing is a development of urbanization, not the other way around. I do think that writing and science both need to be mentioned in this section, but the above text is misleading. Ashmoo ( talk) 11:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't have drawings of other organisms where a freely available picture is available, so why do we not have an image of a human being in the infobox? Ase nine 13:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I just want to vote and say I agree with LotLE and Ttiotsw. Cadwaladr ( talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like any of the proposals so far nearly as much as the existing plaque. One danger of nude images is that they risk being overly sexualized/pornographic. Someone was putting up a "erotic photograph" a while back that suffered this (not explicitly pornographic, but suggestive). I don't see that particular problem with either the John&Yoko or the pregnant woman/man/child.
Compositionally and in content, I might like the John&Yoko. However, the fact it is a very specific and well known photo of famous people vastly overemphasizes those individuals for this article. I'm very strongly against using a celebrity picture for this lead. The family w/ pregnant woman gets a few things right. It concerns me, however, that it is yet another image of Europeans (so's the Pioneer, but the drawing form seems to make that concern slightly less). Using that image somewhere later (but not in a way that increased the European skew) might be nice.
In any case, the historic/cultural significance of the Pioneer drawing still makes it much preferable to me. Btw, to Martin Hogbin, I'm honestly and utterly baffled at how you could find the Pioneer drawing "offensive". I can understand (though not concur with) the idea that a photo is automatically better than a drawing, but finding the offensiveness in teh drawing eludes me entirely. LotLE× talk 16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, not directly related to what lead image to choose. I liked the Brazil Indian family image enough that I put it down in the "Habitat" section, and replaced the image of Hong Kong at night. As I explain in edit comments, the Hong Kong picture did not actually portray any humans directly, and only pertains to a recent habitat change of building very large cities. I think this new image works nicely where I placed it. LotLE× talk 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Human/Image. Many of the above points defending the Pioneer plaque have already been rebutted many times before. The plaque is only present because we haven't reached a consensus on a replacement. Not because it's in any way a good or useful image for explaining to readers what humans look like. - Silence ( talk) 13:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Martin I'm not sure I understand your point above: "Am I the only one that finds the plaque offensive?". Are you saying this because you feel it is censored (or self-censored, as pointed out by Sagan)? For me it has historical significance and to worry about it being anatomically correct or informative seems to miss the point of it being in the article. I can't imagine any other picture in there causing fewer arguments. I also think it adds something informative to readers who are not aware of pioneer. And it's one thing that is unique to humans, space technology. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Silence here. Again, I encourage people to review Talk:Human/Image, which does indeed reflect the consensus over several years, and many pages, of discussion about this very topic; I also encourage editors here to review the archives for this very talk page. But, first thing's first. Point-by-point.
One further point about the Pioneer plaque is that it shows humans in a bizarrely unrealistic situation. We a have people with typical western hairstyles, completely naked, presumably greeting outsiders of some kind. Where is this scenario meant to be taking place? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process. Use that. Start an
WP:RFC or something.
Ttiotsw (
talk)
06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This says that "Humans are the only known species known to... develop numerous other technologies." However, Chimpanzees and Gorillas have been known to develop technology as well. I'm taking this out until someone can argue otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.213.52 ( talk • contribs)
I agree with the initial statement. There seems to be a frantic desire amongst some humans to find some property that absolutely distinguishes us from other animals - things like we are the only animals to use tools, fire, etc. The problem is that definitive statements are invariably wrong and, at best, unverifiable. I would be happier with more comparative statements along the lines of, 'humans have developed/used to a greater extent than...'. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Poll for it up there
What's continuing evolution, I know evolution it self Yosef1987 ( talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The article says the age of modern humans is 200 thousands years which is unsourced material obviously because no one knows. However the source provided says 130,000 years. So how old are humans? 200 thousand years old, 130 thousand years old, or the millions of other numbers that science has claimed? Wikkidd ( talk) 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The ability to make and use tools has made humans what we are today. The cranial capacity of homo erectus, neanderthalus and sapiens is similar, but we cannot know more than that about their intellectual abilities. The other anatomical differences between these varieties or sub species may not be important, so it is possible that erectus, neanderthalus and sapiens were moving together towards a common future and may have interbred significantly. If sapiens had never appeared, modified forms of erectus and neanderthalus might now be living as we do today.
David Erskine 124.179.1.30 ( talk) 09:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an Australian feature film, “Ten Canoes”, set in the remote past long before white settlement in Australia, and showing the minor dramas of daily life in a tribe in northern Australia. All the actors are Australian Aboriginal.
In some parts of Australia, Aborigines were living a largely traditional way of life just two or three generations ago. Their traditional way of life was presumably much the same as in the Pleistocene.
The film is of course a work of fiction, but is still interesting as attempting to show how we all lived before the last ice age.
David Erskine 124.179.1.30 ( talk) 10:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This discussion was put in the To-Do infobox, which seems just to hide it. If these are things to do, let's just talk about them here.
I think the section on language statistics would be closer to the truth if you add the secondary speaker populations to the primary speaker populations of each language. In doing so you get the following (and I believe more accurate) list: (number of speakers in parentheses)
Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion) English (480 million) Spanish (320 million) Russian (285 million) French (265 million) Hindi/Urdu (250 million) Arabic (221 million) Portuguese (188 million) Bengali (185 million) Japanese (133 million) German (109 million)
<This appears to have been done>
Race and Ethnicity
So this part leaves one hanging, instead of discussing race and ethnicity, why does it prefer to talk about the origins of humans and not anything else about race and ethnicity. It first states that some humans may identify themselves with race or ethnicity, but it never really talks about it. Why is racism being mentioned here anyway?
Origin of Humans
I recently read that the earliest human skull identical to our own is about about 90,000 years old. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article. Also the article should explicitly state the age of our subspecies H. s. sapiens. How old is our subspecies?
I disagree. This sub-species name no longer exists. It was used to distinguish us from homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Neanderthals are now thought to have been a different species - homo nealderthalensis, and we are homo sapiens Orlando098 ( talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we are H. s. sapiens. There is at least one other subspeices: H. s. idaltu. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
During the Pleistocene, homo sapiens lived in a magnificent and dangerous world, and may have regarded mammoths, aurochs and sabre toothed cats as lords of creation. Sapiens might have regarded themselves as just successful survivors, relying on fire and spears. Sapiens cave art suggests that sapiens painted animals that they admired, as well as animals that they ate.
David Erskine 58.165.167.146 ( talk) 10:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} The "Society, government, and politics" section makes the claim that most governments in the world are republics. To make such a claim, it needs to cite a source. Text: "The most common form of government worldwide is a republic, however other examples include..." JSpoons ( talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Well it all depends on HOW you classify "government". If you mean the social organisation and decision making of a a large group of people. then historically most governments have been up until very recently tribal. The very recent trend toward 'nation states' cannot be regarded as a norm, as it is new, plus we have no idea how long it will prevail.
How do qualify/quantify "most" anyway??? Per capita, per year, per unit of government??? I have no idea HOW this should be rewritten (a job for an anthropologist I reckon) but as it stands itis lacking. 212.139.85.134 ( talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
But the nation state is such a brief blip on humanity (within 1.5 centuries and mere decades in many if not most cases); it is plain wrong to suggest that is is a norm.
Richest states constitutional monarchies??? You surely aren't implying that the monarchical dictatorships of the Emirates pass as democracies? Are you also implying that there are only two models of government (republic & monarchy)?
The article is near-sightedly misleading and painfully Eurocentric. The nation state itself is a new development let alone speaking of republics. 88.109.98.246 ( talk) 10:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
So, that makes the 'nation state' the all-time natural choice of all communities??? LOL!
88.111.43.90 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment was added at
17:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC).
This section reads very Eurocentric. Agriculture/civilisation is very new to humanity. They way this section is written implies it is the norm... when clearly it can't be so easily regarded. Hunter-gatherer communities were far more prevalent for the larger part of human history. 212.139.85.134 ( talk) 20:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, can you repeat that in some sort of coherent statement? It sounds like waffle to me. You think that hunter gatherer societies were somehow less complex; sounds like a superiority judgement to me unless you can somehow empirically quantify. IOW= POV Again, agriculture & civilisation is fairly new, and still not universal. The emphasis is plain inaccurate. 88.111.43.90 ( talk) 17:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
"although the validity of the gene expression is not completely understood because human races as distinct like other biological categories such as gender or intelligence quotient is still questionable." This reads like a sop to ever-decreasing minority scientific opinions regarding the viability of "race". 212.139.85.134 ( talk) 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
"Language is closely tied to ritual and religion". This is an utterly pointless and hollow statement. Language is equally tied to all things deemed important to humans. Religion occupies no singularly outstanding prominence. It should be removed. 88.111.185.5 ( talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
This whole article is brimming with extraneous references to religion and spirituality. Even the already tenuous section on 'sexuality' gets it crowbarred in. Someone needs to deflea this article BADLY! 88.111.185.5 ( talk) 10:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)