![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
cool, the article has just been translated into Indonesian! dab (ᛏ) 13:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What's with the very long section on spirituality and religion? Shouldn't this go under articles such as spirituality or religion? - Montréalais 20:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I took a recent look at the section in question, and I really like what you have done with it, JHCC. The whole article is really nice. And that picture of the little girls is great! Thanks and attaboy, JHCC. That said, the overall organization of the article hasn't quite been revised to be completely consistent. We have the Biology (really the Humans per Biology) section and the Spirituality and Religion (really Humans per Spirituality and Religion) section. But then we have the The Individual section, which is a little confusing once you get the purpose of the previous two sections. Finally society and self-reflection. It all is a little confusing. Maybe we can talk about it and play around with it a bit. Tom - Talk 21:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
===Biology=== ===Spirituality and religion=== ===The individual=== ===Society=== ===Self-reflection===
A difficulty with organizing the article is that there are widely divergent views on what is quintessentially human, and yet there is broad agreement on much that is human. The top of the article tries to address what is quintessentially human from two distinct perspectives, but then without any segue, the last three sections go more broad and universal. I personally cannot see a way to improve the organization other than to rename the first two sections to make their purpose more clear to visitors like Montréalais. An attempt below. Tom - Talk 21:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
===The biological human=== ===The spiritual human=== ===The individual=== ===Society=== ===Self-reflection===
How about these following. - UtherSRG 13:33, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
===Human biology=== ===Human spirituality=== ===Human individuality=== ===Human society=== ===Humans and self-reflection===
Or by reduction and restoration... - UtherSRG 13:33, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
===Biology=== ===Sprituality and religion=== ===Individuality=== ===Society=== ===Self-reflection===
Nothing wrong with the above except that they don't reflect the direction of the intro. I am okay with leaving the article as it is, but there is a distinct difference of meaning between Human biology and The biological human, between Human spirituality and The spiritual human. Remember that there are whole areas of the encyclopedia dedicated to human biology and human spirituality; this article can only contribute by discussing the human in biology and in spirituality. I again re-iterate that it is not the spirituality and biology in human that are the organizing framework of this article, it is the human in biological and spiritual terms. Tom - Talk 15:09, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
So the expanded titles would be: ===The essential human from a biological perspective=== ===The essential human from a spiritual perspective=== ===The essential human from an individualist perspective=== ===The essential human from a cultural perspective=== ===The essential human from other significant perspectives=== Tom - Talk 19:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
I think we're getting closer, but I think those headings are overly verbose. I also think we're picking nits. Some reductions follow. - UtherSRG 19:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
These could be pluralized (perspectives), or be explicitly labeled as PsOV. ===Biological perspective== ===Spiritual perspective=== ===Individualist perspective=== ===Cultural perspective=== ===Other perspectives=== UtherSRG 19:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Another possibility. ===Biological essense=== ===Spiritual essense=== ===Individualist essense=== ===Cultural essense=== ===Other essenses=== UtherSRG 19:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Finally, I think the biology and religion sections are of greater importance to maintaining a balanced NPOV. The importance or purpose or origination of the other sections relies significantly on the individuals beliefs about the first two. Perhaps their headings should be of one form, while the other three take a different form. - UtherSRG 19:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
===Biological=== ===Spiritual=== ===Individualist=== ===Cultural=== ===Other perspectives=== Tom - Talk 23:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
===Human self-reflection=== ===Human biology=== ===Spiritual and religious definitions of humanity=== ===Human society and culture===
I'm not. What had started as primarily a biology-focused article became a well balanced article with biology and spirituality/religion both significantly high in the order (with biology just above spirituality/religion as they are the PsOV most opposed to each other). Now both biology and spirituality/religion have been reduced in primacy with the elevation of self-reflection. I prefer self-reflection to be below the other two. - UtherSRG 23:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
[A month later] This section is confused again. I am going to try to retrieve an acceptable old wording. I am also going to be bold and try changing some headings to clarify what is going on in this article to try to head off entropic edits. Tom Haws 16:27, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Taxobox is in the wrong place; it should not be at the top of the Human page. It should be in the Biology section--because Biology and the Taxobox are not the defining qualities of "Human." The defining quality of human is the intergenerational transmission of technology and culture part.
Whoa! I guess I missed something. Raul654 said the taxobox was at the top, but it isn't. I guess Sam Spade moved it to the top for a moment before it got returned to it's consensus location in the biology section, right? It sounds like we are all in agreement then; it is where it has to be, in the Biological (see section titles discussion above) section. Did I follow correctly? Tom - Talk 15:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
well, why is the 'Individual' section gone? Can we have it back please? this was ' major editing' indeed. I argue we need both a 'Society' and an 'Individual' section, as these are complementary concepts. dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
so, will anybody object if I resurrect the 'Individual' section? dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the position of the taxobox according to the extended discussion and voting on this TalkPage. Apparently, the Wikiproject Tree of Life specification is wrong and should be corrected. I will get around to initiating that discussion on the "Tree of Life" TalkPage--eventually. --- Rednblu | Talk 21:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If this discussion is about the taxobox position, yes, that was decided very slowly and deliberately with a lot of input from a lot of people. There would certainly have to be a large group assembled again to discuss the matter if we were to consider having it preside over the article again. The taxobox is indeed just as valid for Homo sapiens as it it for any other species. I only beg that those who were not here for the previous discussion to consider the NPOV principle of ownership of words. No single group owns the term Human, and if significant and major points of view hold that biology is not primarily definitive of humans, then it is probably appropriate to keep the taxobox out of the intro. At least this is how I understand the outcome of the previous discussion and its interpretation in light of the established policies. In case you were not here for that discussion, I recall for you that one weakly favored proposal was to have a separate article Homo sapiens or such about the biological human with the taxobox at the top. Tom H. 15:49, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
the comp-sci definition is missing from the page. T
he comp-sci definition is: A man is a computer that can pass the turing test
Why is this article so weird? Why is there a picture of 2 girls at the top instead of a txobox? And why is
in the intro? I think my version was way better. Comments? ( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Probably you will get general agreement about the oddness of the "philosopher's view" "a human is not a chicken". The article does seem to be getting untidy. And I apologize because I may have regretfully reverted when I should have carefully reconstructed the consensus form from your edit. What would need to be discussed would be the image and taxobox. In general, the article is at a point now that I think it could benefit from a little rewording and editing to keep it focused on answering the question "what is a human?" I just edited the Birth and death section in a way that I think kept the content. Tom Haws 21:49, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Me again. Here is how I understand the standing agreement on the focus of the article: Tom Haws
See above and in archives too. Note that most articles have a nice, flattering mug shot at the top. The little girls was voted best of proposals. But of course the whole thing can be discussed again. Tom Haws 21:58, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
the article has really been deteriorating. I moved back to the carefully balanced, consensus approved intro. If people want to tweak the intro, they should discuss. The birth and death section should be part of "individual". dab (ᛏ) 22:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
cool, the article has just been translated into Indonesian! dab (ᛏ) 13:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What's with the very long section on spirituality and religion? Shouldn't this go under articles such as spirituality or religion? - Montréalais 20:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I took a recent look at the section in question, and I really like what you have done with it, JHCC. The whole article is really nice. And that picture of the little girls is great! Thanks and attaboy, JHCC. That said, the overall organization of the article hasn't quite been revised to be completely consistent. We have the Biology (really the Humans per Biology) section and the Spirituality and Religion (really Humans per Spirituality and Religion) section. But then we have the The Individual section, which is a little confusing once you get the purpose of the previous two sections. Finally society and self-reflection. It all is a little confusing. Maybe we can talk about it and play around with it a bit. Tom - Talk 21:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
===Biology=== ===Spirituality and religion=== ===The individual=== ===Society=== ===Self-reflection===
A difficulty with organizing the article is that there are widely divergent views on what is quintessentially human, and yet there is broad agreement on much that is human. The top of the article tries to address what is quintessentially human from two distinct perspectives, but then without any segue, the last three sections go more broad and universal. I personally cannot see a way to improve the organization other than to rename the first two sections to make their purpose more clear to visitors like Montréalais. An attempt below. Tom - Talk 21:49, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
===The biological human=== ===The spiritual human=== ===The individual=== ===Society=== ===Self-reflection===
How about these following. - UtherSRG 13:33, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
===Human biology=== ===Human spirituality=== ===Human individuality=== ===Human society=== ===Humans and self-reflection===
Or by reduction and restoration... - UtherSRG 13:33, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
===Biology=== ===Sprituality and religion=== ===Individuality=== ===Society=== ===Self-reflection===
Nothing wrong with the above except that they don't reflect the direction of the intro. I am okay with leaving the article as it is, but there is a distinct difference of meaning between Human biology and The biological human, between Human spirituality and The spiritual human. Remember that there are whole areas of the encyclopedia dedicated to human biology and human spirituality; this article can only contribute by discussing the human in biology and in spirituality. I again re-iterate that it is not the spirituality and biology in human that are the organizing framework of this article, it is the human in biological and spiritual terms. Tom - Talk 15:09, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
So the expanded titles would be: ===The essential human from a biological perspective=== ===The essential human from a spiritual perspective=== ===The essential human from an individualist perspective=== ===The essential human from a cultural perspective=== ===The essential human from other significant perspectives=== Tom - Talk 19:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
I think we're getting closer, but I think those headings are overly verbose. I also think we're picking nits. Some reductions follow. - UtherSRG 19:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
These could be pluralized (perspectives), or be explicitly labeled as PsOV. ===Biological perspective== ===Spiritual perspective=== ===Individualist perspective=== ===Cultural perspective=== ===Other perspectives=== UtherSRG 19:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Another possibility. ===Biological essense=== ===Spiritual essense=== ===Individualist essense=== ===Cultural essense=== ===Other essenses=== UtherSRG 19:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Finally, I think the biology and religion sections are of greater importance to maintaining a balanced NPOV. The importance or purpose or origination of the other sections relies significantly on the individuals beliefs about the first two. Perhaps their headings should be of one form, while the other three take a different form. - UtherSRG 19:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
===Biological=== ===Spiritual=== ===Individualist=== ===Cultural=== ===Other perspectives=== Tom - Talk 23:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
===Human self-reflection=== ===Human biology=== ===Spiritual and religious definitions of humanity=== ===Human society and culture===
I'm not. What had started as primarily a biology-focused article became a well balanced article with biology and spirituality/religion both significantly high in the order (with biology just above spirituality/religion as they are the PsOV most opposed to each other). Now both biology and spirituality/religion have been reduced in primacy with the elevation of self-reflection. I prefer self-reflection to be below the other two. - UtherSRG 23:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
[A month later] This section is confused again. I am going to try to retrieve an acceptable old wording. I am also going to be bold and try changing some headings to clarify what is going on in this article to try to head off entropic edits. Tom Haws 16:27, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Taxobox is in the wrong place; it should not be at the top of the Human page. It should be in the Biology section--because Biology and the Taxobox are not the defining qualities of "Human." The defining quality of human is the intergenerational transmission of technology and culture part.
Whoa! I guess I missed something. Raul654 said the taxobox was at the top, but it isn't. I guess Sam Spade moved it to the top for a moment before it got returned to it's consensus location in the biology section, right? It sounds like we are all in agreement then; it is where it has to be, in the Biological (see section titles discussion above) section. Did I follow correctly? Tom - Talk 15:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
well, why is the 'Individual' section gone? Can we have it back please? this was ' major editing' indeed. I argue we need both a 'Society' and an 'Individual' section, as these are complementary concepts. dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
so, will anybody object if I resurrect the 'Individual' section? dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the position of the taxobox according to the extended discussion and voting on this TalkPage. Apparently, the Wikiproject Tree of Life specification is wrong and should be corrected. I will get around to initiating that discussion on the "Tree of Life" TalkPage--eventually. --- Rednblu | Talk 21:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If this discussion is about the taxobox position, yes, that was decided very slowly and deliberately with a lot of input from a lot of people. There would certainly have to be a large group assembled again to discuss the matter if we were to consider having it preside over the article again. The taxobox is indeed just as valid for Homo sapiens as it it for any other species. I only beg that those who were not here for the previous discussion to consider the NPOV principle of ownership of words. No single group owns the term Human, and if significant and major points of view hold that biology is not primarily definitive of humans, then it is probably appropriate to keep the taxobox out of the intro. At least this is how I understand the outcome of the previous discussion and its interpretation in light of the established policies. In case you were not here for that discussion, I recall for you that one weakly favored proposal was to have a separate article Homo sapiens or such about the biological human with the taxobox at the top. Tom H. 15:49, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
the comp-sci definition is missing from the page. T
he comp-sci definition is: A man is a computer that can pass the turing test
Why is this article so weird? Why is there a picture of 2 girls at the top instead of a txobox? And why is
in the intro? I think my version was way better. Comments? ( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Probably you will get general agreement about the oddness of the "philosopher's view" "a human is not a chicken". The article does seem to be getting untidy. And I apologize because I may have regretfully reverted when I should have carefully reconstructed the consensus form from your edit. What would need to be discussed would be the image and taxobox. In general, the article is at a point now that I think it could benefit from a little rewording and editing to keep it focused on answering the question "what is a human?" I just edited the Birth and death section in a way that I think kept the content. Tom Haws 21:49, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Me again. Here is how I understand the standing agreement on the focus of the article: Tom Haws
See above and in archives too. Note that most articles have a nice, flattering mug shot at the top. The little girls was voted best of proposals. But of course the whole thing can be discussed again. Tom Haws 21:58, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
the article has really been deteriorating. I moved back to the carefully balanced, consensus approved intro. If people want to tweak the intro, they should discuss. The birth and death section should be part of "individual". dab (ᛏ) 22:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)