![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
I recently added the auto-archiving to Talk:Human. However, this recent archive seems to be a problem:
Obviously, we want the archive somewhere other than /dev/null. Looking through the actual archive pages, the latest seem not to contain recent threads. Actually, looking a bit earlier:
This seems to be same problem. How do we fix this? If we can automatically move the erased material to actual archive pages, so much the better. But if manual action to get things going right in the future is needed, let's do that. LotLE× talk 07:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
There are 25 references to religion and 13 to spirituality This article has been vandalised by some zealot. It needs a good cleaning up! 88.111.43.90 ( talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 ( talk) 15:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
How dare you call religion a disease. This article is obviously biased towards a THEORY. Furthermore, religion is also called a myth in this article.
I was going to have a normal debate with you, but since you insist on calling me a "zealot". No. (By the way, I wasn't the one editing the article, so please, get a clue.)
Under the culture subsection there is a table listing human society statistics. Under the column for language the seventh ranked language is Arabic/Urdu. The problem being that the two languages are nothing alike and certainly don't have the same number of speaker thus neither can't share the same spot on the list. I'm not familiar with the actually numbers so I can't really edit it myself. There needs to be a check on the actual numbers and a citation put in. -- Zafina ( talk) 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the following sentence which appeared right at the end of the subtopic Culture, because the language is very convoluted and I have no idea what the writer was trying to say. "The mainstream anthropological view of culture implies that most experience a strong resistance when reminded that there is an animal as well as a spiritual aspect to human nature. [1]" -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 06:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've cut this chunk of text from the Philosophy section, because it's (a) disproportionate to have a whole paragraph on just one of several branches of philosophy (particularly where there isn't one on each of the others!), (b) poor. Metaphysics is not particularly about religion, and what's this stuff about cosmology?!
Ben Finn ( talk) 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
6,742,108,340? seriously? Where is that from (and when)? 341, 342, 343, 344, 343... Harbinger of Truth ( talk) 02:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd guess it's from the US Census Bureau, and it's a bit outdated, as they're listing the population as 6,748,913,283, as of 05:00 GMT. Unless someone is going to update it constantly (every day at least), it should probably just say 6.7 billion, then it can be updated after another 52 million. Cadwaladr ( talk) 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The infobox summary of humans includes a ranking and numbers of speakers of a few of the most spoken languages. However, those numbers are not cited, and are fairly starkly in contrast with the numbers given in the respective language articles. I know that estimates of speakers vary widely, but we need some indication that there is something more than a guess to those various numbers. If The Reliable Source Times publishes a particular estimate, I'm more than happy to use it even if other sources differ... but let's get some source here! LotLE× talk 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
part of this article was written by humans —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.87.127.176 (
talk)
22:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be under "domesticated"? [My squiggle key is broken.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't be calling humans animals be an opinion based on a theory, though? Oh that's right, we are "reformed" animals.
It isn't scientific fact, it's based on evolution, which isn't 100%. Like it or not, it is still a theory, and has many holes in it. My concern is with this article not being 100% correct. Science gives us these things as the best evidence we have, yet they aren't anywhere near fact yet. I'm not suggesting we fill this article with religious stuff, but I am concerned that this article is using something that isn't proven yet as fact. Evolution at best is a theory that has holes that have yet to be filled. Don't tell me it hasn't, I've been researching it for the past year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk • contribs)
Did I ever say we weren't? Actually, nevermind. I've raised this question in the past and there doesn't seem to be an answer other than to leave the article as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk • contribs)
It's also denied by many scientists across the board. Scientists are not 100% on the issue, they are more around 50%. Also the reason I don't have a signature is because I haven't registered.
Just because a lot of scientists agree on something doesn't mean it's necessarily true. It does help, but there is still a lot of doubt in the community. And no, not just by religious folk. Kind of like Global Warming. It's a mixed agree disagree issue that I've observed at least.
I was actually joking in that sentence, I suppose it wasn't clear enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk • contribs)
I'd like to see your evidence that there aren't a larger number of people in the scientific community who don't agree with the theory past just one part of it.
Please don't relate Evolution to Gravity. I've already seen that page.
I just find it disturbing that on an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia which prides itself in fact (mostly) that there would not be a section on this article that perhaps shows the scientific disagreement and skepticism as well as holes of the theory of evolution. Or a redirect to such a page if it exists. And perhaps more than just the Scientific explanation. If Wikipedia only uses the Scientific explanation then that doesn't really make much sense. My point is, there are many different theories on how we came to be and how we have changed, including non scientific views. But on this article, those seem to be compressed to "Culture" only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk • contribs)
I also read that page, that really isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't understand why only the theory of evolution is presented as fact on this page. If it wasn't presented as fact, the first sentence wouldn't read "humans are bipedal primates" and continue to use the theory to explain how we have came to be and changed.
I think more than one theory or explanation should be added to explain this. Surely there is no bias here so that only the scientific explanation deserves recognition?
I really wish my concerns would stop being treated as if I am just stupid and am not reading the fine print.
68.51.41.46 ( talk) 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That isn't what I am suggesting. I didn't say "remove the evolutionary explanation" I said "add other explanations".
I went ahead and deleted my responses because this isn't the right place for this kind of talk.
I don't have a talk page to continue this discussion so I guess I'll register, assuming you still have one even if you don't register.
There is a lot of people outside Wikipedia who do not believe in evolution only, or don't believe in it period. And I have heard of Scientists who also aren't in agreement on this issue. But if we can't add other explanations perhaps of a Philosophical and Religious standpoint, due to the fact that I believe this to be more than just a scientific issue, that is fine.
Just seemed kind of bias to me.
I want to make something clear, I was never suggesting we remove the scientific explanation, however, I do feel that this issue is more than scientific in nature and as such deserves more than one explanation from more than one particular source. 68.51.41.46 ( talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it may sound a bit off the subject but evolution is a scientific fact. According to current understanding, we don't need to get to 100% certainty to express something as scientific fact. Same applies to all other things that critics of science refer to as "fact". We are living in the age after Popper and Heisenberg and in this general lack of certainty, evolution is fact enough to be relied on. The article is a scientific article made easy for people of non-scientific background. Our respect of critics of science and its current philosophy shouldn't make us let non-scientific ideas like separating humans from rest of the biosphere leak into a scientific article. Bornbyforce ( talk) 09:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC) And I may also add that because of the things others have already discussed, there can be other ideas added with an explanation that humans are considered by some non-scientific classes of thought to be of different origin or not animal or... I think this can be considered a possible solution. Bornbyforce ( talk) 10:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, but whatever floats your boat.
That is all I was wondering about, so if non scientific origins can be added that would seem best. Especially considering there is a large number of people who consider human origin more than just a scientific issue. 68.51.41.46 ( talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Because the Pioneer image was censored, it should be un-censored for accuracy. The line for the vulva should be re-added. 128.146.46.2 ( talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Pioneer image is unsuitable as a representation of the entire species, but not so much for the lack of genital detail as because it is racist (given its intended function). It assumes that white people are the prototype of homo sapiens. It also conveys gender stereotypes. The male is the one who greets, the one to address. It could perhaps serve as an example of self-representation of humans, but not in that prominent place in the infobox.-- 87.162.35.117 ( talk) 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I see this argument is still ongoing. What is the better alternative? It's one thing to criticise the image but another thing to find a substitute that will not generate even more flak. David D. (Talk) 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the basis for the list of cities in the Human society statistics table? Wouldn't it make much more sense to list them according to this? ~ thinking-ape ~ ( talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No, if you maintain the look the article have had on the subject (very objective, like humans didn't write it) you'll agree that it doesn't matter what the city center boundries are. Any area where the population remains dense is more acceptable. The list is on the cities with highest populations in "greater" area rather than city center. I don't agree with the list anyway (there are several cities whose boundries are not distinguishable from nearby cities and you can consider them all part of the same population colony (called agglomeration here). Bornbyforce ( talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This article never shows the impact humans made on the environment, how much pollution they released into the air, the countless species' extinction caused by humans,how other animals are tortured and negelected by humans. etc. this article is very biased.-- Guppy22 ( talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. It has been hypothesized that human predation has contributed to the extinction of numerous species. As humans are rarely preyed upon, they have been described as superpredators.[30] Currently, through land development and pollution, humans are thought to be the main contributor to global climate change.[31] This is believed to be a major contributor to the ongoing Holocene extinction event, a mass extinction which, if it continues at its current rate, is predicted to wipe out half of all species over the next century.[32][33]
I think you should show the scientific evidence against some of these, as well. If you go to far with one side you are being biased in my book. 68.51.41.46 ( talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
We're all biased one way or another with Humans. I can't fathom why.-- 70.71.240.170 ( talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The global population density figures given in the table with the green header don't match those given in the article it links to. I haven't checked which are correct. -- 71.241.206.81 ( talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference between homo sapiens and homo s. sapiens? 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Dates mentioned in different articles on early human history do not agree with each other. Examples:
The article "Neolithic" starts with: "The Neolithic period was a period in the development of human technology, beginning about 9500 BCE in the Middle East[1] that is traditionally considered the last part of the Stone Age."
The article "Neolithic Revolution" says "The Neolithic Revolution was the first agricultural revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering communities and bands, to agriculture and settlement (settlement is currently being questioned). Archaeological data indicate that various forms of domestication of plants and animals arose independently in at least 7-8 separate locales worldwide, with the earliest known developments taking place in the Middle East around 10,000 BC (BCE) or earlier.[1]"
The article "Human" says "Until c. 10,000 years ago, most humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era."
So, did the beginning of the Human Era, where agriculture first made its appearance and the first fixed communities were forming, start "about 11,500 years ago" as stated in the Neolithic article; did it start "12,000 years ago or earlier" as stated in the "Neolithic Revolution" article, or did it start only "10,000 years ago," as stated in the "Human" article?
As an added complication, I have read opinions (e.g., "10,000 BC" on the History Channel) that the Younger Dryas period induced humans to turn to agriculture and permanent communities. It isn't clear to me if that happened at the beginning (12,800 years ago) or its end (11,500 years ago).
I am writing a novel involving the beginning of the Human Era and am facing an uncertainty about its date that stretches between only 10,000 years ago up to 12,800 years ago. I think clarification and making these and other articles agree with each other would be helpful to the site. Ed ( talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
There was a study done at MIT and published in Nature that simulated that modern humans have been around for 3000-5000 years... this seems to conflict with this article.
[2] and [3] 64.180.167.130 ( talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The article says that we all may have a common ancestor from that era but it does not say that modern humans date from then. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is too anthropocentrist. 200.160.69.14 ( talk) 05:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a painfully poorly written (and in my personal opinion, totally unnecessary...Religion is already discussed elsewhere in the article...) paragraph about God and religion at the end of the 'Origin' section that doesn't show up in the 'source' for the page, and thus can't be edited. It either needs to be cut or to be rewritten, because right now it's a crime against written language. Example: "Catholics is similar to Christianity except for the fact that Christianity vary in their beliefs, but..." ...Seriously, what's up with that? I'd fix it or remove it, but it's UN-EDITABLE. -- 24.8.142.231 ( talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This article gives the impression that "human" is synonymous with Homo sapiens. But aren't all members of the genus Homo rightfully humans, in the same way that all members of the genus Pan are chimpanzees? -- Lazar Taxon ( talk) 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
...I would give it a C, maybe. There are lots of problems. Who is the general editor of this article? Is there one? Levalley ( talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
Why the pix of the female life cycle and not the male? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Physiology and Genetics section [4] is cited as the source for typical weights for humans. As Article World appears to be an open wiki, which is not a WP:RS reliable source. -- Donald Albury 11:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Massive deletions from an IP editor went uncorrected for thirteen hours today. I watch this article but not closely. Is this common enough here that semiprotection would be helpful? I'd prefer not to file a request based on one series of edits on one day. Rivertorch ( talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, or does this article sound as if it were written by Martians to explain what Earthlings are like? Come on, folks, we're describing the human race here. As in, you, and me, and everyone who will ever read this article. There is no need to avoid being subjective on an article like this. I realize Wikipedia strives to be as objective as possible, but this is just ludicrous! If an exception to the rule (on NPOV) should be made, it's here. 207.172.203.208 ( talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)MJR
How many humans have lived overall on Planet Earth since the beginning of times (i.e. 10 million years ago for the first hominid or 200,000 years ago for the first Homo Sapiens)? I've heard 70 billion mentioned, is that an accurate figure for this type of census? 91.82.33.216 ( talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
> However, compared to many OTHER animals, human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous.
The presence of word "other" in the above sentence implies that humans are animals, too. This is POV and shall not be in the article, because it is offensive to not just the religious people who believe in man-only immortal soul.
It also offends the leftist readers, who know from marxism science studies that the ablity to work, think and speak irreversibly elevates humans from the animal kingdom and therefore they cannot be considered animals any more - the large quantity of unique humans capabilities have created an entirely new quality, the sentient being.
Therefore the article should simply say "compared to many animals, human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous" 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read all of the previous discussion about the picture, but it seemed to me that the consensus was a sort of an agreement to disagree about the picture and go with the plaque as a sort of grudging compromise on the parts of some editors. I don't know, however, if this particular picture was discussed. I'm not necessarily thrilled with this one, mostly because of the lack of pubic hair, which I think should be included if we were to decide to use a photo. Anyway, since consensus can change, I just wondered if there are any new opinions regarding this photo or one like it which basically replicates the plaque picture, but in photographic form. And I suppose I should state for the record that I am actually fine with the plaque picture, just curious as to what other opinions there are now. Cadwaladr ( talk) 03:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the picture in the main article Homo Sapiens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPlaquecloseup.svg), I find it unacceptably Eurocentric. Even statistically, people with this skin pigmentation and proportions are a minority. I think the best illustration could be three "schematically" drawn persons - for example, a man with average Asian pigmentation and proportions, a woman with average African pigmentation and proportions and perhaps a female child with average European pigmentation and proportions. Would be fair, because women are also world's majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.230.74 ( talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
PS: it would be also relevant to add more human figures: Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native American, Native Australian, Pigmean etc. So, could be arranged as a nice family picture - femals and male babes, children, teenagers, adults, elderly ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.230.74 ( talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Uncircumcised and unshaved would be more accurate. Maybe we should just re-add the censored vulval line to the plaque image. 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Anything is better than the plaque. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has zero word on the future of humans, even though futurology is an actual science strongly based on mathematics. The use of an interstellar satellite plaque in the header of this article implies the wikipedia authors do think mankind has a future, yet the article does not even mention it!
At the very least population explosion, environmental woes, deep space travel, artificial intelligence and human info-biotechnological self-transformation should be mentioned in a new futurology paragraph. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I would be against "futurology" for the most part. Until it all actually happens, then it is still science fiction. All of those items you listed could possibly have their own articles seeing that many of them are currently being worked on. However, all of them should not be simply tacked on here for Homo Sapiens, it would make the article too unruly and what purpose would there be? Just because humans are working on this stuff, does not mean we should put it here (what next, do we need to tack on the complete history of human technology here too?) ZgokE ( talk) 00:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
In the Carl Linné article it is stated that Linné divided Homo sapiens into several sub-species/races, neither of which is Homo sapiens sapiens. [5] So who did coin that term? It should be stated in the taxobox. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the following sentence appropriate for the opening paragraph?
As of 2008, humans are listed as a species of least concern for extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. [2]
Especially since it is not even discussed in the article itself. David D. (Talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So why is the ICUN 'least concern' classification required in the taxo box? I see no good reason for this. I see a good reason for have this information for rare species, but for any species of least concern, not just humans, why is this vital information for the taxobox? David D. (Talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
This page contains an image, Image:Human_body_features.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Human_body_features.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. Thanks SVnaGBot1 ( talk) 07:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that in the origin section the "Before Present" dating system is used? If we don't want to say "A.D." because of the religious connotations, fine. But then we should use C.E., as the majority of the world uses said system.
I'm having a hard time agreeing with this sentence from the subsection "Paleolithic":
Some paleoanthropologists today agree that Homo erectus is a "dead end" in hominin evolution. I would suggest, as an RAO supporter, that "Homo erectus" be changed to Homo heidelbergensis or Homo ergaster, since erectus is found outside of Africa, dated over 1 million years old, and has no transitions from that species to another (except for the case of Homo floresiensis). - Ano-User ( talk) 07:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am moving back the date on the earliest human fossils found. This was published in "Nature", one of the most highly respected scientific journals. If anyone wants to make changes, thats fine, just as long as this new date and a link to the new discoveries is mentioned in the article. Also - the fossil dates mesh with the biological data. [6]
-- Ruy Lopez ( talk) 03:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There should be a legacy section at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 ( talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"As with other human self-descriptions, humans propose that it is high intelligence and complex societies of humans that have produced the most complex sexual behaviors of any animal, including a great many behaviors that are indirectly connected with reproduction."
Would need a fact tag at least but is in any case judgmental and likely false, poorly composed, etc. Also on the Lede edits, didn't see that technology was already mentioned further in that paragraph. Stopped of course when editor accused me of denigrating the role of science in understanding the natural world. Lycurgus ( talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this from the article, since it seemed entirely redundant with the section on "origin", which already deals with the relationship between the great apes in some detail. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't you guys think it's a bit risky putting this kind of information together in one page? All humans know this stuff, and it's just waiting here for aliens to find out everything about us without doing all the work of research. That could expedite their plans to eat us by hundreds of years or more!
I think the risks of this page far outweigh its benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.6.77 ( talk) 21:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or shouldn't we find a picture of a woman of reproductive age that doesn't look like straight off the pages of a fashion mag? I mean this article is supposed to be scholarly, so shouldn't we find a more natural/normal example of a woman? Someone that isn't an erotic model (follow the link) and someone who's face isn't covered in fashion facepaint. I mean it's bad enough that painted model pics are being pushed on young girls as the norm, but do they really have to find them in their scholarly readings, too? Obhave ( talk) 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and inserted a different picture, see how people like it. Obhave ( talk) 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
My picture got deleted because I'm a noob and failed at the copyright stuff. I'm reverting to the old pic. Obhave ( talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Guess I'll wait until the wikipedia licencing update goes through, that'll increase the options. Obhave ( talk) 10:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it's my computer only, but the page I'm getting says "Like most higher primates, humans are social by nature. But Homo sapiens had a larger brain divelopment [sic]," example.jpg inserted here, then, "Humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication--" I'd fix it myself, but I can't find it where it should be in the edit page.-- 173.49.21.81 ( talk) 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, it disappeared when I went back. -- 173.49.21.81 ( talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we add this somewhere?
Typical human mass throughput in Pounds per day
There is a statement at the end of the introductory section that appears to be increadable POV paragraph that uses citation that some would consider questionable, and maybe would best be removed and be placed on an article relating to environmentalism.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Removed the disputed paragraph:
The first sentence not supported by the ref. The other refs are indeed questionable. Discuss. Vsmith ( talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
67.84.178.0 ( talk) 03:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this article have a blantant pro-human bias? The humans are trying to portray themselves in a flattering right. Human viciousness and aggression isn't given in detail.
AnthropologyTodayApr07
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The opening section referes to the face that at any given time a small number of humans are air, sea or even spacebourne. This seems a little unnecessary, we could say in the article on fleas that some are living on eagles. I propose removing "as well as large numbers of humans at any particular moment flying in vehicles through the atmosphere, many others traveling over and beneath the oceans, and even a few individuals living in low Earth orbit." 81.101.142.64 ( talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is this man's scrotum longer than his penis? An average man's penis is longer than his scrotum and thus this article is misleading about human anatomy.
It's a dynamic plaque. It changes relative to the temperature of its environment.
-- Victoria h ( talk) 04:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the "s" at the end of Homo sapiens pronounced? I think it is, because I'm fairly certain that Latin doesn't have silent "s", but I'm not sure, because I've often heard people pronouncing it as "Homo sapien", without the "s" sound. -- Aruseusu ( talk) 22:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"Even the most ancient human tools and structures are far more advanced than any structure or tool created by any other animal. [1]
Lycurgus ( talk) 09:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (Postdated)
Is information about health and sanitation problems really relevant in the Diet section?
For instance: "Lack of food remains a serious problem, with about 36 million people starving to death every year." While relevant to the starvation article, say, this and other comments seem out of place in a description of the human species, mostly because they would be obviously out of place in reference to any other species. "Serious problem," for instance, is used here in a judgmental rather than descriptive sense. With the possible exception of discussions regarding conservation status (clearly not the case here), comments like that can only be judgmental, rather than factual. There are many articles where this discussion belongs, in the context of various opinions regarding the human experience, but human is not one of them.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.33.203 ( talk) 04:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this for a number of reasons. Nuclear war would be justified as being called a "serious" threat to humans but this "lack of food" sentence makes it sound like the existence of all humans is threatened by a lack of food which is nowhere near the case. Furthermore, the problem is not even a lack of food but a host of problems (political issues, wars, droughts, etc.) which are preventing food production. If this was to be here at all it belongs under some type of "threats to existence" heading but way down at the bottom because it's not even a serious threat. I agree, take it down. This may sound cruel but from a purely naturalistic perspective, how is it a "problem"? -- Victoria h ( talk) 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added back in the the Pioneer image on the grounds that it was intended to be representative of humans and so it is more appropriate than any other image. That other species have actual photos of the species can't easily apply here as those other species are not taking the photographs of themselves (lack of technology). Humans view any animal of that species as arbitrarily representative but that is without feedback from that species (for obvious reasons). With humans though we can establish different metrics as to what is representative because we can ask people if 'x' is representative rather than simply assuming because 'x' is a photo of something then it'll do. If it ever comes up then the image we have is not censored. Ttiotsw ( talk) 10:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"Only one image can be in the lede" were does it say this? since a number of other pages utilize composites for complex subjects, I would like to know were this rule exists. Hardyplants ( talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
One of the most important above comments to note is "the subject of this article is 'Human', not 'Depictions of humans' or 'Representations of humans'." The arguments that have put forth for keeping the Plaque image:
The job of an article's lead image is not to show every major group that is a subtype of that article; the job of the lead image is only to show an example of the article subject; hence we just use an example of a house on the House article, without worrying about whether it 'represents' every house (as though that were possible for anything, even a crude Pioneer House doodle), and without making a house collage of every different architectural design. The job of the lead image is not to mystically 'symbolize' the 'essence' of the topic; it's simply to visually depict some important features of the subject, in an accurate way. In that respect, almost any photo would be an improvement upon the status quo. - Silence ( talk) 16:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't appear anything broken to fix. We have an image that shows humans and seems to work with a broad range of editors. If you read a bit down from WP:CCC then you will notice the process to change the consensus.....
* Third Opinions involve a neutral third party in a dispute between two editors * Mediation involves a neutral third party in a dispute among multiple editors * Requests for Comment invites greater participation * Village pump invites greater participation * Wikiquette alerts offer perspective on impolite or other difficult communications * Resolving disputes offers other options
I think we can skip the third - this is multiple editors. Have you done these steps ? Look at it from this side and all we see is that a few want to censor the image from this article, we get accused of anti-Wikipedian behaviour and yet we're not presented with many alternatives. Yes you did mention Talk:Human/Image but looking at that I see no one has bothered to expand the alternatives in the past 9 months. Given the vast numbers of 'bots already editing Wikipedia I fail to see how my suggestion is "unWikipedian". that if we e.g. had a pool of suitable images e.g. seasonal ones then a bot could alter the current displayed image to suit the current season in that country based on a heuristic (e.g. RND/PRND/list). Ttiotsw ( talk) 18:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It's amusing that you'd even try to suggest that I have "failed" here in talk; the discussion has barely started, and already numerous problems have been put forward regarding the Pioneer plaque, while zero problems have been put forward regarding the image I proposed as a replacement. Moreover, most of the support for the plaque has been based on a defense which violates Wikipedia policy, per WP:CON: "Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." Another relevant line from WP:CON, "Consensus is not in numbers": "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." The strength of consensus is directly correlated with the strength of the reasons behind that consensus. If you want to build a solid consensus, then, your task right now isn't to simply have strength in numbers; you must respond to the arguments put forward with some compelling, overwhelming reasons for allowing inaccuracies on the top of Human, and for why the alternative images are absolutely, unambiguously unacceptable. On Wikipedia, editorial decisions are not a battle of popularity; they're a collaborative exchange of reasoning.
As a side-note, I expect an apology for the dishonest tactic used in "In this same way, it is you who wants to censor the image we have from this Wikipedia article." at some point. Equating an editorial decision about using one image as opposed to another (where both have the same content, but one has more of it in the form of greater photographic detail) with "censorship," while at the same time denying that deliberately removing the human genitalia from a nude drawing is (self-imposed) "censorship," is as much an insult to the English language as an unwarranted failure to assume good faith. Both you and I are above such word games. I have not accused you of "censoring" the image you removed from the top of Human, even though it is the exact same action. 'Cause that'd be silly. :]
I also don't know if Lulu expects that I'll disagree with any of his points. If so, you'll be disappointed; I have never said that the vulva is "a defining feature of human beings"; all I've said is that it's a feature of human beings, which is sufficient grounds for eschewing a nude image that has deliberately censored it. If the middle fingers of the humans in the Pioneer Plaque had been removed instead, I'd be just as opposed to its use on Human, even though I don't think that middle fingers are a "defining feature" either. (Although hopefully we would agree that the female reproductive system is a tad bit more important than a particular digit.) Moreover, I agree that "the exact angle of some missing line" is not the most "interesting" aspect of the Human article; I am not discussing this at length because I wish to, nor because it's what most "interests" me. I'm raising the problem because it's an important problem. This isn't fun - it's work. (The fun part comes later.) I'm plenty bored too, but being bored is not a valid excuse for using an inaccurate and informationally lacking (compared to just about any photograph) doodle as the lead image of the Human article. This is not a big philosophical issue; it has nothing to do with how 'important' you consider one part of anatomy or another. It's a straightforward matter: The image isn't anatomically accurate, and therefore isn't serving our readers if its goal is to show readers the human form. The degree or nature of the inaccuracy doesn't matter at all, because there are plenty of completely accurate alternatives available — photos, which by their nature mitigate the subjectivity, simplification, and idealization of a drawing. - Silence ( talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
My two cents; I think the Pioneer image is fine for the lead, especially given it's purpose of giving a general impression of our species to a possibly non-humanoid race. There are a lot of details that aren't going to be captured in a simple drawing. We have plenty of close-up photographs of anatomical parts ( Vulva included) on their respective pages. I don't see why the lead image for a broad topic such as Human should be required to show every aspect of human external anatomy. It can be argued that there was a bit of censorship on the part of the original illustrators, but I don't think Wikipedia's use of the image implies censorship in this context. Really; we're talking about a single, short pencil line. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:35, 4 August 2009 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
I recently added the auto-archiving to Talk:Human. However, this recent archive seems to be a problem:
Obviously, we want the archive somewhere other than /dev/null. Looking through the actual archive pages, the latest seem not to contain recent threads. Actually, looking a bit earlier:
This seems to be same problem. How do we fix this? If we can automatically move the erased material to actual archive pages, so much the better. But if manual action to get things going right in the future is needed, let's do that. LotLE× talk 07:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
There are 25 references to religion and 13 to spirituality This article has been vandalised by some zealot. It needs a good cleaning up! 88.111.43.90 ( talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 ( talk) 15:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
How dare you call religion a disease. This article is obviously biased towards a THEORY. Furthermore, religion is also called a myth in this article.
I was going to have a normal debate with you, but since you insist on calling me a "zealot". No. (By the way, I wasn't the one editing the article, so please, get a clue.)
Under the culture subsection there is a table listing human society statistics. Under the column for language the seventh ranked language is Arabic/Urdu. The problem being that the two languages are nothing alike and certainly don't have the same number of speaker thus neither can't share the same spot on the list. I'm not familiar with the actually numbers so I can't really edit it myself. There needs to be a check on the actual numbers and a citation put in. -- Zafina ( talk) 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the following sentence which appeared right at the end of the subtopic Culture, because the language is very convoluted and I have no idea what the writer was trying to say. "The mainstream anthropological view of culture implies that most experience a strong resistance when reminded that there is an animal as well as a spiritual aspect to human nature. [1]" -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 06:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I've cut this chunk of text from the Philosophy section, because it's (a) disproportionate to have a whole paragraph on just one of several branches of philosophy (particularly where there isn't one on each of the others!), (b) poor. Metaphysics is not particularly about religion, and what's this stuff about cosmology?!
Ben Finn ( talk) 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
6,742,108,340? seriously? Where is that from (and when)? 341, 342, 343, 344, 343... Harbinger of Truth ( talk) 02:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd guess it's from the US Census Bureau, and it's a bit outdated, as they're listing the population as 6,748,913,283, as of 05:00 GMT. Unless someone is going to update it constantly (every day at least), it should probably just say 6.7 billion, then it can be updated after another 52 million. Cadwaladr ( talk) 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The infobox summary of humans includes a ranking and numbers of speakers of a few of the most spoken languages. However, those numbers are not cited, and are fairly starkly in contrast with the numbers given in the respective language articles. I know that estimates of speakers vary widely, but we need some indication that there is something more than a guess to those various numbers. If The Reliable Source Times publishes a particular estimate, I'm more than happy to use it even if other sources differ... but let's get some source here! LotLE× talk 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
part of this article was written by humans —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.87.127.176 (
talk)
22:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be under "domesticated"? [My squiggle key is broken.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't be calling humans animals be an opinion based on a theory, though? Oh that's right, we are "reformed" animals.
It isn't scientific fact, it's based on evolution, which isn't 100%. Like it or not, it is still a theory, and has many holes in it. My concern is with this article not being 100% correct. Science gives us these things as the best evidence we have, yet they aren't anywhere near fact yet. I'm not suggesting we fill this article with religious stuff, but I am concerned that this article is using something that isn't proven yet as fact. Evolution at best is a theory that has holes that have yet to be filled. Don't tell me it hasn't, I've been researching it for the past year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk • contribs)
Did I ever say we weren't? Actually, nevermind. I've raised this question in the past and there doesn't seem to be an answer other than to leave the article as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk • contribs)
It's also denied by many scientists across the board. Scientists are not 100% on the issue, they are more around 50%. Also the reason I don't have a signature is because I haven't registered.
Just because a lot of scientists agree on something doesn't mean it's necessarily true. It does help, but there is still a lot of doubt in the community. And no, not just by religious folk. Kind of like Global Warming. It's a mixed agree disagree issue that I've observed at least.
I was actually joking in that sentence, I suppose it wasn't clear enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk • contribs)
I'd like to see your evidence that there aren't a larger number of people in the scientific community who don't agree with the theory past just one part of it.
Please don't relate Evolution to Gravity. I've already seen that page.
I just find it disturbing that on an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia which prides itself in fact (mostly) that there would not be a section on this article that perhaps shows the scientific disagreement and skepticism as well as holes of the theory of evolution. Or a redirect to such a page if it exists. And perhaps more than just the Scientific explanation. If Wikipedia only uses the Scientific explanation then that doesn't really make much sense. My point is, there are many different theories on how we came to be and how we have changed, including non scientific views. But on this article, those seem to be compressed to "Culture" only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 ( talk • contribs)
I also read that page, that really isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't understand why only the theory of evolution is presented as fact on this page. If it wasn't presented as fact, the first sentence wouldn't read "humans are bipedal primates" and continue to use the theory to explain how we have came to be and changed.
I think more than one theory or explanation should be added to explain this. Surely there is no bias here so that only the scientific explanation deserves recognition?
I really wish my concerns would stop being treated as if I am just stupid and am not reading the fine print.
68.51.41.46 ( talk) 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That isn't what I am suggesting. I didn't say "remove the evolutionary explanation" I said "add other explanations".
I went ahead and deleted my responses because this isn't the right place for this kind of talk.
I don't have a talk page to continue this discussion so I guess I'll register, assuming you still have one even if you don't register.
There is a lot of people outside Wikipedia who do not believe in evolution only, or don't believe in it period. And I have heard of Scientists who also aren't in agreement on this issue. But if we can't add other explanations perhaps of a Philosophical and Religious standpoint, due to the fact that I believe this to be more than just a scientific issue, that is fine.
Just seemed kind of bias to me.
I want to make something clear, I was never suggesting we remove the scientific explanation, however, I do feel that this issue is more than scientific in nature and as such deserves more than one explanation from more than one particular source. 68.51.41.46 ( talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry it may sound a bit off the subject but evolution is a scientific fact. According to current understanding, we don't need to get to 100% certainty to express something as scientific fact. Same applies to all other things that critics of science refer to as "fact". We are living in the age after Popper and Heisenberg and in this general lack of certainty, evolution is fact enough to be relied on. The article is a scientific article made easy for people of non-scientific background. Our respect of critics of science and its current philosophy shouldn't make us let non-scientific ideas like separating humans from rest of the biosphere leak into a scientific article. Bornbyforce ( talk) 09:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC) And I may also add that because of the things others have already discussed, there can be other ideas added with an explanation that humans are considered by some non-scientific classes of thought to be of different origin or not animal or... I think this can be considered a possible solution. Bornbyforce ( talk) 10:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense, but whatever floats your boat.
That is all I was wondering about, so if non scientific origins can be added that would seem best. Especially considering there is a large number of people who consider human origin more than just a scientific issue. 68.51.41.46 ( talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Because the Pioneer image was censored, it should be un-censored for accuracy. The line for the vulva should be re-added. 128.146.46.2 ( talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Pioneer image is unsuitable as a representation of the entire species, but not so much for the lack of genital detail as because it is racist (given its intended function). It assumes that white people are the prototype of homo sapiens. It also conveys gender stereotypes. The male is the one who greets, the one to address. It could perhaps serve as an example of self-representation of humans, but not in that prominent place in the infobox.-- 87.162.35.117 ( talk) 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I see this argument is still ongoing. What is the better alternative? It's one thing to criticise the image but another thing to find a substitute that will not generate even more flak. David D. (Talk) 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the basis for the list of cities in the Human society statistics table? Wouldn't it make much more sense to list them according to this? ~ thinking-ape ~ ( talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
No, if you maintain the look the article have had on the subject (very objective, like humans didn't write it) you'll agree that it doesn't matter what the city center boundries are. Any area where the population remains dense is more acceptable. The list is on the cities with highest populations in "greater" area rather than city center. I don't agree with the list anyway (there are several cities whose boundries are not distinguishable from nearby cities and you can consider them all part of the same population colony (called agglomeration here). Bornbyforce ( talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This article never shows the impact humans made on the environment, how much pollution they released into the air, the countless species' extinction caused by humans,how other animals are tortured and negelected by humans. etc. this article is very biased.-- Guppy22 ( talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. It has been hypothesized that human predation has contributed to the extinction of numerous species. As humans are rarely preyed upon, they have been described as superpredators.[30] Currently, through land development and pollution, humans are thought to be the main contributor to global climate change.[31] This is believed to be a major contributor to the ongoing Holocene extinction event, a mass extinction which, if it continues at its current rate, is predicted to wipe out half of all species over the next century.[32][33]
I think you should show the scientific evidence against some of these, as well. If you go to far with one side you are being biased in my book. 68.51.41.46 ( talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
We're all biased one way or another with Humans. I can't fathom why.-- 70.71.240.170 ( talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The global population density figures given in the table with the green header don't match those given in the article it links to. I haven't checked which are correct. -- 71.241.206.81 ( talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference between homo sapiens and homo s. sapiens? 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Dates mentioned in different articles on early human history do not agree with each other. Examples:
The article "Neolithic" starts with: "The Neolithic period was a period in the development of human technology, beginning about 9500 BCE in the Middle East[1] that is traditionally considered the last part of the Stone Age."
The article "Neolithic Revolution" says "The Neolithic Revolution was the first agricultural revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering communities and bands, to agriculture and settlement (settlement is currently being questioned). Archaeological data indicate that various forms of domestication of plants and animals arose independently in at least 7-8 separate locales worldwide, with the earliest known developments taking place in the Middle East around 10,000 BC (BCE) or earlier.[1]"
The article "Human" says "Until c. 10,000 years ago, most humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era."
So, did the beginning of the Human Era, where agriculture first made its appearance and the first fixed communities were forming, start "about 11,500 years ago" as stated in the Neolithic article; did it start "12,000 years ago or earlier" as stated in the "Neolithic Revolution" article, or did it start only "10,000 years ago," as stated in the "Human" article?
As an added complication, I have read opinions (e.g., "10,000 BC" on the History Channel) that the Younger Dryas period induced humans to turn to agriculture and permanent communities. It isn't clear to me if that happened at the beginning (12,800 years ago) or its end (11,500 years ago).
I am writing a novel involving the beginning of the Human Era and am facing an uncertainty about its date that stretches between only 10,000 years ago up to 12,800 years ago. I think clarification and making these and other articles agree with each other would be helpful to the site. Ed ( talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
There was a study done at MIT and published in Nature that simulated that modern humans have been around for 3000-5000 years... this seems to conflict with this article.
[2] and [3] 64.180.167.130 ( talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The article says that we all may have a common ancestor from that era but it does not say that modern humans date from then. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is too anthropocentrist. 200.160.69.14 ( talk) 05:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a painfully poorly written (and in my personal opinion, totally unnecessary...Religion is already discussed elsewhere in the article...) paragraph about God and religion at the end of the 'Origin' section that doesn't show up in the 'source' for the page, and thus can't be edited. It either needs to be cut or to be rewritten, because right now it's a crime against written language. Example: "Catholics is similar to Christianity except for the fact that Christianity vary in their beliefs, but..." ...Seriously, what's up with that? I'd fix it or remove it, but it's UN-EDITABLE. -- 24.8.142.231 ( talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This article gives the impression that "human" is synonymous with Homo sapiens. But aren't all members of the genus Homo rightfully humans, in the same way that all members of the genus Pan are chimpanzees? -- Lazar Taxon ( talk) 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
...I would give it a C, maybe. There are lots of problems. Who is the general editor of this article? Is there one? Levalley ( talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
Why the pix of the female life cycle and not the male? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
In the Physiology and Genetics section [4] is cited as the source for typical weights for humans. As Article World appears to be an open wiki, which is not a WP:RS reliable source. -- Donald Albury 11:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Massive deletions from an IP editor went uncorrected for thirteen hours today. I watch this article but not closely. Is this common enough here that semiprotection would be helpful? I'd prefer not to file a request based on one series of edits on one day. Rivertorch ( talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it me, or does this article sound as if it were written by Martians to explain what Earthlings are like? Come on, folks, we're describing the human race here. As in, you, and me, and everyone who will ever read this article. There is no need to avoid being subjective on an article like this. I realize Wikipedia strives to be as objective as possible, but this is just ludicrous! If an exception to the rule (on NPOV) should be made, it's here. 207.172.203.208 ( talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)MJR
How many humans have lived overall on Planet Earth since the beginning of times (i.e. 10 million years ago for the first hominid or 200,000 years ago for the first Homo Sapiens)? I've heard 70 billion mentioned, is that an accurate figure for this type of census? 91.82.33.216 ( talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
> However, compared to many OTHER animals, human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous.
The presence of word "other" in the above sentence implies that humans are animals, too. This is POV and shall not be in the article, because it is offensive to not just the religious people who believe in man-only immortal soul.
It also offends the leftist readers, who know from marxism science studies that the ablity to work, think and speak irreversibly elevates humans from the animal kingdom and therefore they cannot be considered animals any more - the large quantity of unique humans capabilities have created an entirely new quality, the sentient being.
Therefore the article should simply say "compared to many animals, human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous" 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read all of the previous discussion about the picture, but it seemed to me that the consensus was a sort of an agreement to disagree about the picture and go with the plaque as a sort of grudging compromise on the parts of some editors. I don't know, however, if this particular picture was discussed. I'm not necessarily thrilled with this one, mostly because of the lack of pubic hair, which I think should be included if we were to decide to use a photo. Anyway, since consensus can change, I just wondered if there are any new opinions regarding this photo or one like it which basically replicates the plaque picture, but in photographic form. And I suppose I should state for the record that I am actually fine with the plaque picture, just curious as to what other opinions there are now. Cadwaladr ( talk) 03:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the picture in the main article Homo Sapiens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPlaquecloseup.svg), I find it unacceptably Eurocentric. Even statistically, people with this skin pigmentation and proportions are a minority. I think the best illustration could be three "schematically" drawn persons - for example, a man with average Asian pigmentation and proportions, a woman with average African pigmentation and proportions and perhaps a female child with average European pigmentation and proportions. Would be fair, because women are also world's majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.230.74 ( talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
PS: it would be also relevant to add more human figures: Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native American, Native Australian, Pigmean etc. So, could be arranged as a nice family picture - femals and male babes, children, teenagers, adults, elderly ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.230.74 ( talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Uncircumcised and unshaved would be more accurate. Maybe we should just re-add the censored vulval line to the plaque image. 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Anything is better than the plaque. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has zero word on the future of humans, even though futurology is an actual science strongly based on mathematics. The use of an interstellar satellite plaque in the header of this article implies the wikipedia authors do think mankind has a future, yet the article does not even mention it!
At the very least population explosion, environmental woes, deep space travel, artificial intelligence and human info-biotechnological self-transformation should be mentioned in a new futurology paragraph. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I would be against "futurology" for the most part. Until it all actually happens, then it is still science fiction. All of those items you listed could possibly have their own articles seeing that many of them are currently being worked on. However, all of them should not be simply tacked on here for Homo Sapiens, it would make the article too unruly and what purpose would there be? Just because humans are working on this stuff, does not mean we should put it here (what next, do we need to tack on the complete history of human technology here too?) ZgokE ( talk) 00:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
In the Carl Linné article it is stated that Linné divided Homo sapiens into several sub-species/races, neither of which is Homo sapiens sapiens. [5] So who did coin that term? It should be stated in the taxobox. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the following sentence appropriate for the opening paragraph?
As of 2008, humans are listed as a species of least concern for extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. [2]
Especially since it is not even discussed in the article itself. David D. (Talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So why is the ICUN 'least concern' classification required in the taxo box? I see no good reason for this. I see a good reason for have this information for rare species, but for any species of least concern, not just humans, why is this vital information for the taxobox? David D. (Talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
This page contains an image, Image:Human_body_features.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Human_body_features.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. Thanks SVnaGBot1 ( talk) 07:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that in the origin section the "Before Present" dating system is used? If we don't want to say "A.D." because of the religious connotations, fine. But then we should use C.E., as the majority of the world uses said system.
I'm having a hard time agreeing with this sentence from the subsection "Paleolithic":
Some paleoanthropologists today agree that Homo erectus is a "dead end" in hominin evolution. I would suggest, as an RAO supporter, that "Homo erectus" be changed to Homo heidelbergensis or Homo ergaster, since erectus is found outside of Africa, dated over 1 million years old, and has no transitions from that species to another (except for the case of Homo floresiensis). - Ano-User ( talk) 07:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am moving back the date on the earliest human fossils found. This was published in "Nature", one of the most highly respected scientific journals. If anyone wants to make changes, thats fine, just as long as this new date and a link to the new discoveries is mentioned in the article. Also - the fossil dates mesh with the biological data. [6]
-- Ruy Lopez ( talk) 03:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There should be a legacy section at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 ( talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"As with other human self-descriptions, humans propose that it is high intelligence and complex societies of humans that have produced the most complex sexual behaviors of any animal, including a great many behaviors that are indirectly connected with reproduction."
Would need a fact tag at least but is in any case judgmental and likely false, poorly composed, etc. Also on the Lede edits, didn't see that technology was already mentioned further in that paragraph. Stopped of course when editor accused me of denigrating the role of science in understanding the natural world. Lycurgus ( talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this from the article, since it seemed entirely redundant with the section on "origin", which already deals with the relationship between the great apes in some detail. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't you guys think it's a bit risky putting this kind of information together in one page? All humans know this stuff, and it's just waiting here for aliens to find out everything about us without doing all the work of research. That could expedite their plans to eat us by hundreds of years or more!
I think the risks of this page far outweigh its benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.6.77 ( talk) 21:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or shouldn't we find a picture of a woman of reproductive age that doesn't look like straight off the pages of a fashion mag? I mean this article is supposed to be scholarly, so shouldn't we find a more natural/normal example of a woman? Someone that isn't an erotic model (follow the link) and someone who's face isn't covered in fashion facepaint. I mean it's bad enough that painted model pics are being pushed on young girls as the norm, but do they really have to find them in their scholarly readings, too? Obhave ( talk) 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and inserted a different picture, see how people like it. Obhave ( talk) 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
My picture got deleted because I'm a noob and failed at the copyright stuff. I'm reverting to the old pic. Obhave ( talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Guess I'll wait until the wikipedia licencing update goes through, that'll increase the options. Obhave ( talk) 10:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it's my computer only, but the page I'm getting says "Like most higher primates, humans are social by nature. But Homo sapiens had a larger brain divelopment [sic]," example.jpg inserted here, then, "Humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication--" I'd fix it myself, but I can't find it where it should be in the edit page.-- 173.49.21.81 ( talk) 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, it disappeared when I went back. -- 173.49.21.81 ( talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we add this somewhere?
Typical human mass throughput in Pounds per day
There is a statement at the end of the introductory section that appears to be increadable POV paragraph that uses citation that some would consider questionable, and maybe would best be removed and be placed on an article relating to environmentalism.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Removed the disputed paragraph:
The first sentence not supported by the ref. The other refs are indeed questionable. Discuss. Vsmith ( talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
67.84.178.0 ( talk) 03:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or does this article have a blantant pro-human bias? The humans are trying to portray themselves in a flattering right. Human viciousness and aggression isn't given in detail.
AnthropologyTodayApr07
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The opening section referes to the face that at any given time a small number of humans are air, sea or even spacebourne. This seems a little unnecessary, we could say in the article on fleas that some are living on eagles. I propose removing "as well as large numbers of humans at any particular moment flying in vehicles through the atmosphere, many others traveling over and beneath the oceans, and even a few individuals living in low Earth orbit." 81.101.142.64 ( talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is this man's scrotum longer than his penis? An average man's penis is longer than his scrotum and thus this article is misleading about human anatomy.
It's a dynamic plaque. It changes relative to the temperature of its environment.
-- Victoria h ( talk) 04:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the "s" at the end of Homo sapiens pronounced? I think it is, because I'm fairly certain that Latin doesn't have silent "s", but I'm not sure, because I've often heard people pronouncing it as "Homo sapien", without the "s" sound. -- Aruseusu ( talk) 22:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"Even the most ancient human tools and structures are far more advanced than any structure or tool created by any other animal. [1]
Lycurgus ( talk) 09:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (Postdated)
Is information about health and sanitation problems really relevant in the Diet section?
For instance: "Lack of food remains a serious problem, with about 36 million people starving to death every year." While relevant to the starvation article, say, this and other comments seem out of place in a description of the human species, mostly because they would be obviously out of place in reference to any other species. "Serious problem," for instance, is used here in a judgmental rather than descriptive sense. With the possible exception of discussions regarding conservation status (clearly not the case here), comments like that can only be judgmental, rather than factual. There are many articles where this discussion belongs, in the context of various opinions regarding the human experience, but human is not one of them.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.33.203 ( talk) 04:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this for a number of reasons. Nuclear war would be justified as being called a "serious" threat to humans but this "lack of food" sentence makes it sound like the existence of all humans is threatened by a lack of food which is nowhere near the case. Furthermore, the problem is not even a lack of food but a host of problems (political issues, wars, droughts, etc.) which are preventing food production. If this was to be here at all it belongs under some type of "threats to existence" heading but way down at the bottom because it's not even a serious threat. I agree, take it down. This may sound cruel but from a purely naturalistic perspective, how is it a "problem"? -- Victoria h ( talk) 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added back in the the Pioneer image on the grounds that it was intended to be representative of humans and so it is more appropriate than any other image. That other species have actual photos of the species can't easily apply here as those other species are not taking the photographs of themselves (lack of technology). Humans view any animal of that species as arbitrarily representative but that is without feedback from that species (for obvious reasons). With humans though we can establish different metrics as to what is representative because we can ask people if 'x' is representative rather than simply assuming because 'x' is a photo of something then it'll do. If it ever comes up then the image we have is not censored. Ttiotsw ( talk) 10:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"Only one image can be in the lede" were does it say this? since a number of other pages utilize composites for complex subjects, I would like to know were this rule exists. Hardyplants ( talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
One of the most important above comments to note is "the subject of this article is 'Human', not 'Depictions of humans' or 'Representations of humans'." The arguments that have put forth for keeping the Plaque image:
The job of an article's lead image is not to show every major group that is a subtype of that article; the job of the lead image is only to show an example of the article subject; hence we just use an example of a house on the House article, without worrying about whether it 'represents' every house (as though that were possible for anything, even a crude Pioneer House doodle), and without making a house collage of every different architectural design. The job of the lead image is not to mystically 'symbolize' the 'essence' of the topic; it's simply to visually depict some important features of the subject, in an accurate way. In that respect, almost any photo would be an improvement upon the status quo. - Silence ( talk) 16:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't appear anything broken to fix. We have an image that shows humans and seems to work with a broad range of editors. If you read a bit down from WP:CCC then you will notice the process to change the consensus.....
* Third Opinions involve a neutral third party in a dispute between two editors * Mediation involves a neutral third party in a dispute among multiple editors * Requests for Comment invites greater participation * Village pump invites greater participation * Wikiquette alerts offer perspective on impolite or other difficult communications * Resolving disputes offers other options
I think we can skip the third - this is multiple editors. Have you done these steps ? Look at it from this side and all we see is that a few want to censor the image from this article, we get accused of anti-Wikipedian behaviour and yet we're not presented with many alternatives. Yes you did mention Talk:Human/Image but looking at that I see no one has bothered to expand the alternatives in the past 9 months. Given the vast numbers of 'bots already editing Wikipedia I fail to see how my suggestion is "unWikipedian". that if we e.g. had a pool of suitable images e.g. seasonal ones then a bot could alter the current displayed image to suit the current season in that country based on a heuristic (e.g. RND/PRND/list). Ttiotsw ( talk) 18:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It's amusing that you'd even try to suggest that I have "failed" here in talk; the discussion has barely started, and already numerous problems have been put forward regarding the Pioneer plaque, while zero problems have been put forward regarding the image I proposed as a replacement. Moreover, most of the support for the plaque has been based on a defense which violates Wikipedia policy, per WP:CON: "Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." Another relevant line from WP:CON, "Consensus is not in numbers": "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." The strength of consensus is directly correlated with the strength of the reasons behind that consensus. If you want to build a solid consensus, then, your task right now isn't to simply have strength in numbers; you must respond to the arguments put forward with some compelling, overwhelming reasons for allowing inaccuracies on the top of Human, and for why the alternative images are absolutely, unambiguously unacceptable. On Wikipedia, editorial decisions are not a battle of popularity; they're a collaborative exchange of reasoning.
As a side-note, I expect an apology for the dishonest tactic used in "In this same way, it is you who wants to censor the image we have from this Wikipedia article." at some point. Equating an editorial decision about using one image as opposed to another (where both have the same content, but one has more of it in the form of greater photographic detail) with "censorship," while at the same time denying that deliberately removing the human genitalia from a nude drawing is (self-imposed) "censorship," is as much an insult to the English language as an unwarranted failure to assume good faith. Both you and I are above such word games. I have not accused you of "censoring" the image you removed from the top of Human, even though it is the exact same action. 'Cause that'd be silly. :]
I also don't know if Lulu expects that I'll disagree with any of his points. If so, you'll be disappointed; I have never said that the vulva is "a defining feature of human beings"; all I've said is that it's a feature of human beings, which is sufficient grounds for eschewing a nude image that has deliberately censored it. If the middle fingers of the humans in the Pioneer Plaque had been removed instead, I'd be just as opposed to its use on Human, even though I don't think that middle fingers are a "defining feature" either. (Although hopefully we would agree that the female reproductive system is a tad bit more important than a particular digit.) Moreover, I agree that "the exact angle of some missing line" is not the most "interesting" aspect of the Human article; I am not discussing this at length because I wish to, nor because it's what most "interests" me. I'm raising the problem because it's an important problem. This isn't fun - it's work. (The fun part comes later.) I'm plenty bored too, but being bored is not a valid excuse for using an inaccurate and informationally lacking (compared to just about any photograph) doodle as the lead image of the Human article. This is not a big philosophical issue; it has nothing to do with how 'important' you consider one part of anatomy or another. It's a straightforward matter: The image isn't anatomically accurate, and therefore isn't serving our readers if its goal is to show readers the human form. The degree or nature of the inaccuracy doesn't matter at all, because there are plenty of completely accurate alternatives available — photos, which by their nature mitigate the subjectivity, simplification, and idealization of a drawing. - Silence ( talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
My two cents; I think the Pioneer image is fine for the lead, especially given it's purpose of giving a general impression of our species to a possibly non-humanoid race. There are a lot of details that aren't going to be captured in a simple drawing. We have plenty of close-up photographs of anatomical parts ( Vulva included) on their respective pages. I don't see why the lead image for a broad topic such as Human should be required to show every aspect of human external anatomy. It can be argued that there was a bit of censorship on the part of the original illustrators, but I don't think Wikipedia's use of the image implies censorship in this context. Really; we're talking about a single, short pencil line. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)