Talk:Human/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

human picture

does anyone find it racist? the humans shown are obviously of European descent.--67.149.77.77 21:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you do find it racist? David D. (Talk) 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I would say it's racist (I'm not the guy who first posted, by the way), but it's certainly absurd. Is it representative of the human race to show a man with a clean shave and a 1970s haircut, and a woman with cartoonishly simplified external genitalia? Their appearance is certainly modern caucasian (both blonde, too - isn't that nice) and hardly representative of humanity in general. Seems kind of silly to me to rely on NASA to be the judge of what best defines our species. Is it just because the image is free use? Kafziel 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So would you consider a crowd shot to be a more appropriate picture? Any individual would fall into the same problems you out line above. The strange thing is I never even considered the color of hair, whether shaven or not. They have two arms and two legs, eyes etc that is what I saw. i might add i never added the drawing so I do not have any attachment to it I just thought it was a novel way to represent humans. David D. (Talk) 16:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think a crowd shot would be better. Maybe a frame from that old Coke commercial with everyone on the mountain singing. :)

Seriously, though, there must be group photos out there somewhere depicting a more varied example of human traits. I just don't know if we can find a free use one, which is the only thing I can think of that might have been the benefit of using the NASA one.

Legal ramifications make us unable to define ourselves as a species. Isn't that appropriate. Kafziel 17:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Better that than get it wrong ;-) I checked for images on wikipedia with a search using the keywords of crowd or people. Nothing of note popped up. Are there other places to search? David D. (Talk) 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree, this has been discussed on and off forever and the clear result is that the voyager image is the most neutral, authoratative, and representitive. Sam Spade 16:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on who's logic? According to the people above it is not neutral, authoratative, nor representitive. So that directly contradicts your statements. I think a human skull would be far more neutral as it would represent all ethnicities, and genders.

Except of course skulls do often have subtle distinguishing features based on gender and ancestry/race. --Krsont 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A skull would be pretty cool actually. So would a naked chic ;) Sam Spade 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with using the current Pioneer picture. It's simple, clear, and recognizable. Seeing as it was chosen to represent Homo sapiens to any other life forms that may encounter the spacecraft, I think it is quite appropriate here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes please keep the current pic, the one from Voyager has a certain logic inherent to its use. My second choice would be daVinci's, and that dosn't show a female so its sexist as well as racist. It is, however, immediately recognizable and a little "prettier" than the Voyager human. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Race Pictures

The human race "Mugshots" picture is of a very poor quality. In fact, this picture depicts criminals. They just look weird. Do they represent their races properly? You must be kidding! Also, FBI in the context of the human race? Do you think it's appropriate? KGB maybe also, as reflecting another "universal" side of the human race?

Enough rhetorical questions! In my opinion, the picture is to be removed. What do you think? --67.49.208.202 05:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive suggestions to replace the photo? David D. (Talk) 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do, actually. A collage of famous people from each of the different races would be quite appropriate here(in my oppinion...). These individuals could be great scientists, political leaders, or whatever... Shuch a picture would not only show the various races in a positive way, but alos show us the contributions that those people made to their societies and to the world. --67.49.208.202 00:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I'm sure there are pictures in wikimedia etc. We could start linking them on here to select those of interest to everyone. David D. (Talk) 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think it's an excellent idea. Although, I can see controversy erupting over what is counted as a race and what isn't. At least with the FBI shots, it shows what one human group (the FBI) considers what is and isn't a race. Ashmoo 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly we just replicate the FBI shot with regard to race and gender. Then it should be objective. David D. (Talk) 07:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you replicate the FBI picture I might not object, but the simple fact is they (the FBI) have an official expertise that you guys probably don't have. I'll keep an open mind and wait to see what you do, but if it starts to get messy or silly (like WP:NOR violations for example) I'll revert to the FBI image. Sam Spade 12:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Somehow I doubt the FBI are the all time experts on racial types and that average people here couldn't replicate the image with better pictures. What we have now is a picture of a bunch of slags and rapists, we should be using every excuse we can to get rid of that thing from the article. --Deglr6328 10:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, we need to end this discussion now! It is not getting us anywhere! In my oppinion the FBI Mugshots need to be definatley replaced. We need an expert oppinion on the topic of selecting an appropriate replacement. How about somebody involved in studiying anthropology at a college level (such as a graduate student or a professor). Surely such a user could be found somewhere on wikipedia! -- Also, check out this link [1] --BorisFromStockdale 00:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the offensive image, and will keep removing it if any of you put it back in. I feel very strongly about this.

If you have any problems, post to my talk page.--BorisFromStockdale 05:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the fbi picture back in here? Can't you guys agrre on taking it out?

--BorisFromStockdale 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:consensus. Sam Spade 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilhelm Wundt

Wilhelm Wundt does not deserve prominance in the psychology section, Sigmund Freud does. You may have a personal POV about mr. wundt, but it is not shared by the world at large. Nobody "invented" psychology, but Freud made it well known and popular. He is the single best known psychologist. Other well known psychologists like B.F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov could also be mentioned, certainly before mr. wundt! Sam Spade 12:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You may have a personal POV about Mr. Frued, but it is not shared by the world at large. Frued's theories are not longer considered viable so he's just as bad a Frued. However mentioning more modern scientists can also lead into trouble since a lot of the theories in the field are equivical. That means that any psycologist you mention is going to be POV. I feel it's decent enough as is, however it should be kept as clean as possible from contributers to the field, and rather focus on the actual field and the general human importance and influence instead. (id est, humans have a tendency for inward reflection. Shown not only by psycology but philosophy and religion before it. (Pyscology is afterall a mixture of philosophy and phisiology))

2cents. 131.210.106.122 Capi crimm

I thought Herr Freud was trained as a neurologist and that he then worked as a psychiatrist (he had a med degree). dr.alf 08:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I replaced an incorrect picture!

Why was the picture of criminals put to this article again? i replaced with a more specific and better picture!, it contained all 5 human racial divisions. And no it was not copyrighted.

This picture is more correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Races_all.JPG

now, the RaceMugshots.jpg picture does not contain, Bushmen or Australians. and it also has Hispanic whic is a cultural catergory not a race. Digitalseal 19:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up 2 threads, please. See also User_talk:Sam_Spade#why_did_you_replace_my_picture.3F. Sam Spade 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ago

Someone used the following edit summary to refute using ago instead of BC or BCE "RV: "ago" is conversational, a dating system is precise and enyclopedic". This is not a valid since the dates being quoted are in the region of +/- 10% values maybe even worse. In this case conversational style is appropriate due to the huge margins of error. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ago" is indeed somewhat conversational, and is chiefly used in Wikipedia in abbreviations like "mya" (million years ago). If the date is approximate, the accepted style is to use "c." (standing for circa) to show that clearly. It is also extremely unusual to use "10,000 years BCE" as opposed to just "10,000 BCE". I'd recommend the following phrasing: "The most widely accepted view in the anthropological community is that the human species originated in the African savanna between around 100,000 and 200,000 BCE, colonised the rest of the Old World and Oceania by c. 40,000 BCE, and finally colonised the Americas by c. 10,000 BCE." -Silence 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Using "BCE" is indicating a specific year (or range of years), just as 2006 CE indicates a specific year. Using "ago" indicates a more nebulous time in the past. "Mya" or "mega annum" are the preferred for time periods of a larger magnitude, and "ago" is a part of "mya". I agree with using "ago" in preferrence to "BCE", but would prefer the more scientific "tya" or "kilo annum". - UtherSRG (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great rule of thumb. Ago is handy, appropriate, and comprehensible. Thanks for not pushing "tya" or "kilo annum". Whew! :-D. Tom Haws 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Carleton Coon

The five human racial divisions proposed in Carleton Coon's The Origin of Races (1962)

vrs.

File:Races101dsds.jpg

The five human racial divisions proposed in Carleton Coon's The Origin of Races (1962)

vs.

which one is the real five human racial divisions proposed in Carleton Coon's The Origin of Races (1962) ? I suspect it was the first... Sam Spade 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam, there is enough evidence to convince me at least that the second of these two images is a (rather inexpert) adulteration of the first, concocted by Learning1 (talk · contribs) in an attempt to portray 'Ethiopian' or 'Ethiopid' as some valid racial descriptor. Firstly, one can readily see that the portrait of the Ethiopian male has different dimensions from the others, and the accompanying text is in different type from the rest. The text underneath the Ethiopian's portrait is also in the reverse order from all the others- it has location ('Horn of Africa') on the top and race ('Ethiopian') on the bottom.

File:EthiopianShoa.jpg

img also uploaded by Learning1, clearly the source of the added portrait

The clincher is that Learning1 has separately uploaded[2] the image to the right, here, which is clearly the source of the added portrait. Despite Learning1 tagging this image as if s/he were the creator, I doubt very much that this is the case and its provenance is presently unknown.

Thus it is clear that the first image is the original, but not having read Coon's 1962 work I can't say whether this is the particular img which appears in this work. The second one is a forgery, at least insofar as its portrayal is concerned.

Learning1 has recently uploaded about fifty other images which appear to be copyright infringements, despite being tagged as original works, as well as some large sections of text also suspected as copyright infringements, which have been attached to the Ethiopid article Learning1 created. Ongoing discussion re these is at talk:Ethiopid; Learning1 is claiming to have permission for text and imgs but to date evidence for this has not been provided.

Copyright and source concerns aside, I also have concerns about the very nature of "Ethiopid" as a valid article —the term seems to be relatively-little used and unclearly defined. Anyone with further information or insight into the validity or otherwise of this term as some recognised race descriptor is invited to comment on the talk page over there. For example, does anyone know if Coon or any other theorist has used the term in the context of defined major race division?--cjllw | TALK 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Only musters 218 googlehits — goethean ॐ 20:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In this categorization, "Ethiopids" (6 hits on scholar.google.com) are intermediate between Caucasians and Africans. Risch and Tang et al. write in "Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease"(2002) write:

Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level.[3]

(Risch and Tang have each led prominent studies in this area.) More generally, the study concludes:

"Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry. ...

On the basis of numerous population genetic surveys, we categorize Africans as those with primary ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa ... Caucasians include those with ancestry in Europe and West Asia, including the Indian subcontinent and Middle East; North Africans typically also are included in this group as their ancestry derives largely from the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa. 'Asians' are those from eastern Asia including China, Indochina, Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. By contrast, Pacific Islanders are those with indigenous ancestry from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia and Micronesia, as well as other Pacific Island groups further east. Native Americans are those that have indigenous ancestry in North and South America.

--Nectar 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

wow, great research, thanks! Sam Spade 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Which one of the shown groups do, say, the "average" Europeans belong to? Isn't there a difference between Japanese and Chinese races?--85.49.224.196 01:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I really think we need to get away from the whole discussion of "races". The concept is bullshit (no, this is not a PC comment). Besides, you are conflating race and ethnicity anyway. Jim62sch 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That is an extreme POV not even held by many of the wackiest PC fascists. I should hope you don't expect this article to present the view of such an obscure and contentious minority. We already rather inflated and need to be spinning content off to daughter articles (oops, sorry, are you one of those who thinks gender doesn't exist as well?), not adding bizarre factoids. Sam Spade 14:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

FARC

should we change the first sentence?

I have tried to address the concerns presented, please weigh in. Also i reverted the intro. That took several months to achieve consensus on, and should not be re-written based on one editors POV. Please discuss major edits to popular (much less featured!) articles, thanks. Sam Spade 16:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam, to be fair, Silensor did say in his edit summary " please feel free to discuss any specific objections to any aspect of my new intro, and I'll gladly explain the changes. for example, this article is about humans, not how humans "define themselves".". He was just being bold as wikipedia encourages us to be. David D. (Talk) 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not blowing a gasket or anything, but it was an insane debate which raged on for months (w revert warring, polls and all the rest), and I'd rather take things slow w such an important and touchy section. Any comments on the particulars? Sam Spade 16:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

this article is about humans, not how humans "define themselves"

The implicit assumption in User:Silence's edit summary is that the natural-scientific understanding of human beings ("Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates") is the way that we really are, and all that other humanistic crap is merely how we "define" ourselves. So natural science gives us pure knowledge, while the humanities and social sciences (not to mention religion and spirituality) give us information that is impossibly corrupted by those awfully messy values. This anti-humanism is a POV, albeit a widespread one. Human beings do define themselves in many ways, the natural-scientific being one of those ways, not a totally seperate direct connection to pure truth. Sam's revert was correct. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I of course second Goethean, and am greatful for his eloquence. Have you had a chance to look at the Featured article removal candidacy, by chance? Sam Spade 16:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. — goethean ॐ 17:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I was a bit too presumptuous in my edit, but when no comment whatsoever is made on any actual problems with the text, just a "this isn't exactly what we agreed on a while ago! no consensus, bam!", I get the sense that this is "the used-to-be-free encyclopedia, not "the free encyclopedia". I spent a few hours rewriting the intro after seeing numerous glaring and embarrassing flaws (and there was even a comment hidden in the text pointing out how obviously disorganized, redundant, and poorly-written so much of the text was; is that comment, which is now back on the page because the errors it referred to are back as well, also a part of this "consensus version"?). I'll freely admit that there are numerous errors in my version, too, and a lot of places to improve; I simply feel that it's significantly superior to the previous (and now the current) version.

In any case, I don't really understand the nature of the dispute here. Why is it controversial to begin an article about humans by talking about humans (rather than by talking about "how humans define themselves", which is an entirely different article topic). If anyone wants to make a Human self-definition article (or similar), that would probably make a great opening line, but it's completely irrelevant to the very beginning of an article about humans themselves, which must explain, first and foremost, what humans are, not what they think they are, just as the Ku Klux Klan's first line doesn't say "The Ku Klux Klan identifies itself as a righteous organization who do the work of God in cleansing the unpure races. Others disagree with this definition.", and Gorilla doesn't start with "Gorillas can be defined in different ways in various biological, cultural, and spiritual contexts. In the biological sense, gorillas are...", and Heart doesn't have as its first line, "The heart is something that many religions and biologists have defined in a variety of ways. For example..." None of that is helpful or useful; encyclopedias tell what the subject matter is first and foremost, not what it thinks it is.

Self-referentiality changes none of that; we should treat this article the same as we treat any article about a species of life on the planet Earth (which is, first and foremost, and least disputably of anything in this article, what humans are!), just as we treat Wikipedia the same as we treat any other article even though it's about ourselves. Encyclopedias are never self-referential, even when talking about the species that every contributor and reader of this encyclopedia belongs to; it is inappropriate to start off the article by saying "Humans define themselves as..." when the article's about humans (rather than about "how humans define themselves") for the same reason that it's inappropriate to say "Beyond grand unification, we might merge gravity with the other three gauge symmetries in a theory of everything." on grand unification theory; instead, we say "Beyond grand unification, there is also speculation that it may be possible to merge gravity with the other three gauge symmetries into a theory of everything." or similar (ideally, with even less use of weasel words). Understand my problem with the first sentence?

What I think is happening is that the article is being harmed by a false debate that people are trying to initiate to push a certain POV agenda (that POV being that science itself is "just a POV", rather than being, in large part, the very basis for encyclopedic writing, and the very source of Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and neutrality!). This just seems strange to me. Of course sociological and religious studies should be mentioned, and explored in depth, in this article. They're fascinating, relevant topics, and happen to be some of my favorite fields of study. But the notion that seems to be presented by User:Goethean above, when he contemptuously denigrates the entire field of biology to "anti-humanism" (which seems truly bizarre to me, as even a quick read of the humanism article demonstrates that humanistic and science are intricately linked; without humanism, there would be no science, and science is the ultimate expression of the humanistic idea that people should try to learn for themselves about the world, rather than just accepting what a certain authority happened to tell them), is the idea that these different fields of study, all important and necessary aspects of the human condition to explore, are at war somehow, or are totally different ways of looking at humanity. This just seems bizarre to me; sociology and biology are not differing POVs, they're differing fields of study, and the only reason we address biology before sociology is because that's the convention that's been established in every other article on Wikipedia, and because, chronologically, biology came before sociology: saffron, like most other featured articles, proceeds in this chronological and intuitive way; it begins with a discussion of the biology of saffron, then jumps into a history of saffron, then addresses the modern trade and grading of saffron. This is just the easiest way to inform readers about almost any topic; working backwards would cause too much confusion, as this is a causal universe we live in, and it's hard to fully understand events without knowing what happened before.

But sociology and biology not only aren't "competing" fields, they're complimentary fields—drawing the line between one and the other becomes harder and harder to do where the two meet, and indeed, almost everything mentioned as being a "biological" topic in the human article plays a key role in human sociology: hair color, life cycle, race, habitat, population... Not only is there no war at stake here between these different fields of study, but there's not even a contradiction. So where's the controversy? This is an article about humans, not an article about how humans define themselves; just because this article is the product of an act of humans defining themselves doesn't mean that that's the topic of the article itself, just as the fact that I'm typing on a computer doesn't mean that when I edit the article Computer I have to start by saying "Using computers, people are able to write many things about computers..." It's just not what the article's about! Seems like a pretty simple notion to me...

We should certainly address human spirituality and religion and such in great detail in the article, and mention it, along with all other major aspects of human life, in the opening paragraphs, but the simple fact is that starting the article with "Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms." contributes absolutely no information to any reader whatsoever! It's the ultimate in overly Political Correct, meaningless talking-for-its-own-sake, an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and just plain bad writing. It would be a hilariously poor beginning if it was the start of any old ordinary article, but as the beginning of a Featured Article, it's just plain shocking. The purpose of writing articles is to inform the readers about the subject matter, not to cover our own asses in every conceivable way, no matter how ridiculous. And I'd love to work with all of you in accomplishing that goal, even if we disagree on what a human is or isn't. So, what're your thoughts on the matter?

Also, as a final note (sorry for being so lengthy on this matter! I felt I needed to make up for not saying anything about my edits beforehand by saying too much about it afterwards ;)), although Wikipedia is obviously not Britannica, here is how the article on human being begins in the Encyclopedia Britannica online:

(species Homo sapiens), a bipedal primate mammal that is anatomically related to the great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain, with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, and by a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Humans occur in a number of freely interbreeding races and are the sole recent representatives of the family Hominidae. (See hominid.)

-Silence 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

But the notion that seems to be presented by User:Goethean above, when he contemptuously denigrates the entire field of biology to "anti-humanism"..., is the idea that these different fields of study, all important and necessary aspects of the human condition to explore, are at war somehow, or are totally different ways of looking at humanity.

This, obviously, is a mischaracterization. As I stated above, I take issue with your implicit assumption that the natural sciences trump all other forms of human inquiry. — goethean ॐ 19:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying (though I don't see it as quite so "obvious"), but no such implicit assumption exists. As I explained above, all Wikipedia articles start with biology (for articles about an organism) or history/source/etymology (for articles about a movement, word, invention, etc.), then go into details, and typically go into "popular culture" and sociological impact in general last. Humans were organisms with arms, legs, and a brain before they had cities, tools, religion, talk shows; thus we start from the basics, a look at the human species, and then move on to the details, such as human behavior and beliefs. And we already do do that; it's not like I reorganized the order we naturally go in. I simply made it flow better, removed redundancies and poor grammar and wording, expanded on some poorly lacking areas, and removed empty, utterly meaningless phrases like the current first sentence, which are as true as they are irrelevant.

Making an exception for humans that does not exist for any other lifeform article on Wikipedia would demonstrate an obvious POV and bias, which encyclopedias like Britannica are careful and skilled in the style of neutral writing enough to avoid making, but we so far are not. Humans couldn't have society, culture, religion, or anything else without being alive, and it's simply a fact that almost everything else in the article is derived from the most fundamental and basic descriptions of human biology which this article starts with: that humans have highly-developed brains capable of processing abstractions and causality, that they are skilled at manipulating tools, that they are social animals who naturally group together and form complex interactions. Anyone reading this article needs to know all those things before they can understand well the rest of the content provided; if they don't already know it, we need to tell them, so that's what we start the article with, and it's as simple as that. Additionally, "biology" and "sociology" are impossible to clearly divide because it's all ultimately biological, because it all still deals with the study of life. Humans are alive; you don't dispute that, right? Organic functions aren't some strange, distant topic, they aren't a POV, they're the basis of all life on the planet. Since countless Wikipedia articles already state this, including biology itself, it's not only unprofessional, unhelpful, and just plain silly to start from the assumption that such a view is only a single way of looking at life, but it's also deeply inconsistent and contradictory to the point of being incoherent.

Articles are written for readers who don't know anything about the article yet. Readers are in no way benefited by the current formatting of the opening paragraphs, vs. the version I have proposed, and encyclopedias are designed to inform and thus benefit its readers, ergo the current opening is inherently unencyclopedic and fundamentally useless. Plus it's kind of funny. It would probably make a good line to start off a Wikipedia parody with, like the Uncyclopedia article on humans, to emphasize the absurdity which Wikipedia's NPOV disputes can sometimes reach; it's simply an unacceptable way to begin a Featured Article on human beings, though, despite my keen appreciation for the absurd. -Silence 20:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What I characterize as anti-humanistic is the idea that, whatever individual human beings might believe that we are, we fundamentally remain bipedal primates. The assumption here is that, although human beings engage in religion, philosophy, sociology, etc., biology is the only field that truly knows what human beings fundamentally are. The first sentence of this article, far from being content-free, directly acknowledges and contradicts that chauvanism. I welcome improvement of the intro, but your edit was not an improvement. — goethean ॐ 19:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what your first sentence here means. Of course we "fundamentally remain bipedal primates", just as a squirrel fundamentally remains a rodent "even" when it's eating nuts, and a spoon fundamentally an eating utensil "even" when it's painted bright pink (though I don't see why you feel the need to use "fundamentally", as nowhere in my edit did I at all state or imply that there's anything more or less "fundamental" about any aspect of humans compared to any other aspect of humans; I merely stated a series of facts about human beings, and let the reader take from those statements what they will). It seems to me like you're having a hard time disconnecting the simple scientific term "primate" from the derogatory, connotational insult "primate" (which one would expect to find only in a rhetorical discussion of some sort, not in an encyclopedia article). You thus are speaking from the assumption that it's somehow bad to be a "primate"; this is absolutely, inherently untrue. If human beings were a type of squid or elephant or grasshopper, would it be POVed to say that human beings are a species of squid, elephant, or grasshopper? Of course not; there's no such thing as "mere primate", and to suggest that we are somehow lessened by being primates is fundamentally absurd and self-contradictory, just as meaningless as saying that we are "mere animals", "mere hominids", "mere organisms", or "mere mammals". That's what we are, it's not an insult or a put-down, and it's in no way a limitation of what we can do or what we signify in this universe. And we are glorious and beautiful and strange creatures not despite being primates (nor because of it), but along with being primates, just as we are amazing not despite ten fingers, nor because of it, but along with it. They're just unrelated statements of fact, and the only way to read anything negative into it is to already have a skewed, preconceived idea of the world which is deeply disconnected from reality. Wikipedia's job is to present all major relevant POVs on an issue, not to arbitrarily appeal to random kooks or to ignore scientific facts. Not only is my version of the article not "chauvinist" (which I think you may be misusing slightly there), but it's also quite definitely an improvement, though it also has a long ways to go itself. As a fairly experienced copyeditor, thinker, encyclopedia-editor, and member of the human race, I'd rate the current version of the opening paragraphs a 3/10, my version a 5/10, and I feel that we should work from the better version until we get up to at least an 8/10, which I'd gladly discuss and work to the best of my ability on doing as soon as we can get over this ridiculous, arbitrary, irrelevant Politically Correct doublespeak, "Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms." Humans also have a tendency to wear hats and were are fans of the show Friends, but none of that is relevant in the first sentence of a paragraph about humans themselves, not about how they define themselves, what clothing they wear, or what '90s TV shows were popular. It is no more POVed to start human by describing the biology of humans than it is to start heart, turtle, circulatory system, cat, or any other article about an organism that way without an inane, redundant, irrelevant disclaimer. -Silence 20:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

However, thanks for the speedy response, even though I disagree with your arguments, and I apologize again for my characteristic tendency towards excessive verbosity. ;O -Silence 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple points of view regarding what human beings most fundamentally are. I would like for this article to acknowledge this variety in belief. You seem to associate the importance of this variety in belief with the tendency to wear hats or to watch Friends, so our views differ considerably. The 18 pages of archives of this talk page (not to mention any episode of human intellectual history) is enough to establish that there is controversy regarding the fundamental nature of human beings. Where there is controversy, NPOV dictates that Wikipedia document the controversy rather than taking a side in it. Are you willing to consider anything other than "human beings are primates", for the opening sentence? — goethean ॐ 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Silence. As you know, Wikipedia is not in the "truth" business. And it isn't really even in the "fact" business (in the absolute sense we might assume). As an encyclopedia it is in the "knowledge" business. A significant number of people "know" that this is a human: a bipedal primate that wears clothes and tells stories. A significant number of people "know" that this is a human: a free-will spirit incarnated for a transcendental purpose. Wikipedia doesn't declare either "knowledge" more "true" or more "factual". Wikipedia only declares what is "significant". An intro that addresses the problem you are seeing might say, "Humans are, biologically speaking, the species Homo sapiens, a bipedal primate.... Culturally speaking, humans are the only known beings to wear clothing, build fires, and write histories. Spiritually speaking, humans are fundamentally spirit or soul, generally conceived as being related to a transcendent or eternal purpose or being, incarnated in a physical body." The current article violates NPOV in spite of its intro-by-committee in that it still expresses spirituality as a by-product of biology (which is not a true representation of spiritual "knowledge") rather than a definition of humanity. But that is for another year. For today, perhaps there is somewhere we can go to improve the intro. Tom Haws 20:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with silence's SPOV (scientific or secular POV) dominating the article much as others have. I also see room for refinement, and changes more suitable to both sides. I have long found the intro an unhappy compromise with secular wikipedians. Humans are, first and foremost, spiritual beings. Thats the only thing we know for certain. All this flesh and blood and materialism could easilly be maya, illusion, window dressing. The soul on the other hand is my self, my being. I know what I am. Sam Spade 21:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So Sam, we need to address both secular and spiritual and preferably so elegantly that it will stand unchallenged. We don't want people arriving in three months 3 months saying "I have long found the intro an unhappy compromise with spiritual wikipedians" David D. (Talk) 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't want people arriving in three months 3 months saying "I have long found the intro an unhappy compromise with spiritual wikipedians"

From my perspective, that's actually preferable to having one side force through an entry that reflects only the majority POV, which is precisely what would have happened if I and several others hadn't spent several months last year working towards a compromise. Obviously, it would be ideal to have an entry that all sides can live with. But that takes compromise, which does not often yield sparkling prose. — goethean ॐ 17:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes the sparkling prose is the firt thing to go I agree. One suggestion i have is that we indicate in the archives above where these previous discussions exist. That would help people find the old discussion before rehashing the debate. David D. (Talk) 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe I'll do it like Talk:Mother Teresa. Do any of you know if there is a template for "read the archives"? — goethean ॐ 17:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You are refering to the FAQ. I like that idea even better. A redux of previous arguments cut and paste together from the archive. I have not seen a template. David D. (Talk) 18:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if any of the banners at the top of this page can be deleted. They really scream "scroll down!" — goethean ॐ 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[4] Fine with me. — goethean ॐ 21:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we interpret NPOV with respect to the first sentence?

Well, if you read NPOV long enough, you'll find it recommending a version all reasonable, informed parties can live with (if not love). I'm up for that. Sam Spade

Sam, that's really the essence of the solution: to "read NPOV long enough". The answers are in there. (p.s. I love your frank exposition of your POV. Makes for good communication. And I'll say ditto.) Good comment too, David D. Tom Haws 17:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted."

An applicable quote. Sam Spade 12:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of users' personal beliefs on what it means to be human or what the NPOV policy says, "Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms" is not an appropriate opening sentence for an article on humans. As User:Silence has pointed out, the article is not about how humans define themselves - it's about what humans are. Imagine Wikipedia is being read by an intelligent creature other than a human (an alien, for example): would they expect this article to open with a vague list of ways in which humans define themselves or a factual, NPOV, description of what a human is, like the one quoted by Silence from the Encyclopedia Britannica? Of course, the article should go on to discuss the various ways in which humans define themselves, but such discussion is not suitable for the opening sentence.

Defining humans as "bipedal primate mammals" is neither controversial nor POV - it is established scientific fact. That doesn't mean that I think we should ignore all other definitions of humans but that they should not be in the first sentence. I hope it will be possible to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to everyone. Hitchhiker89^talk 19:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that "bipedal primate mammals" is not POV. Bare with me here, as I have not read the archive in detail yet. It seems that such a description should be acceptable to all parties. To me this just seems like a physical classification that does not consider evolution, creation or behaviour. David D. (Talk) 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That particular quote was taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica article that Silence posted. Silence's version (which I much prefer to the current article) was similar: "Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates biologically classified as members of the mammalian species Homo sapiens...". Hitchhiker89^talk 20:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Defining human beings as primates full stop is POV, primarily because the majority of people on earth would not assent to it, but also because it ignores as much scholarship as it does the perspectives of non-scholars. It is a scientific fact, but there many more facts that it, by implication, negates. You believe that humans are primarily primates. That's fabulous. I believe that humans are physical, biological, social, and spiritual beings. The fact that we disagree on the priority of these two facts constitutes a controversy. It's a controversy between not only the users of the wikipedia, but also between all human beings. You (and many others) believe that only the scientific perspective is valid. Great — let's include that fact. But let's also include the fact that at least as many people dissent from that opinion as agree to it. Where there is controversy, Wikipedia should document the controversy rather than taking a side in it. — goethean ॐ 20:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that there are multiple views of what it is to be human (i.e. how we, as humans, define ourselves) and that the article needs to discuss (pretty much) all of these views - "Defining human beings as primates full stop" would indeed be POV and is not what I want to do. I happen to think that Silence's version of the opening, whilst better than what we have at present, was somewhat skewed in favour of a "scientific POV". However, the difference between the "fact" that humans are bipedal primates and the "fact" that we, for example, have a soul is that the former has a vast amount of evidence. Of course, that doesn't make the concept of a soul "wrong" or "false" but does, I believe, mean that it should not be presented in the same way as biological information on humans as a species and certainly not in the opening sentence. Hitchhiker89^talk 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that there are multiple views of what it is to be human (i.e. how we, as humans, define ourselves)

I assume that you are implicitly contrasting how humans define ourselves with what humans really are, i.e. the view from outside the human realm. But I don't agree with you that this is uncontroversial. Yes, scientifically-minded folks do see us as 2-legged primates when seen from afar. But the idea that there is nothing out there but dust energy and little green men is not a proven scientific fact. It's an opinion. Yes, it's the opinion held by all right-thinking political progressives, but, given all of the different peoples in the world, cosmic physicalism cosmological naturalism is not a scientific fact — its a philosophical position. And for people who hold that other realms than the physical exist, the description of humans as mere primates is false, in addition to being a point of view. (And I don't think that it's just theists that are the problem here.) At any rate, when you say that from the point of view of the universe, or from an objective point of view, as opposed to from the human point of view, you are making a cosmological claim about the nature of the universe. I think that we should strive to avoid doing so, because I don't think that those questions have been completely settled yet. The current intro — which is imperfect and the result of months of agonizing compromise — strives to avoid making claims about the ultimate nature of the cosmos and of being. I hope that you can understand why I am pleased that it does strive to avoid doing so. Given that restriction, it seems to me that we must document how human beings see themselves, rather than how they really are. — goethean ॐ 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly i do need to read the archives in depth. I had no idea that the word primate is regarded as POV. For me it is just descriptive. David D. (Talk) 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the idea of an alien reading this article to try to show why the article should begin with objective, provable, scientific facts - it wasn't meant to be a philosophical point about the possible existence of extraterrestrial life. Starting an article on humans, or any species, by describing how they view themselves is self-referential and not encyclopedic. "it seems to me that we must document how human beings see themselves, rather than how they really are" - I don't see why we must do one rather than the other. What is wrong with firstly stating observable, testable biological facts and then discussing the various ways in which people view themselves? Hitchhiker89^talk 23:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I apologise for the many spelling mistakes I am almost certain I have made here - It's late and I'm about to go to bed!

If the first sentence in this article is in the form: human beings are..., then, for the purposes of this article, that sentence is defining human beings. If you choose to confine this definition to biology, unless you say otherwise, you are implying that human beings are a biological phenomenon. That is a philosophical position, not a scientific fact. — goethean ॐ 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But from an impartial (such as the alien analogy) view humans are as biological as any other living thing. Is that POV? Does saying the're biological preclude other positions? David D. (Talk) 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that POV?

No, that sounds ok.

Does saying the're biological preclude other positions?

No, but defining us in biological terms implies that biology is fundamental. — goethean ॐ 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Presumably we would not define as only biological but start there as the most obvious "flesh and bone"description, then leading to the more subtle and less visible characters that distinguish humans from other animals. David D. (Talk) 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that has been the presumption. I question its neutrality. — goethean ॐ 19:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm missing the debate a bit, but I thought someone needed to point this out. The claim that humans are primates is a descriptive claim about the anatomy and physiology of the human body. Check out the lead section of primate: five fingers, generalized teeth, generalized body, etc. If you see a human for the first time and want to describe one with just one word, the word is primate. This does not imply that humans are a product of evolution or any other such thing that is noncontroverisal in biology by controversial outside science. If there's a bias to this description it's a visual one, which is natural to our human readers. --Rikurzhen 20:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the physicalist bias of the natural sciences talking again. Whether it is more obvious that (on the one hand) humans have ten fingers and toes etc or (on the other) that they live in groups etc is surely a matter of opinion and perspective than of fact. I would say that the purely physiological characteristics are more superficially obvious, but not necessarily more obvious from a neutral point of view. — goethean ॐ 15:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

They're more obvious from a visual point of view. If you had to write about humans and all you knew about them was what you could see in a still photo, then primate is exactly what you'd describe them as. If you saw moving video then you'd notice things like walking upright always, talking, etc. If you saw them interating in groups... if you could interview one... so on. Being a primate isn't the defining characterisitic of our species once you get to know us, but it is obviously the one that is most accessible to visual senses. as a first blush description. --Rikurzhen 17:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the scale of the photograph. An analysis from space might focus on our being unusually social beings. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

...and although that must sound like an idiotically minor detail to you, the fact is that human beings live in a socio-cultural world as much as a physical one. The natural sciences postulate that outside of our heads, reality is largely physical. But that is not a proven fact. Social constructionists would respond that non-human reality is inaccessible or nonsensical. I don't know that it is proper for Wikipedia to endorse a side in this debate. — goethean ॐ 17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, be careful with that social constructionism/solipism acid, you might spill it on something you cherish. I'm not going to debate this, but I think we can say that an encyclopedia is antithetical to strong forms of constrivisim and that basic NPOV philosophy is a weak form that we can all appreciate as a reasonable guard against unquestioned assumptions. --Rikurzhen 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I'm not a social constructionist, but I do have a stake in restraining the majority from ignoring minority beliefs.

basic NPOV philosophy is a weak form that we can all appreciate as a reasonable guard against unquestioned assumptions

So social constructionism is prima facie absurd and safely ignored? That approach would effectively kill NPOV. — goethean ॐ 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For a real NPOV i went to the ant article to see how they deal with the first sentence, especially the 'social' aspect. It does enter the first sentence. An equivalent sentence in the human article would read as follows.

Humans are one of the most successful groups of vertebrates in the animal kingdom and are of particular interest because they are a social animal and form highly organized communities, often consisting of millions of individuals.

I'm not sure it is the best example and it makes me wonder if we really want a NPOV sentence. Any thing that is authentically NPOV is going to sound strange. David D. (Talk) 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In my view, NPOV – otherwise known as fairness – trumps aesthetic considerations. — goethean ॐ 16:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this article distinct with regard to POV?

Whether it is a little green man, an angel, or the Father in Heaven reading the Wikipedia human article, the reader doubtlessly realizes that this article is special. "This article", says he, "is where the humans tell about themselves. Very interesting. They even go so far as to define themselves. Very interesting indeed! I will keep this article on my watchlist. Rum thing that only humans are allowed to edit!" Tom Haws

This is not your run-of-the-mill article. And the matter of self-definition is very important. Like it or not, and admit it or not, humans wrote this encyclopedia. Tom Haws 15:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that, further, any attempt to write this article from a non-human point of view necessarily involves making cosmological and philosophical assumptions that are questionable and thus improper under NPOV. Thus we are limited to how humans define themselves. — goethean ॐ 15:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That is true. And the very meta-matter of how they define themselves is not entirely out of place in this one special article. I'm not saying that the current first sentence is sparkling prose. I am saying that meta-statements like "Humans define themselve" or "Humans wrote this encyclopedia" are central issues to this special article. Because like it or not, those bipedal primates are the only ones (as far as I know) trying to define themselves and editing the encyclopedia. And that is key to the historic debate about the definition of humanity. I'm all for further revisions. But they must be NPOV compliant. Tom Haws 16:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to write a great article#Writing says: "Start your article with a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. The reader should be able to get a good overview by only reading this first paragraph." Personally, I think this should be taken further, i.e. the first sentence should, on its own, mention the most important points and give an overview of the topic. The first sentence of this article falls flat on its face at this task and that is my main objection. Never mind philosophical questions about Gods and aliens, the first sentence of "Human", one of (if not the) most important articles on Wikipedia should not be "Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms." That sentence is not an example of the best work on Wikipedia. That sentence is an unhappy compromise and it needs to be removed. Hitchhiker89^talk 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do aesthetic considerations trump NPOV? — goethean ॐ 17:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but what I am proposing does not violate NPOV. Hitchhiker89^talk 17:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You are proposing "Humans are bipedal primates"? Sam Spade proposed "Humans are spirits." Tom Haws 18:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I am proposing that the article starts with a biological description of humans as a species before moving on to discuss society and spirituality. I'm not quite sure what exactly Sam is proposing but I think he wants to put more emphasis on spirituality in the introduction. I'd be fine with that but I think the first sentence or two at least should be a biological definition of humans. As I say, it's the first sentence that I have a real problem with - it just doesn't work for the start of an encyclopedia article on humans. Hitchhiker89^talk 22:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a serious proposal:

Humans, from a biological perspective, are classified as the species ....

Culturally speaking, humans are the only living things on earth known to wear clothing, build fires, and tell stories....

Spiritually speaking, the biological description of humans is either secondary or illusory, and humans are spiritual beings or souls whose destiny and purpose transcend the life of the biological body.

Now that would be a comprehensive, satisfying, and NPOV beginning for an article. Tom Haws 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I find the biological to be complimentary or equally primary, rather than secondary or illusory. — goethean ॐ 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, I hate to say it, but that turns out to be a primary reason we fail at getting an NPOV article--we can't even come up with a decent definition of humans from the Spiritual perspective. I am not hung up on any definition at all; I only want the article to express that one significant definition of humans is as spiritual beings. Maybe it would be a good idea to stop worrying about the bio v. spirit POV balance and focus on getting a good, referenced spiritual definition to include. Also, I am nearly as dissatisfied that the article does and always has focused on "bipedal primate" and neglected to mention that humans are the only ones who wear clothing, build fires, and write stories. It is a POV tour de force. Tom Haws 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. — goethean ॐ 23:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is Hitchhiker89's opinion-piece, above, on the importance of the first sentence that shows why his proposal -- to delete it and start with the biological definition -- is unacceptable. He is proposing to define human beings in strictly biological terms, that is to say, to neglect all other aspects of humanity in the opening -- definitional -- sentence. That is most certainly not neutral. — goethean ॐ 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that but I think the first sentence or two at least should be a biological definition of humans. (--Hitchhiker89)

Humans should not be defined in exclusively biological terms because, your POV notwithstanding, humans are not exclusively biological. — goethean ॐ 23:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Goethean, you favor the current intro sentence above any other idea you have considered? Is that your position? Tom Haws 23:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom Haws: Assuming we can come up with decent cultural and spiritual definitions, that looks fine to me.

Goethean: Maybe I haven't made this clear enough for you but I do not want to define humans in biological terms only. I want the article to start with a biological definition, like in Tom's proposal above. It would be impossible to fit biological, cultural and spiritual definitions all into the first sentence but that doesn't mean they can't all go in the introduction. Hitchhiker89^talk 16:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitchhiker89: the devil is in the details. I need to see more before I can say whether your proposal is superior to the present version. — goethean ॐ 17:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom: Yes, I haven't seen any proposals that are fair and are aesthetically superior to the current opening sentence. All of the secularists are insisting on "humans are bipedal primates". That is inferior to the present version. It's sort of like saying "human bodies consist of a skeletal system" and getting to all of the messy tissue-and-nerve stuff after a few paragraphs on the exact composition of the bones. And then dismissing the tissue and nerve stuff as minor details once you do get to it. — goethean ॐ 16:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All of the secularists are insisting on "humans are bipedal primates".

I assume you're counting me amongst the "secularists" in the statement. Yes, I would like the the first sentence to be something along the lines of "humans are bipedal primates" because that is a NPOV biological definition of humans. You seem to think that this favours biological definitions over spiritual ones which is, I think, where we differ in opinion. Putting a biological definition first doesn't imply that it is any more correct than what comes after it.

The articles on every other species begins with a biological definition (or at least, all the ones I've seen). Cultural or social definitions are about interaction between individuals of a species and so make little sense without a definition of the species itself. Spiritual defintions are somewhat more abstract. There are hundreds, thousands even, of different spiritual definitions of humans that different people believe or have believed at one time. The essential point here is that all spiritual definitions are about what beleive about themselves. How can we talk about what people believe before talking about what people are? Also, there is no single, agreed upon spiritual defintion of humans. There are dozens of different competing religions, movements and ideas and most of them must be wrong because they contradict each other.

Don't get me wrong here, I think that spirituality is a very important and interesting aspect of humanity and I certainly don't want to "dismiss [it] as minor details". However, I don't think it makes sense to try to talk about it in the first sentence before, or at the same time as, a biological explanation of humans as a species. Hitchhiker89^talk 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitchhiker89, you said, "How can we talk about what people believe before talking about what people are?" Does that statement not bother you at all? Are you confusing people the authors with people the subjects? Tom Haws 18:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant people as in the subject of the article. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Hitchhiker89^talk 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to see a more complete version of Tom's proposal above before I endorse it. But it looks good so far. One point of contention is the comparative length of each section. Traditionally, secularists have bloated the biological section until it dwarfs the other two. That's not right. — goethean ॐ 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have placed Tom's proposal on a userpage Please improve it as you see fit. — goethean ॐ 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot improve it. I am okay with it as is. Rather, I would need to see improvements by Hitchhiker, Silence, David D., Slimvirgin, Sam Spade, Mel Etitis, etc. Tom Haws 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me already - better than what we currently have. I'll have a go at improving it but I too would like to see contributions from as many users as possible - it looks as if we may be able to now come up with an introduction that is acceptable to everyone. Hitchhiker89^talk 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree w Tom and his proposal (which is nearly identical to what we agreed to the last time we achieved consensus on the intro...) so much that I would like to offer him a job speaking for me in the future ;) Sam Spade 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, dare we/need we look up the major players from around April 26, 2005 (see those listed at User:Hawstom#Team_NPOV_efforts) and get their assent? Or just throw it up there and wait? Tom Haws 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the latter. — goethean ॐ 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree Tom Haws 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I say we just do what we want and let others comment as they see fit. No need stirring the hornets nest, so to speak. Sam Spade 23:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

New introduction

The introduction has now been replaced with the version developed here. Hitchhiker89^talk 20:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Spiritual perspectives on humans state that they are spiritual beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body."

Can someone provide a reference that explains the term "spiritual being". --JWSchmidt 01:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Spirituality Tom Haws 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In the past there has been an article called spiritual being. I did not go through all of its history, but the most recent version of that page had no references for the term "spiritual being". The "spiritual being" article had a section called "Traits of a spiritual being" that said, "At the lowest level the only quality necessary of a spirit is that it is some kind of active force that is either invisible, or visible but immaterial, like the wind". Does this mean that according to spiritual POVs humans are either invisible or immaterial? --JWSchmidt 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that according to some "spiritual POVs humans are either invisible or immaterial", and as expressed in paragraph 2, anything physical is illusion. According to other spiritual POVs, as expressed in paragraph 2, humans are most importantly "invisible or immaterial" spirit. And according to yet other spiritual POVs, humans are a current incarnation of "invisible or immaterial" spirit which is not itself definable as human. And of course there may be others. The common thread is that the spiritual POVs say the biology doesn't tell the story. Tom Haws 15:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

...or the entire story. — goethean ॐ 15:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• So what are some good references that say humans are "spiritual beings"? --JWSchmidt 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about the basic principles of anthropology? — Dunc|☺ 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. This is one of the most inane discussion pages I've ever seen. The fascination with race is reminiscent of discredited theories of, oh, say 70 years ago. The rest is just piffle. Jim62sch 02:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article version

This article is in danger of losing its featured status. With that in mind, perhaps you'd care to see the version as it was when featured here, or the diff between then and now. It may be helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly degenerated into an abysmal quagmire of pseudophilosophy. Jim62sch 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the article is in danger of losing its featured status is that it was never good enough to be featured in the first place. Someone who didn't know that would be confused by the above statement--after all, the diff shows many improvements. A better statement might be "this article is in danger of earning its featured status". --Yath 03:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My point being that the issues raised during its RFA and the FARC have been addressed, and might be further improved, rather than the article being edited in a different direction to its detriment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro comments

I know the introduction is still in flux. I think overall, it's pretty good. It's important to identify in the introduction all the aspects that define us or make us unique beyond the overt biological characteristics. I do think a couple changes should be made, though. One, remove the "Humans define themselves..." sentence. Yes, we are writing this article about ourselves, so it will be inherently biased, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to approach it as disinterestedly as possible. I would suggest writing this article from the viewpoint of a nonhuman (an alien?) studying humans, or perhaps the way a human researcher would describe an intelligent alien, for instance. I think we largely follow that. Start out with the obvious, most basic characterstics—primate, bipedalism, and so on, then move to more complex observations: intelligence, dexterity, technology, society, and such, and finally to the more subtle and less overt qualities like a soul, worship of God, and so on. It is not my intent to downplay the importance of any viewpoint but this seems to be the natural order to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the first sentence; I hope this change was not premature. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me what on Earth is going on here? On Thursday, a group of us with a wide range of POVs finally managed to agree on a new version of the intro which, though far from perfect and certainly in need of some further copyediting, was generally agreed to be better than what we previously had. Since then it seems that the intro has been reverted back and forth several times with no discussion on the talk page. Now it seems that we are back where we started a couple of weeks ago. Hitchhiker89^talk 10:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it, Knowledge Seeker - I always felt the self-definition opening sentence was a problem. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain, Hitchhiker; have the reverts been one-sided or are there many people reverting both ways? I have no objection of course to the intro being re-written; my main concern is that the self-definition seems quite out of place, as KillerChihuahua notes, and as a chihuahua, she is well-placed to offer a non-anthropocentric viewpoint. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted the new version of the intro at 20:33, 2 February (last Thursday). This was reverted at 22:35 by User:Duncharris. This was in turn reverted by User:Hawstom at 01:15, 3 February. At 22:51, 3 February Duncharris reverted again. This was reverted at 23:54, 3 February by User:Sam Spade. User:KillerChihuahua changed it back and made a few minor changes to other parts of the article at 01:17, 4 February. User:70.176.232.214 changed the intro back again at 02:06. User:Daycd made some changes at 02:46 before the intro was reverted once again at 03:01 by User:Jim62sch, putting us back where we started before I implemented the changes on Thursday. All of this was done without any discussion on this talk page and unfounded accusations of POV-pushing in certain user's edit summaries. I'm not going to get myself involved in an edit war over this but I would appreciate it if those users who have a problem with with the intro I posted on Thursday would discuss those changes here so we can (once again) reach a consensus. Hitchhiker89^talk 19:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, User:70.176.232.214 was me. Tom Haws 15:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Spirituality does not need to be a paragraph in the intro. It can be covered as a topic in the article, with a brief mention in the intro. Think of it as an alien might: in describing this new found species (humans) would you really care much about their "spirituality"? Jim62sch 23:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't beieve in any of this spiritual stuff but, based on the fact that only about 12% of the world's population report themselves as non-religious, it seems I am in the minority. The new intro is the result of a LOT of discussion between myself and other users with views ranging from very pro-spiritual to completely non-spiritual. The consensus we eventually reached was that the introduction should have two seperate definitions of humans - the first being the biological "flesh and blood" description the second being the "spiritual" definition with the latter being clearly labelled as a belief rather than scientific fact. If you think that the sprituality section is too long then please discuss it on the talk page so that we can come to some agreement. Constantly reverting between the two intros solves nothing. Hitchhiker89^talk 10:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel the entire spiritual section is questionable in the intro; further, the Humans differ bit as well as the Spirituality bit both address one primary, perhaps the only primary, difference between humans and other primates, which is the ability to learn by instruction rather than by imitation - memetics. This is not even mentioned. The changes I reverted also moved and changed a clear description of what a human is (the paragraph beginning with Humans have an erect body carriage) which should most assuredly be in the intro. An intro edited to refactor the basic description of the subject of the article may be losing sight of what the intro is intended to do. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thought: Currently there is a Description from a biological perspctive, then a Spiritual paragraph, then a Differences paragraph (Humans are distinguished...) Suggest a change to Description, followed by replacing the completely lost paragraph Like all primates,..., then a Differences paragraph which would incorporate the Spiritual, which is certainly a distinguishing feature. This would be a more logical progression. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted once, I believe. In any case, the purpose of any intro is to give a bare-bones summary of the topic, possibly referring to items that might appear in the article later. As it stands right now, spirituality is mentioned in the intro and expanded upon later. This is fine.* But adding a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and concentrating so much on a specific POV (no matter how popular) does a disservice to the article itself. Remember, many students use Wiki for research, and I seriously doubt that a student using Wiki for a biology project and including all of the spirituality stuff is unlikely to receive a very high grade from his/her biology teacher. Jim62sch 13:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

* I retract that statement, I did not realize Sam reverted. The consensus version of the intro is, pardon my language, shit. There is absolutely no reason on this planet to give such creedence to a purely subjective topic. This article is now completely unusable by any highschool student seeking an ENCYCLOPEDIC article on homo sapiens. I'm adding a disputation tag to the top of the page contesting its NPOV status

"There is absolutely no reason on this planet to give such creedence to a purely subjective topic." - Except for the NPOV policy, of course. Like it or not, a lot of people (and may I remind you that I am not one of them) believe in this. You may be interested in seeing this version written by User:Silence. It was reverted after 29 minutes. The "consensus version" was an attempt at making something which is acceptable to everybody: evidently it fails at this but calling it "shit" is little help. As for your hypothetical biology student, I recommend he/she bases their project on the parts of the article labelled "biology". Or would you like absolutely everything not relating to biology removed from this article? Actually, that might fix the problem of it being too long... Hitchhiker89^talk 14:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to be truly NPOV, the sprituality section in the intro needs to be a one-liner, like everything else. In addition, the intro does not even touch on KC's point (see 13:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)). As for whether or not my scatological comment helps or hurts, that's a moot point; bottom line is that it effectively conveys my asnalysis of the section. The original version was so clearly superior to this that comparing the two is like comparing a Rolls Royce and a Yugo. Jim62sch 14:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

W-a-a-a-y back when, before the original FA drive began, there was a proposal (made by myself I believe) to create two separate articles, one being Homo Sapiens, the other Humanity, with human as a disambig. It recieved negligable support, and is probably not the solution now, but it might provide food for thought. Sam Spade 14:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be a very good idea, as realistically, that's were all of the stuff regarding spirituality, war, philosophy, etc., really belongs. Jim62sch 14:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't oppose such a move. Hitchhiker89^talk 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

On first glance it sounds like a perfect solution to me, unless someone can see how it might be a POV fork. My initial reaction is, support. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Human article on the French Wikipedia and they seem to do just this. Hitchhiker89^talk 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And the difference between the French version and this version again remind me of my analogy re the Lexus and the Yugo. The French article is the Lexus, obviously. Jim62sch 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thought, it would be nice if Cartesian thought were taught outside France. Jim62sch 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I just looked at the Asturian, Galician, Spanish, Danish, German, Portuguese, Catalan and Esperanto versions...while some are incomplete, NONE of them deal with spirituality the way the English version does -- I have a feeling the American predilection toward Fundamentalism and the need to interject god into every subject has reared its head here and turned the article into slop. Jim62sch 22:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And who noticed the length of the French intro? One problem with NPOV in the en wiki is it leads to verbosity since NPOV is interepted (or has been hijacked) to mean every literal angle should be covered. David D. (Talk) 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you can read French, but your analysis is incorrect. Yes, the intro is long, but it is presented in a Cartesian manner, very straightfoward, very scientific, very "cold". There is no catering to a variety of angles. Jim62sch 22:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

When you say: "Yes, the intro is long, ", did you mean short? My french is good enough to remain ignorant.

My analysis was based on what i have seen in the english wiki. It appears that each argument must be countered and sub countered with mutliple references to source sites. The AiG page is a good example of a complete mess (probably not a good one to cite since it is unstable). i see this break up the flow in controversial articles again and again.

So short sweet and truely NPOV. i think you are saying the French site has managed this and we should be able to do it here. I'm sure we can reduce the intro by 50%. David D. (Talk) 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant long. But, not needlessly so. It covers the germane points. I'd actually prefer to combione the French, German and what used to be the English intro into one streamlined piece. Jim62sch 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The french article is not featured, and france is an extremely secular society (the most secular of any society I am aware of actually). I suggest you guys compare the German or Japanese articles, which are featured. Sam Spade 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But secularism does not exclude spirtuality in a country. And Jim implied above that the French paragraph does address spirituality although in a straightforward manner. However, I'll be happy to look at any other ones since a spectrum will give us a good basis for length and content. David D. (Talk) 23:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Japanese it out for me. The German intro contains NOTHING about "spirituality" (hardly surprising for Germany, where logic takes precedence), and relegates it to a subtopic on religion. As for the French, the fact that they have a secular society pleases me no end. Jim62sch 00:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Its nice that your happy about france, I am as well, for completely different reasons (I love their cider), but neither is particularly relevant here and now. The fact is this is a featured article. The france article isn't even close. Our goal is to make our article featured again (after it is removed), not to make it more secular or more french (regardless of the quality of their cider ;) Sam Spade 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's featured or not is not that important to me, but as it is important to you, look at the German article. It too deals strictly with a very scientific, secular introduction. This is the way it should be.

This is a rough translation of the German intro:

Modern humans (Homo sapiens) are mammals of the Primate order. Humans belong to the suborder Haplorrhini (“simple-nosed apes”), and to the family of the anthropoids (Hominidae). In the past, humans and other anthropoids were separated into two distinct families based primarily on the special mental development of humans. However, recent investigations see a closer relationship between the two that places both groups unto a common family. Modern humans are the only survivors of the genus Homo.

Sometimes, modern humans have also been designated by appending sapiens sapiens to the genus Homo, which is used to note that the Neandert(h)aler (then Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) belonged to the same kind as modern humans. Today, his opinion is considered as very doubtful, thus the modern designation is simply Homo sapiens. The term itself is from the Latin homo "human" and sapiens "wise".

As you can see, spirituality does not enter into the description (nor should it). I also note that even though the German article is featured, it does contain an error. Homo sapiens sapiens is still used for modern man, but to distinguish him from homo sapiens idaltu. Thus, I feel that while the French article is not featured, it is a much better version (given my Prussian and Bavarian ancestry, saying this pains me no end). Jim62sch 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Final note: you stated that the French article "isn't even close" to featured status. Do you read French? Jim62sch 15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Length

The edits I made, documented by Hitchhiker above, related to the length of the introduction. We really need it to be short and sweet. The intro should not lay out all the arguments and positions, that is for the article itself. Of course there is the problem that the whole article is quite long but that is another issue. In my opinion there is no bigger turn off than a long introduction. David D. (Talk) 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record I don't have a problem with the edits you made, some of which were discussed and agreed upon. You also justified your actions in the edit summary. The edits I'm not happy about are those which reverted the intro to its previous state against consensus and without even a note on the talk page. Hitchhiker89^talk 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes i understood you were not commenting on my edit in a negative way. i thought if i set up this section it would start the ball rolling with regard to some dialogue. David D. (Talk)

I could live with those changes if I absolutely had to. I think that the third paragraph needs a topic sentence or something that will function as one. — goethean ॐ 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes i think my cuts were a little too crude but at this stage I wanted things to settle down before putting more effort in. I just wanted to put across the concept that we don't have to cover every idea in the introduction. David D. (Talk) 03:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I could live with them, and they are an improvement over the FA version. Tom Haws 15:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

From the French version (translated) -- yeah, yeah, yeah, "it isn't featured", as if that matters (the English (predominately American-style) article won't be featured for much longer either)

Homo sapiens, commonly called "human", is a species of primate and is the sole member of the genus Homo that is still extant. The entire species is known as humanity, and may also be called Man (capital M) when discussing the general characteristics of human beings.::::::No, it ain't pretty, but it sure as hell is to the point. Jim62sch 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but even the Simple English version is better:

A human or human being is a person, like you. A male human is a man, a female human is a woman. If you think about all humans in the whole world, they are called humanity. In the past, people have also used man and mankind to mean all humans.

Humans are called Homo sapiens by scientists. Humans are an animal species that belongs to the group called primates. Monkeys are primates too, but the primates most like people are gorillas and chimpanzees. Most scientists think that chimpanzees and humans came from a common ancestor by what is called evolution. Other animals even more like humans than chimpanzees once lived too, but they are now extinct.

Human rights are those things that everyone deserves and the way they should be treated by other people.

Oy. Jim62sch 22:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

You people have made a mess out of my first featured article. I hope that responsible editors will soon resume editing according to consensus, and with the articles best interest in mind. Sad as it is to say, I would not oppose a revert to the featured version at this juncture. Sam Spade 13:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam, a little more specificity re "you people" might be nice -- not everyone has been counterproductive. In any case, the article has become too long, and certain recently added items are of dubious value, so I do understand your frustration. However, you might want to check out WP:OWN. I'm willing to help get this thing back under control, but you'll need to keep your frustration at a low simmer (much harder said than done, I know). If you want my help, let me know (you can look up my article edit history to see if you think I can help). Jim62sch 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose such a reversion. The article has steadily improved since it achieved its featured status. Granted, it's still weak in many areas, but there is positive momentum and a lot of interest in the article right now, and there is no reason to throw a wrench into the gears. --Yath 23:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that, in order to avoid edit war, changes should be discussed on this page before being made. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yath, are you serious? The intro sucks, the article is too long and very disjointed, it lacks a "single voice", etc. The only positive thing I can say about it right now is that it's better than the Latin version. Jim62sch 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Goethean: the once change you reverted was made by a person who commented here three days ago, not two weeks ago. :) Jim62sch 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm? I reverted FeloniousMonk, who has not particpated in the debate. — goethean ॐ 22:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

See below. What you reverted was by Killer Chihuahua ([5] item reverted) Jim62sch 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute?

Can somebody explain the NPOV dispute? Having a link to the talk page with no discussion here about that point is a little confusing. Please explain how the article is biased or takes sides in the controversy about what is a human. Tom Haws 16:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The same reason as 1 year ago. SS and others again insist on emphasizing expanding on spirituality in the intro. I've moved back to the long standing intro that was at least npov and accurate. FeloniousMonk 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please reseach before making inflamatory claims, esp. given our history. Sam Spade 23:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)\

A mistaken assumption on my part. You have my apology. FeloniousMonk 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing my retraction and apology after finding this [6]. FeloniousMonk 19:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And you are right to do so. Such tripe smacks of creationism in that it presupposes that humans did not develop biologically, adding traits with the passage of time, but were created ex nihilo with a soul. That is clearly a fundamentalist belief, that discounts science. Odd, when one considers that human intellect is one of our greatest, if not the greatest, assets we have. Spiritualism should not be an excuse for stupidity. Jim62sch 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to throw the following into the mix. I have tried to pick out the best from both versions. I have tried to reduce the length too. Possibly this will just piss off both parties? My aim was to get a version that is less than 250 words. For comparison Felonious' preferred version is ~270 while Sam's prefered version is ~320 words while the version below is about 240 words. David D. (Talk) 21:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ok with me. — goethean ॐ 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's no worse, and probably better than what stood through the end of 2005. It's still biologist biased, but apparently that is irreparably entrenched. Tom Haws 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Human beings are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection.

Human curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relationship between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view, while spiritual perspectives hold that destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Religious perspectives emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. This has led to many different beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, especially philosophy of mind, attempts to fathom the depths of each of these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings.

Like all primates, humans are inherently social. They create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups ranging from nations down to families. Humans are currently the only animals on earth who build fires or clothe themselves. This trait of trying to understand and manipulate the world has led to the development of technology and science. Artifacts, beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms have each played a role in forming humanity's culture.

---

It's most definitely an improvement over what is is now - a big improvement. However (c'mon, you all knew there would be a however), I'd make a couple (snd I do mean a couple, as in two) changes...

Human beings are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection.

Like all primates, humans are inherently social. They create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups ranging from nations down to families. Humans are currently the only animals on earth who build fires or clothe themselves. This trait of trying to understand and manipulate the world has led to the development of technology and science. Artifacts, beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms have each played a role in forming humanity's culture.

Human curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relationship between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view, while spiritual perspectives hold that destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Religious perspectives emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. Philosophy, especially philosophy of mind, attempts to fathom the depths of each of these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings.

I removed "This has led to many different beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos" as it really isn't relevant, and flipped paragraphs 2 and 3 as psychology, spirituality, religion, philosophy, and culture developed because man is a social being, not the other way around. Jim62sch 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I like both those changes. David D. (Talk) 22:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I support this version. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No. We've now lost the fact that classifying humans as primates is a function of biology. I don't think that the mistake of presenting only the biological origin belief should be compounded by refusing even to link to the origin beliefs of other cultures. DayCD's version is acceptable. — goethean ॐ 23:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Goethean, I think that is also not present in my version. Why not add what you would like into Jims version since that seems to be the working copy at present.i go the wrong end of the stick. If that is the make or break sentence then i am fine having it back in possibly as a briefer version "This has led to many different beliefs regarding the origin of humanity" David D. (Talk) 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the "according to biology" phrase isn't in your version. It is that, when combined with the paragraph switch and the deletion of origin beliefs, is what makes this version unacceptably POV. I just find it ironic that the secularists want to present their own origin belief and delete references to those of others...and call it neutral). — goethean ॐ 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No less ironic than those who view encyclopedia articles as a vehicle for witnessing their particular choice of faith and claim they're being neutral. FeloniousMonk 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense if I was insisting that the secular perspective be excluded from this article, which is not something that I would even want to do. — goethean ॐ 23:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It would also make sense if anybody here (other than the secularists) were "witnessing their particular choice of faith". Tom Haws 19:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Which means precisely what, Tom? Jim62sch 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I support Jim's version. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here ya go Goethean, a version just for you:

Homo sapiens was created by God on the sixth day. Nothing else matters.

Did you even read why I switched the paragraphs? No, probably not -- if you did you'd realize that philosophy, religion, spirituallity, etc., can only come out of a society. Additionally, various opinions on the "whence" of Man and the Cosmos are irrelevant to the intro.

The biological origin "belief"? Yes, Darwin was an evil bastard wasn't he?  ;)

Finally, "according to biology" is not in my version either -- unless I'm blind (and if I were, that's be a function of biology). Jim62sch 00:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

David, I removed the sentence you inserted. You can't add something to someone else's version, you need to post it separately. Jim62sch 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Since we all know its on the table there's probably no need to post it just yet. If the inclusion of a link to origin beliefs is the only stumbling block I think it is a good compromise to keep out the clunky "from a biological perspective" in the first sentence. What is your prefered version Goethean?

"This has led to many different beliefs regarding the origin of humanity"

or:

"This has led to many different beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos."

Or is there another variation that would work better for you. David D. (Talk) 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you reading? "from a biological perspective" is not in my version either. And quite frankly, I will not relent on the needlessness of This has led to many different beliefs regarding..., so you might want to consider mediation. Jim62sch 00:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The version that was discussed in Goethean's user space had a first sentence of "Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae.". I'm say that I found it clunky becuase of the "from a biological perspective" part that broke up the sentence. If having a link to beliefs is the compromise then I'm happy with that, nevertheless that could be a sticking point. Apart from that one sentence it seems like we have a version that is acceptable. That is a step in the right direction. David D. (Talk) 03:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I like Jim's version above as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support the tweeked version. I find it to be well written, interesting, and NPOV. Are there plans to revise the rest of the article as well? Tenebrous 04:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I hope we can revise the rest for a number of reasons (of course, we have to get the intro done): there are grammar errors (quite a few), sentences that don't make a lot of sense and paragraphs that don't flow. In addition, the article is a bit too long and could be pruned (with great care). Let's see how it goes. Jim62sch 11:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving on to the problem parts

I think Goethean's is saying that if the first sentence does not mention the biological perspective then the link to beliefs is required elsewhere in the introduction. On the other hand Jim does not like the idea of the link to beliefs being in the introduction. If we worded the first sentence of Jim's version above as follows:

"Human beings are classified by biologists as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"):"

But otherwise left it 'as is' (see Tweeked Version below), would that then be acceptable to all? David D. (Talk) 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked Version

Human beings are classified by biologists as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection.

Like all primates, humans are inherently social. They create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups ranging from nations down to families. Humans are currently the only animals on earth who build fires or clothe themselves. This trait of trying to understand and manipulate the world has led to the development of technology and science. Artifacts, beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms have each played a role in forming humanity's culture.

Human curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relationship between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view, while spiritual perspectives hold that destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Religious perspectives emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. Philosophy, especially philosophy of mind, attempts to fathom the depths of all these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings.

Biologists or scientists? (Paleontologists, anthropologists and archaeologists use the term as well, and frequently make up the new terms for newly discovered species). But, then saying scientists is likely to start the "if you're going to mention materialistic science you should mention beliefs, blah, blah, blah" stuff. Besides, the wiki articles on other animals (yes, like it or not, we are animals) give the genus or species right off the bat without noting that the definition is made/used by biologists, zoologists or any other type of scientist.

Look, if everyone agrees that the biologist bit needs to stay, fine, it simply isn't my preference as I find it to be unnecessary and clunky. Jim62sch 11:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Biologists, since that seems to be the consensus, and the way you have it worded looks good to me. I must say it seems silly. Go to any other species and we don't bother to mention it is biologists that do the classifying. Take a look at Frog: "Frog is the common name for amphibians in the order Anura." No mention that biologists classify frogs. Elephant starts "Elephantidae (the elephants) is a family of animals, and the only remaining family in the order Proboscidea." Who else classifies species? it isn't as though we need to distinguish between biologists' classification scheme and some other scheme. It seems weasely to me to even mention biologists: do we do this kind of unecessary distinction anywhere else? Not to mention since species is linked, all of that is explained.

I still feel mention of memetics should be in the article, preferably in the intro, as the ability to learn from instruction rather than example is key to the differences between humans and other species. All other distinctions - spiritual, philosophical, and religious and cultural - stem from that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate seeing a puppy whine:

Human beings are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes—chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. However, humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection.

Like all primates, humans are inherently social; however the memetic ability of humans to learn via instruction rather than by imitation creates a developmental niche that they alone occupy. Thus, they create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups ranging from nations down to families. Humans are currently the only animals on earth who build fires or clothe themselves. This trait of trying to understand and manipulate the world has led to the development of technology and science. Artifacts, beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms have each played a role in forming humanity's culture.

Human curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relationship between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view, while spiritual perspectives hold that destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Religious perspectives emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. Philosophy, especially philosophy of mind, attempts to fathom the depths of all these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings.

Change made to para 2. Jim62sch 18:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A still short enough to hold attention (for ref 249 words). Are we seeing more wagging tails now? David D. (Talk) 18:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. FeloniousMonk 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, puppy is much happier now. Looks really good, Jim. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Replaced first para with that currently in article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Added erect body carriage part. Jim62sch 14:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Working version (as of 16:00 8th Feb)

Human beings are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes. However, humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection.

Like all primates, humans are inherently social; however the memetic ability of humans to learn via instruction rather than by imitation, and hence to share ideas, creates a developmental niche that they alone occupy. Thus, they create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups ranging from nations down to families. Humans are currently the only animals on earth who build fires or clothe themselves. This trait of trying to understand and manipulate the world has led to the development of technology and science. Social norms, Beliefs, myths, rituals and values have each played a role in forming humanity's culture.

Human curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relationship between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view, while spiritual perspectives hold that destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Religious perspectives emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. Philosophy attempts to fathom the depths of all these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings.

At the very beginning of this discussion on the introduction I mentioned that "we need to address both secular and spiritual and preferably so elegantly that it will stand unchallenged." Are we getting close? there seems to be less input from Goethean, Sam and Tom over the last few days. That does not bode well. David D. (Talk) 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does it not bode well? Jim62sch 01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume that no input or endorsement could mean revert wars. David D. (Talk) 02:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kommt Zeit, kommt Rat. Jim62sch 19:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Another tweak. Jim62sch 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting intro back to featured article version

Silence in his recent reversion, claimed the version I reverted to prior to the recent pov additons was itself pov. He's mistaken. That version was a featured article, stood in that form for nearly 1 year and was the result of much consensus. Before choosing sides, I suggest editors take the time to learn the history of the article. FeloniousMonk 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that everyone look back at what the article was. In the interim though, David's proposal was OK, and I tweaked it a bit. It's possible this might be acceptable to all. If not, then the original version of 1 year ago should be the standard. Jim62sch 22:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, and I support support David's version with your tweaks. Good job, guys. FeloniousMonk 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's nearly there. You need to mention society before religion because by definition, you can't have religion without society (although you might have spirituality), society provides a mechanism for the propogation of religion, so these paragraphs need to be swapped. — Dunc|☺ 11:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

See tweaked version. Jim62sch 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as..." OK; now where does it say how "Humans are classified" (or defined) in social and spiritual terms? It doesn't, does it? Or am I missing something? Strong NPOV dispute. Tom Haws 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we should remove defined? How about this alternative?

Human is the common name for Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes.

It is similar to the frog page that Jim mentions above. David D. (Talk) 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I mentioned frog and elephant. Jim just did the awesome writing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh Sorry about the confusion Jim/KillerChihuahua it gets a bit hectic in here. Good frog work ;-) David D. (Talk) 00:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, and if you decide to give unearned credit again, you can square things nicely by giving me credit for some of Jim's Brilliant Prose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We spent literally months discussing the intro, and after considerable argumentaton by many editors with very diverse POVs, we agreed to a version that made it into the featured article. Unless there is subtantial new objections that have not been addressed before, I am not inclined to consider edits to the intro at this point. I would encourage new editors to this article to read the considerable argumentation about this intro before attempting to re-write it. That would be much appreciated and a better use of our time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See above for the substantial objections which have not been addressed. Please contribute to the newest "sandbox" version discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossie, To put this in perspective, this article was not a slam dunk Human FAC candidate and there were quite a few criticisms aimed at the introduction that I do not think were addressed. Personally I am not sure the best compromise was reached. And I still think the original FAC introduction is too long.

Some constructive comment from SlimVirgin on the FAC candidature page were as follows.

Comment. I feel there are some problems with the writing in the intro:

1. The human mind is "responsible for complex behaviour ..." The brain is responsible for behavior (although "responsible" is an odd word to use), but what's meant by the human "mind" being responsible for it?
2. "Curiosity and observation have led to ... explanations for consciousness ..." It's not entirely clear what that means.
3. "Religious perspectives emphasize a soul ... and are often characterized by a belief in ... God ..." Okay, but then it says: "Philosophy ... attempts to fathom the depths of each of these perspectives." Philosophy isn't just about fathoming the depths of religious perspectives, and no other perspectives have been mentioned.
4. "Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings." But no concepts and feelings have been described, except God and souls, and music and art does more than express the concept of those. And neither of those is a feeling.
5. [Humans] create complex social structures ... these range from nations and states ... and from the community to the self." Are we saying the "self" is a complex social structure? Yes, it might be, but that's a bold, unsourced claim for the introduction.
6. "Seeking to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of technology and science as a social, rather than an individual, enterprise." It's a sentence that at first glance seems to have meaning, but when you think about it doesn't. How could one human being on his own have developed technology? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

User Tony made the following comment.

This leads to a more serious problem: the scope of the article, a problem that is already glaringly evident in the lead. The article doesn't quite know what it wants to cover, and seems to tip its hat at a wide range of topics—from music to trade and economics to technology to motivation to spirit—without a systematic or explicit goal.

I don't think the tweaked versions here are perfect but to suggest the old introduction was the best we can do is not a valid conclusion from the fact it got FAC status. We are putting way too much weight on that peer approval that was far from unanimous support with regard to the introduction. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the current rewrite is an attempt to placate those not happy with a scientific intro. In addition, I made the same points about all the extra stuff in the article; war, economics, philosopy, etc. REDUX: see the German and French intros (and even the articles). At this point in time, I think the article should be scrapped and rewritten without all the BS that's currently in it. Jim62sch 01:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)