Jump to content

Talk:Human/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Sapiens Sapiens?

What is the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens? Thank you. --Abdull 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Also what is known about the next step in human evolution, if anything? I agree these questions, as well as a more thorough discussion of our recent anscestors is needed. Sam Spade 21:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Sam, let me apologize in advance if this is rude or violates WP:CIVIL , but this question has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore evolution does not occur in "steps." It might help for you to read Evolution. How do you think that you can discuss whether or not the article is correctly defining anything if you don't have a background in basic biology? JoshuaZ 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
(clashed in edit with Sam) It all depends on where you draw the line between species and sub species. This is very subjective. For example, are Neanderthals Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or Homo neanderthalensis? What about Homo sapiens idaltu? Sorry for the vague answer I'm not clear these distinctions have been firmly established, or ever can be established. David D. (Talk) 21:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Homo sapiens is the human species. Homo sapiens sapiens is the subspecies to which all modern humans belong; see trinomen. Homo sapiens idaltu is the only other known subspecies of humans, and is extinct. It is a common convention to repeat the species name for certain subspecies, rather than having to think up a new name for every single subspecies. Unfortunately, sometimes this can go a bit overboard, as in the trinomial name of the Western Lowland Gorilla: Gorilla gorilla gorilla. :) -Silence 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I heard that recent (2003) works on cladistics revealed there is no such thing as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. Instead, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are used, Neandertal being a different species, not a different race. Cro-Magnon and modern man, in turn, are the same species (hence homo sapiens = homo sapiens sapiens
  • OLD
    • homo sapiens (Cro-Magnon) → homo sapiens sapiens (Modern man)
    • homo sapiens neandertalensis
  • NEW
This is old news. The article, and all of Wikipedia, already reflects the fact that Homo neanderthalensis is a distinct species, not a subspecies. That doesn't change the designation of Homo sapiens sapiens, however; you seem to be unaware of the fact that there is another (extinct) subspecies of Homo sapiens. That subspecies is not the neanderthal, but rather Homo sapiens idaltu, as the human article currently correctly points out. -Silence 10:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Needed in the article, not on the talk page! ;) This is not the first time this complaint has come up, and it is a valid one. Sam Spade 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, it is in the article! Did you miss this paragraph?
The study of human evolution encompasses the development of the genus Homo, but usually involves studying other hominids and hominines as well, such as the australopithecines. Humans are defined as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens; Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elder wise man"), the other known subspecies, is extinct.[1]
This seems to be quite clear. David D. (Talk) 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Its a tiny speck. What I was asking for is a lengthier discussion of idaltu, as well as a discussion of mankinds future evolution. Clearly were not going to be Homo sapiens sapiens forever, are we? Sam Spade 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with jim)I'm not sure that kind of detailed analysis is appropriate for the scope of this article. What can possibly be said about future evolution that is not speculation? I feel that this would be off topic for this article, but what did you have in mind? David D. (Talk) 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, yes we are going to be Homo sapiens sapiens forever. If a new Homo species evolves it definitely won't be us, and if a new subspecies evolves, it will be different enough to not really be us in the current sense of the word. What would you like to know about idaltu? •Jim62sch• 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Er... "we" will be homo sapiens sapiens forever because as things currently stand, natural selection doesnt apply to us. We live in a world where people live to reproduce regardless of genetic traits. --D-Gen 08:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Forever" is a very long time. And natural selection does still apply to humans. The environment for humans has changed drastically over the last few millenia, but that does not mean that natural selection is no longer operating. For natural selection to have stopped applying to humans, every human would have to have the same success in reproducing. There is a lot of 'noise' (wars, famines, population movements) that obscures the effects of natural selection on humans, but genetic traits still affect our success at reproduction. The development of a new species may require the reproductive isolation of a relatively small population for an extended period, and that may seem unlikely for humans at this time. However, it is entirely possible that we will (if we haven't already) so damage the Earth that humanity will survive only in isolated pockets under conditions that favor speciation. -- Donald Albury 13:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on obesity

I find the emphasis placed on the "epidemic" proportions of obesity in some countries to be very skewed. I'm pretty sure that far more people are starving and malnourished than are obese; yet, starvation is only mentioned in passing. As this is not the "Humans in the Western world" article, I think that the problem of starvation and malnutrition is far more severe, important, and prevalent than that of obesity, and should accordingly get more article space. Thoughts? --Ashenai 22:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Obesity is a problem for maybe 5% of the world's population. Fishhead64 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well a recent study, which got plenty of headlines suggests the opposite, with ~1bn obese and ~800 million starving. However they are approximately equal (especially as the measure of obesity is debatable) so should recieve approximatley equal amounts of treatment.Jameskeates 12:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
A slight correction; According to this: [1], it's ~1bn overweight with ~300 million obese. TimTim 14:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added material on starvation. TimVickers 16:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The current Human page is hopelessly unbalanced

The edit history of the Human page demonstrates the dogmatic censorship of the evolutionists who refuse to allow a balanced presentation of the reality of what "human" is. The situation is hopeless. It is a waste of time to attempt to bring any degree of balance to the human page, for the evolutionist bigots will not allow a balanced NPOV presentation of what published scholars say "human" is. For example, the current first sentence is as unbalanced and warped as would be a lead sentence that began as follows: Autos, or cars, are hunks of metal. While it is true that autos are hunks of metal, the lead statement "Autos are hunks of metal" derides the sophisticated engineering that makes a hunk of metal into an auto. --Rednblu 05:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

" evolutionist bigots" Oh great way to start, NOT. David D. (Talk) 06:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
But true, YES. --Rednblu 06:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm, trollbait... FeloniousMonk 04:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not throw out more possabilities and ideas rather than throw mud? Constructive input will be the only possible path to a stable solution. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That is not remotely possible. It is better to state clearly the situation. Nothing can be done given the current committment of political forces. Good evening, sir--until we meet again. --Rednblu 06:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with respect to your comment "Nothing can be done given the current committment of political forces". I note your comment here from over a year ago. Did you notice the sections above titled, homo_sapiens_vs_human_vs_humanity and Suggestions_for_article_structure? Goethean has already put a lot of work into organising some of those ideas (see one page here). The ideas got sidelined by the Sam Spade RfC but i think the discussion was going in the right direction. David D. (Talk) 14:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice move! You are something of an artist at being cool, I must say. I feel much better knowing that you will be watching over how earnest newbies are treated. Thank you. --Rednblu 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Concur with David D. I think we all were exhausted by the SS Rfc/Rfar, and hopefully now that's behind us we can start some constructive discussions. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My proposed division of the article, which has not been discussed, is located at:

(They were originally all at my userspace. I moved them to "draft" to encourage people to work on them. Then Duncharris moved Human back to my userspace.) Currently, Human, Homo sapiens and Humanity all redirect to the article under discussion. But this article defines human beings as homo sapiens only. An article on "Humanity" should emphasize aspects other than our animal nature. An article that is simultaneously on Human, Humanity and homo sapiens must carefully balance the animal, socio-cultural and conscious aspects of human beings. The intro to this article emphasizes only the biological/animal aspect. That is why the "unbalanced" tag is necessary. To overcome this difficulty, I recommend splitting the article into three as above. — goethean ॐ 16:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Should squid (the food people eat) be a different article than squid (the things in the sea)? Will an article on both of these aspect of squid ever be fully balanced, or is there an inherrant imbalance that can only be shown by keeping those two articles as one? (cf., Rabbits as pets, an article that was split off that allows the imbalance to be even more out of proportion.) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't find that to be an appropriate, relevant, or enlightening analogy. — goethean ॐ 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There are two flawed assumptions Goethean is operating under, and has been operating under for months, and he will continue to misunderstand the issues (and present bizarre, original-research "solutions" and "compromises" that really amount to POV forks) involved for so long as he persists in operating under them. They'd been pointed out before (many times), but thus far, it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Here are the two problems:
  • First, the article says that humans are animals (which happens to be true-by-definition). The article never once says "humans are only animals" or "humans are mere animals" or "humans are essentially just dumb animals" or anything of the sort, and equating "humans are animals" with any of those phrases shows a profound misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "animal". Which brings us to the second problem...
  • Second, "animal", as it is used in the human article (and in every other article on Wikipedia, without exception!), is a purely biological term. In other words, the scientific definition of the word animal is the only one being used: "A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure." Saying "humans are animals" is no more controversial than saying "humans are alive".
  • The problem comes in that the colloquial, non-scientific definition of "animal" is confused, rhetorical, emotionally loaded, and even derogatory. Which can't be helped: many scientific and academic terms have colloquial, loaded counterparts. Avoiding "animal" for that reason would be the equivalent of avoiding the scientific term density because someone might take offense to being called "dense"! To remedy this confusion, you should read the animal article, not continue operating under the mistaken assumption that when an encyclopedia says "humans are animals", they are calling humans nonspiritual, dumb, crude, savage little flesh-puppets. In an academic (i.e., encyclopedic) context, calling humans "animals" is no more controversial than calling them "vertebrates" or "organisms" or "mammals": all of these terms are simply biological descriptions.
  • Many of your other mistaken assumptions are the result of very similar beliefs to the two that cause you to misinterpret "animal". For example, calling humans "biological" in no way implies that they are only or purely biological (your first assumption), nor is it a "put-down" (your second): it's an academic synonym for "alive", essentially, and surely you wouldn't dispute that humans are alive! Likewise for calling humans "primates", "apes" or "Homo sapiens"—the last of which are actually a part of the definition of the English word "human", which makes it doubly obvious that the label is utterly uncontroversial. Goethean, I appreciate all the valuable contributions you've made to this article, but WP:NPOV and WP:NOR make it impossible for us to treat "humans are animals" as a controversial term as long as your personal opinions remain unbacked by reputable sources or references.
  • However, I will agree that the current intro is rather lacking. I'd offer to reword it, but I don't want to get caught in a firestorm... Just stopped by to point out the relevant error in Goethean's reasoning, which is the cause of a lot of this misunderstanding. Hopefully now that we're aware of it, we can adequately respond to it and move on. -Silence 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Will anyone object if I remove {{unbalanced}} from the article page, or at least add a ", but this is disputed." qualifier to the end? It's been explained many times now why stating "humans are Homo sapiens" and the similar cannot be biased (because it's the definition of the word human); goethean has made 37 edits since my above post, so presumably he could have responded by now if he wanted, and I see no point in misleading readers and editors with an unjustified tag. -Silence 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. It was misused to begin with. FeloniousMonk 22:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
How so? Is it that certain editors are not allowed to insert neutrality tags? Maybe you could point out the basis for this proclamation? — goethean ॐ 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Rather than answering my question, User:FeloniousMonk has unilaterally removed the template. This is against policy. This is what leads to edit war. This is what turns Wikipedia into an ideological battleground. — goethean ॐ 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You confuse cause with effect here. What makes Wikipedia into an ideological battleground are individuals who for literally years on end insist on inserting their personal viewpoint into the same article over and over and misusing the tools given us to force the issue. Why don't you ask Sam Spade how well that has worked for him? I wouldn't follow in his footsteps were I you. FeloniousMonk 21:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You are threatening me with disciplinary action because I object to the lack of balance in this article? That's very interesting. What is the correct use of the unbalanced template if it is not to be used when an editor feels that an article is unbalanced? And what is the difference between an editor who senses a lack of balance in an article and when a template is "misused to force a particular pov", as your edit summary has my use of the template? Is there a difference other than your opinion of what constitutes "the truth" and "the facts"? If the template has no legitimate use, maybe you should should nominate it for deletion. — goethean ॐ 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The article is obviously unbalanced. It only gives an account of human beings from the point of view of the natural sciences. There are other legitimate accounts of humans and humanity that this article must include. Religious perspectives are of course shit on here, but there are other perspecives that are being ignored. The fact that the term "humanity" doesn't occur in the intro is a little clue that something is wrong.
I cannot turn this boat around by myself. If you would like to take the tag down, you can undoubtedly do so. I am outnumbered here by about 15 to one, and so you will win any edit war that you wish to engage in. You can make this article as much a slave to your ideology as you wish. The article is not neutral, and no amount of rhetoric or abuse ("true-by-definition", "flawed assumptions", "mistaken assumptions", "cannot be biased", "misleading readers") will make it neutral. — goethean ॐ 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is not obviously biased, because if it was, there'd be more people saying "it's obviously biased". If it's biased, it's subtle, and we should discuss it rather than wasting time with edit wars over disputed NPOV tags. Haven't we already gone through that in the past?
  • "There are other legitimate accounts of humans and humanity that this article must include." - That's fine. Provide reputable references and we'll discuss adding them. We obviously cannot add them no matter what without references, because otherwise we cannot verify their reliability.
  • Question: Um, why should "humanity" occur in the intro? "Humankind" and "mankind" also don't occur in the intro, and there's just as little problem with those exclusions. They're just synonyms; covering them all in the intro would constitute too much bloat and too little substantial information. That's why we have a "terminology" section near the top of the article.
  • "I am outnumbered here by about 15 to one, and so you will win any edit war that you wish to engage in." - I'm sure I speak for everyone on this talk page in saying that we have absolutely no interest in an edit war. Some of us, on the other hand, would certainly welcome a discussion. For starters, why don't you read and respond to my points above about your incorrect interpretation of statements like "humans are animals"?
  • "You can make this article as much a slave to your ideology as you wish." - Please remain civil. I'm pretty sure I can speak for everyone here again, in saying that we have no interest in pushing a certain ideology on this page. Indeed, our primary interest is in doing the opposite: avoiding letting the article be used to push any controversial perspective on humanity. The fact that we disagree on how best to carry that out shows that we disagree on how best to implement an NPOV article on humans, not on whether our personal ideologies ought to be interjected into an article like this. Your aims would thus be better served in explaining and justifying your claims, not in lobbing personal attacks and acidic accusations at all dissenters. There's no productivity in that.
  • "and no amount of rhetoric or abuse ("true-by-definition"," - This is not rhetoric, this is a fact. Read a dictionary. I've listed on this Talk page dozens of dictionaries and encyclopedias which have defined human in the past; has temporary blindness overcome you each time this has occurred, or are you just sidestepping the facts where they disagree with your opinions? This is an honest question: I want to know why you are consistently evasive whenever it is brought up that the definition of human almost invariably involves describing them as primates, as Homo sapiens, as bipeds, etc., whereas your personal beliefs about the definition of human have yet to show up in even one source (much less a mainstream or reputable one!), in all the months we've been having this discussion for. Isn't that a little odd? -Silence 23:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica entry (as reported above) is far less reductive (and therefore more accurate, and therefore better) than the current version of this article. EB has "culture-bearing" before "primate". It then further balances the biology text with: "...but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning". In fact, the culture text outweighs the biology text ("...primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes..."). There are 21 words about culture (incl. the brain, speech, reasoning) and 12 words about biology/paleo-anthropology in EB's 1st sentence. You have, of course, banished all culture text to much later in the article.

Additionally, some of the WP text in the first paragraph are almost lifted from the EB's second sentence, which is very bad. WP's 1st paragraph is basically the EB's entry, with all of the culture talk subtracted out. Which is really quite amazing. In my opinion, the first sentence is extremely important. It defines the subject. The idea that biology should be presented first and the other stuff later is not only a very bad idea, it results in the dissemination of a POV definition of humanity.

Encyclopedia Britannica:

a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, ... (rest of article subscription-only)

Wikipedia:

Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.

Fortunately, when one consults Google, the old 2002, NPOV, compromise version of the article comes up rather than the current, POV, non-compromise version. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Culture-bearing" is an ambiguous term, and not a remotely useful one for actually explaining what makes humans unusual. Putting it as one of the first couple of words in the article would be useless and potentially confusing, whereas our current method of explaining human culture is much more in-depth and well-written. Moreover, you conveniently ignore the fact that Wikipedia's entry is actually much less biologically-focused than Britannica's; Britannica's full text almost solely describes human physiological characteristics, which you conveniently ignored in order to fixate on the only words in the Britannica entry selection which even mention human culture or society! This is disingenuous. In reality, Wikipedia's full entry places vastly more emphasis on culture than Britannica's entry does; nitpicking about the order they come in is a red herring, and selectively reading only the first paragraph of the human article while ignoring the fact that the majority of the entire lead section (i.e. including the next two paragraphs) is actually much more cultural than strictly biological! The criticism is trivial and self-contradicting, as we'd actually cover human culture dramatically less if we tried to adhere closer to Britannica's tone and contents.
I also find it highly amusing that you praise Britannica for "balancing" its biological contents with "but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning", conveniently ignoring the fact that Wikipedia does the exact same thing with "Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection."—in fact, they're practically a mirror image. The similarity is hilarious, considering that you are using a Britannica phrase which Wikipedia practically has a carbon-copy of as evidence that Britannica's entry is more balanced than Wikipedia. :)
Here is the full entry for the Britannica article on human being, incidentally:

a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, however, are not entirely unique to humans. The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the other great apes (orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans. Traditionally, humans were considered the sole recent representatives of the family Hominidae, but recent findings indicate that chimpanzees (and bonobos) are more closely related to humans than are gorillas and orangutans and that the chimpanzee and human lines separated only about five million years ago. Therefore, all great apes are now gathered with humans into Hominidae, and within this family humans and their extinct ancestors are considered to make up the “tribe” Hominini. See also Homo sapiens; human evolution.

How wonderfully culture-focused. Not even the barest mentioning of religion, spirituality, mythology, etc., or even of science or technology or society. :) Mmm. I'd almost think you were parodying yourself, if you didn't seem so strangely upset at the fact that we "banished all culture text to much later in the article"—to a thumbnail's distance away. On second thought, that seems like part of the joke. -Silence 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Silence has really addressed all the issues here but I would like to second his opinion. My goal has always been to cut the intro to a minimal overview. This have been achieved at the expense of both the biological and cultural. I found that Sam's favoured introduction contained too many details that were unnecessary. His version also tried to force too much into the first sentence making it an unfocused start to the article. In fact, most of the arguments have focused on this first sentence, rather than the whole introduction. As a whole it is well balanced and quite representative of the article. We need to focus on the whole introduction NOT on the first sentence.
After the introduction, we might spend some time on the rest of the article. Is there hope for that in the near future? David D. (Talk) 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely. We have wasted far too much time on the lead section—even worse, far, far too much time on the first sentence of the lead, with too many minority groups trying to push for including their POV as prominently as possible in the early article on human. This is just a massive waste of time and resources, and has contributed enormously to the mediocre quality of many of the sections of this article.
I think we should take a break from squabbling over the precise wording of the first sentences, or at least shift our focus to not being all (or primarily) about the lead: in fact, it might even be an interesting idea to set up a timescale where we try to organize editors to pool their efforts on improving a certain section of the article at a time over the course of a certain one- or two-week period. One of our problems is that the article is so broad that we have difficulty applying as much focus as is needed to each section; although we should certainly keep our eye on the bigger picture of the article in general, I think it would be wise to make some very specific and deliberate choices about which sections to focus on improving next, so that we can really start concentrating our skills on making this the best article possible. Many of the "society and culture" sections are particularly lacking (though there are a fair number of improvements that should be made to the biological section, too, ta some point). What do you think? -Silence 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence defines the subject of the article. Encyclopedia Britannica knows this -- their phrases are clearly the result of long debate and compromise. We have the debate part, but not the compromise. What we have "taken a break from" is being a collaborative encyclopedia. Now we have a POV article whose lack of balance is enforced by administrators who edit-war to get their way and threaten to ban editors for using templates. This abuse of Wikipedia is only aggravated by your rhetoric. — goethean ॐ 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You are exactly correct in only one thing: the first sentence of the human article should define the word human: nothing more, nothing less. Which is exactly why the current section is the way it is (and is actually more NPOV and much more clear and well-written than the current Britannica first sentence). Because this is the definition of the word human:
  • American Heritage Dictionary — A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
  • Encyclopædia Britannica (original text) — (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.
  • Merriam-Webster — a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs
  • MSN Encarta (dictionary) — a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens.
  • MSN Encarta (encyclopedia) — common name given to any individual of the species Homo sapiens and, by extension, to the entire species. The term is also applied to certain species that were the evolutionary forerunners of Homo sapiens (see Human Evolution). Scientists consider all living people members of a single species.
  • Oxford English Dictionary (Compact) — a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens.
  • Random House Unabridged Dictionary — any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
  • Wiktionary — A large, mostly hairless primate of the species Homo sapiens; a person.
  • WordNet — any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
  • WordReference.com — any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae
Concur completely with Silence, who thank goodness seems to be able to type 150 wpm, thus enabling him to cover completely every possible objection and angle. Goethean, if you have a comment, please make it a new one - your attempt to place an unbalanced minority view in the intro has been most thoroughly, and repeatedly, rejected. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that goethean is currently taking a short Wikibreak, which means a brief respite from the cyclic squabbling over the lead. Sounds like a good opportunity to resume work on the other, more important deficiencies of the article, don't you think? So, any ideas or suggestions on where we should start? If we focus our efforts on certain sections of the article, one after another, we should be able to more effectively isolate what specific areas need improvement and how best to go about improving them. -Silence 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I was unaware Goethean was on break - I will not expect a reply any time soon then. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
why are the people white in the main picture?? shouldn't it have a big circle with people of all colors holding hands.. not just a white women and a white man.
I know I'm late by a couple months, but here I go anyway. Acording to the article Major Religious Groups, Only 16% of the world is not religious, and all of the religions listed besides Other believe that the world did not come about as the result of an accident and niether did humanity. You said that you didn't want to work around a minority; well you sir, are the minority. Hybrid 22:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
What does the Catholic church have to say about the topic? I'm not sure this has anything to do with religious versus non -religious. David D. (Talk) 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
At the core of all of those religions is a belief that the world came about due to an inteligent being creating the world, which directly contradicts evolution. What the Catholic church has to say, since you mentioned it specifically, is that God and Jesus created the world in 6 days and evolution did not happen. You're correct, it isn't religious vs. non-religious, but when you look at the core beliefs of the religions you can get a fairly accurate figure of what most of the population believes caused the World to exist.. Hybrid 05:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Quoting percentage figures of religious versus non religious does not get close understanding how many accept evolution. How do the religious break down with regard to (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution. I thought the Cathloic church accepted evolution or at least don't reject it. Isn't their official position that if evolution is true it was under the impetus and guidance of God? They do believe that the ultimate creation is Gods doing but they are not specific despite what the bible says. Certainly they believe that souls are created but they do not make such a claim for the body. In summary, core beliefs do not rule out evolution so you cannot claim 80 odd percent of the world fall into the first category above. David D. (Talk) 05:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As an Ex-catholic, let me tell you first hand that what they say is the official stance is very different than what they themselves or their followers believe. They stick very close to the original core beliefs of the Bible, and my Protestant brother says that their church is the same. Hybrid 00:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
But a couple of personal examples don't constitute evidence. I for instance know many Christians who also believe in evolution. Religious vs non-religious tells you nothing about those people's belief in evolution. TimTim 09:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

Per Silence's q, above - what about taking on the Love and Sexuality section? IMHO, sexual reproduction is a Biological thing, not a Motivation and emotion thing. Well, motivation... why is that section Motivation and emotion? Could we come up with a better title? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely this can't be right

"generally, most humans can survive for over two months without food, but at most between ten to fourteen days without water"

My understanding is 10-14 days without food and 3-4 days without water. JPotter 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Sands the IRA hunger striker lived on a water only diet from March 1st before he finally died on May 5th 1981. At the end of the day much depends on you starting condition. This was Sands' second hunger strike. Certainly a cite for that two month figure would be appropriate. David D. (Talk) 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't rely on isolated cases, like a certain hunger striker, because the more important stat is the average length of time a normal human can survive without food or water, not the maximum length of time for an exceptionally fit or otherwise unusual human. References seem to indicate that the correct length of time the average human can survive without water is 3 days, and the length of time the average human can survive without food is 3 weeks.[2][3][4][5] -Silence 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It was just an example that 10-14 days might be on the low side. The imortant thing, that was noted by JPotter in his edit, is that this is a variable number depending on many factors. David D. (Talk) 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why I distinguish between "homo sapien" and "human"

Homo sapien is clearly an animal who begins life as a single cell, grows and changes, until at some point there is enough irreversible damage to enough cells that there is no longer a living body, but merely isolated living cells that can not in the normal course of events regrow into a new body. Human, on the other hand, does not begin and does not end with mere human cell beginning and ending; but with something more. Some believe in a soul that gets added and removed. Governments define the start and end of human rights such as at the start of ther third trimester until braindeath. The human mind itself is recognizable in a functioning human body and would still be a human mind were it made of other than meat - a goal of Artificial Intelligence. A homo sapien body without a mind is not a human. A human mind housed in a non-homo-sapien body is a human. WAS 4.250 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct to distinguish "homo sapien" from "human", but for the wrong reasons. First and foremost, there is no such thing as "homo sapien". It is Homo sapiens. Second, there has been at least one subspecies besides modern humans. Homo sapiens idaltu is regarded as being the most recent precursor to modern humans; other closely related species have at one time or another been identified as subspecies of H. sapiens, such as Homo neanderthalensis. However, the distinction between Homo sapiens sapiens and [modern] humans is nil. H. s. sapiens is more than the mere collection of cells, just as what makes any [sub]species unique is more than just the distinctiveness of its biology. Look at any of the well-written primate articles and you will see plenty of discussion of things other than just pure biology, such as intelligence and tool use. As for "a homo sapien body without a mind is not a human" is just grossly inflammatory. We cease to be human when we die? We cease to be human when our mind is gone?
Our bodies and our minds and all the rest are inextricably linked. There is no separation of any individual part of the definition of "human" that can be universally held up as the one defining characteristic of what makes H. s. sapiens human. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with UtherSRG. Dionyseus 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with UtherSRG, and also find the implication offensive (not to mention POVed original research) that a comatose or braindead person is somehow "not human", or that someone with limited mental capacity is somehow "less human". I'm sure that wasn't WAS's intent, but it shows the dangers of defining humans solely by their mind (or, arguably even worse, their "soul"). Incidentally, your arguments are a non-sequitur, in that none of the examples you give support your initial claim that there is a difference between "human" and "Homo sapiens (sapiens)": you state that "Some believe in a soul that gets added and removed", but that gives no indication that the soul makes something human, but not Homo sapiens. (Moreover, what if dogs had souls?) I think the word you're searching for here is person, not human, per se: personhood is generally much less defined by one's biological species than humanhood is. :) Likewise, your "Governments define the start and end of human rights such as at the start of ther third trimester until braindeath." also completely fails to explicitly address any sort of distinction between human and Homo sapiens, as "human rights" is a very different thing from "human". Furthermore, I'm sure that a large number of people (probably even a majority) would dispute your claim that a human mind "would still be a human mind were it made of other than meat - a goal of Artificial Intelligence"; most people find the idea that a computer could be human an inherent contradiction in terms, precisely because something must be biological in order to be human: that's just a necessary part of the human experience, regardless of whether or not it's "the whole thing" (which isn't our place to decide anyway, hence the article never weighing in on the matter). WAS is, unfortunately, fabricating a word-distinction where none actually exists (most dictionaries define "human" as "Homo sapiens", and vice versa), which means, in lieu of a reputable citation to back up this imagined word distinction, that we clearly cannot allow this POV to be interjected into the article. -Silence 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I very rarely see eye to eye with Dionyseus. In fact, we're currently in arbitration over another article. However, what he's said here is quite sensible, accurate, and well written.Danny Pi 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hm? Why is "I agree with UtherSRG." such a feat? -Silence 20:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


  1. there is no such thing as "homo sapien". It is Homo sapiens. Whoops. I knew that looked wrong. Can I claim back formation as if I meant to do it and quickly change the subject?
  2. there has been at least one subspecies besides modern humans. Homo sapiens idaltu is regarded as being the most recent precursor to modern humans; other closely related species have at one time or another been identified as subspecies of H. sapiens, such as Homo neanderthalensis. However, the distinction between Homo sapiens sapiens and [modern] humans is nil. I am contrasting a biological point of view with nonbiological points of view, and not getting into the details of what constitutes either in this my first introductory comment meant to open up a discussion.
  3. H. s. sapiens is more than the mere collection of cells, just as what makes any [sub]species unique is more than just the distinctiveness of its biology. Look at any of the well-written primate articles and you will see plenty of discussion of things other than just pure biology, such as intelligence and tool use. Yes, this is what I was getting at. Only the human species is more of a transitional species than any since viruses - part what came before (roughly animal) and part what comes next (some think soul/spirit - using next in a different sense, I think self redesigning post-biologic intelligence comes next). Like RNA is a transition molecule between nonlife and life. In defining a PC the software is as important as the hardware; not like a mere calculator. So too, in humans for the first time the software of the mind overtakes the software (DNA) of the body as the creator of the future.
  4. As for "a homo sapien body without a mind is not a human" is just grossly inflammatory. We cease to be human when we die? We cease to be human when our mind is gone?The part that matters, which is why the mindless body loses its human rights. (By the way, be responsible for your own emotions.)
  5. Our bodies and our minds and all the rest are inextricably linked. Yes. Mind is what brains do. Its just the verb form of brain so to speak. None the less, discussing what it is to be human from the point of view of mind (cognitive science, for one example) is different from discussing what it is to be human from the point of view of body (biology, for one example).
  6. There is no separation of any individual part of the definition of "human" that can be universally held up as the one defining characteristic of what makes H. s. sapiens human. Exactly, so let's not make the biological point of view a privileged point of view in the Human wikipedia article.
  7. This is my second comment in an attempt to discuss an issue.
  8. Silence, perhaps I have better communicated myself by now. WAS 4.250 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I can only hope that some day this attitude nurtured by thousands of years of misguided romantic beliefs that humans are special animals, or even humans are more than mere animals that the Western mind is is so hopelessly engulfed in, is replaced by something more sane. What animals are is defined in part by what humans are, so any definition of an animal would be inclusive of all "human" things. There's no such thing as a "non-homo-sapien body", a "non-homo-sapien mind" or a "non-homo-sapien emotion". I think there are a lot of primitive ideas like that of the Great chain of being that have to be unlearned by the Western mind. deeptrivia (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well-said, deeptrivia. A cogent, accurate, and relevant point. -Silence 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Also a POV. — goethean ॐ 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. Which is why it does not belong in the human article (nor in any other article, without a reference). It's a good point, but it doesn't belong in the article—just like WAS's POV, regardless of whether it is a good or bad one, does not belong in the article. Settle down; I was complimenting him on an insightful (albeit brief) cultural characterization, not giving launch orders to interject his, or my, perspective into any article. :) -Silence 22:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"I am contrasting a biological point of view with nonbiological points of view, and not getting into the details of what constitutes either in this my first introductory comment meant to open up a discussion." - Your main error is not in your contrasting of biological and nonbiological, it's in your assumption that this contrast is equatable with a contrast between the terms human and Homo sapiens. The word "human" is not a nonbiological term, anymore than the word "dog" is: the taxonomic classification of a species is just a different way of categorizing and referencing species, not a "more biological" or "less biological" way.
"Yes, this is what I was getting at. Only the human species is more of a transitional species" - All species are equally transitional. Please read transitional fossil: "According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a 'transitional form' is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight."
"than any since viruses" - What makes you think that viruses are especially "transitional"? Viruses developed after "true" lifeforms, not before, as some sort of stepping-stone. Viruses merely show that the distinction between organic and inorganic matter is not such a set-in-stone, obvious line.
"- part what came before (roughly animal)" - Humans are animals. Not "roughly animal", or "half-animal"—they are animals. Please read the definition at the animal page. Please read the definition of the word animal: "A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure." Unless you can show how human beings are in any way exceptions to any of those criteria, you have no basis (except an emotional-loaded, anthropocentric one) for making such a claim.
"and part what comes next (some think soul/spirit - using next in a different sense, I think self redesigning post-biologic intelligence comes next)." - Speculative, unscientific New Age silliness. Demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and biology—and thus is comparable to other speculative guesses at what the future holds for humanity, like "faster-than-light travel" :) (but with even less scientific basis). I could just as easily argue that dolphins are partway in the process of evolving into beings of spirit: such claims are invariably meaningless, unsubstantiated and arbitrary.
"Like RNA is a transition molecule between nonlife and life." - There is no real transition. The distinction between living and nonliving structures is largely a matter of convention, not empirical science: organic compound explains why it is not really meaningful to try to distinguish between "organic molecules" and "inorganic molecules". Only in retrospect, and from a selective perspective, can we call RNA a "transition molecule".
"In defining a PC the software is as important as the hardware;" - And yet PCs will never "evolve beyond their hardware", as you imagine humans will evolve beyond their bodies into pure spirit. This is because human minds require brains, just as computer software requires hardware.
"So too, in humans for the first time the software of the mind overtakes the software (DNA)" - False analogy. If the human mind is software, the human brain is hardware; the DNA is the "recipe" by which the body's genetic structure is determined. DNA and thoughts have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
"of the body" - False dichotomy. You have never observed a mind without a body, so you have no basis for assuming dualism here.
"as the creator of the future." - And now we're just getting silly. "Creator of the future"? What is this, a cult pamphlet?
"The part that matters, which is why the mindless body loses its human rights." - Fallacious reasoning. First you argued that people lose their legal "human rights" when they have no mind because the mind is the only thing that defines being "human". Now you're arguing that because the mind is the only thing that defines being "human", people lose their legal "human rights" when they have no mind. This is obvious cyclic logic, and demonstrates a very weak foundation for your arguments. Furthermore, arguing that something is the case just because of legal terminology is patently absurd; you're making metaphysical claims about human nature and the future and the soul based on a modern legal convention?!
"(By the way, be responsible for your own emotions.)" - Please refrain from incivility: if someone tells you that something you said is highly offensive, it is extremely inappropriate and irresponsible of you to respond with "be responsible for your own emotions". Be responsible for your own words and actions, don't lay the blame on others when you get a negative reaction to an insulting, extremist claim.
"Exactly, so let's not make the biological point of view a privileged point of view in the Human wikipedia article." - Non sequitur. Biology is a field of study, not a "point of view", and it is not given a "privileged" position in the article, anymore than is merited by the fact that this is a biological article (being about a form of life). The dictionary definition of the word human is "Homo sapiens": this is absolutely unavoidable. Please do not expect us to rewrite the article to suit your POV when you have yet to provide a single reference or piece of evidence to back up any of your claims: to do so would violate Wikipedia's core policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. -Silence 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What?

  1. romantic beliefs that humans are special animals Humans have gone to the moon. This is real, not romantic.
  2. What animals are is defined in part by what humans are and what "mechanical" is is defined in part by what computers are. The world is not black and white. Leaving out grey is not a virtue.
  3. There's no such thing as a "non-homo-sapiens body" robot
  4. Your main error is not in your contrasting of biological and nonbiological, it's in your assumption that this contrast is equatable with a contrast between the terms human and Homo sapiens. The word "human" is not a nonbiological term, anymore than the word "dog" is: the taxonomic classification of a species is just a different way of categorizing and referencing species, not a "more biological" or "less biological" way. I failed to communicate. You are addressing aspects of my failure to communicate and not the substance of what I an trying to discuss. I apologize for my inarticulateness.
  5. All species are equally transitional. false
  6. Humans are animals. Not "roughly animal" I agree. Again, I failed to communicate successfully.
  7. like "faster-than-light travel" :) (but with even less scientific basis). I could just as easily argue that dolphins are partway in the process of evolving into beings of spirit: such claims are invariably meaningless, unsubstantiated and arbitrary. You misunderstand me so completely a reply seems pointless, but I don't believe in spirits or souls and there is no physics problem with a technological singularity.
  8. There is no real transition. The distinction between living and nonliving structures is largely a matter of convention, not empirical science: organic compound explains why it is not really meaningful to try to distinguish between "organic molecules" and "inorganic molecules". Only in retrospect, and from a selective perspective, can we call RNA a "transition molecule". Nonsense.
  9. And yet PCs will never "evolve beyond their hardware" PCs are evolving faster than organic life forms
  10. DNA and thoughts have absolutely nothing to do with each other. False.
  11. You have never observed a mind without a body, so you have no basis for assuming dualism here. You completely misunderstand me.
  12. "Creator of the future"? What is this, a cult pamphlet? Do you believe you can make a choice that affects the future? Is it a cult to suggest your mind can help create your future? Are you trolling me or misunderstanding me?
  13. First you argued that people lose their legal "human rights" when they have no mind because No. No. No. all the stuff after the "because" is garbage. Brain dead people are not legally alive anymore. it's a fact. I'm not arguing from theory. I'm stating observable fact.
  14. Please refrain from incivility: if someone tells you that something you said is highly offensive, it is extremely inappropriate and irresponsible of you to respond with "be responsible for your own emotions". There is a great difference between an offensive/infammatory word and an idea. You may not censor ideas under the principl of civility.
  15. Biology is a field of study, not a "point of view" the two are not exclusive. WAS 4.250 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm…

1. romantic beliefs that humans are special animals Humans have gone to the moon. This is real, not romantic.

Yes, but just because we are more advanced in ways other animals are not does not make us “special”. For example, dogs are more advanced in hearing than us.

3. There's no such thing as a "non-homo-sapiens body" robot

Robots don't strictly appear to be human, they can look like anything.

7. like "faster-than-light travel" :) (but with even less scientific basis). I could just as easily argue that dolphins are partway in the process of evolving into beings of spirit: such claims are invariably meaningless, unsubstantiated and arbitrary. You misunderstand me so completely a reply seems pointless, but I don't believe in spirits or souls and there is no physics problem with a technological singularity.

Then can you elaborate‽

9. And yet PCs will never "evolve beyond their hardware" PCs are evolving faster than organic life forms

No, a PC (or a more general term, computer) can never “evolve”. They may make a newer and better computer but a Windows 95 will never “evolve” into Windows 98.

11. You have never observed a mind without a body, so you have no basis for assuming dualism here. You completely misunderstand me.

Once again, can you elaborate your meaning so we can?

12. "Creator of the future"? What is this, a cult pamphlet? Do you believe you can make a choice that affects the future? Is it a cult to suggest your mind can help create your future? Are you trolling me or misunderstanding me?

It seems a lot of people are misunderstanding you, maybe you should make things more clearer.

13. First you argued that people lose their legal "human rights" when they have no mind because No. No. No. all the stuff after the "because" is garbage. Brain dead people are not legally alive anymore. it's a fact. I'm not arguing from theory. I'm stating observable fact.

They are alive, regardless of their rights or abilities. A vegetable person is still a human, and so is a dead person. We don't say dinosaurs are not dinosuars because they're dead

15. Biology is a field of study, not a "point of view" the two are not exclusive. WAS 4.250 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, a study and point of view are different. A study is to well… study something, and a point of view is your belief.

FlareNUKE 02:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, WAS 4.250, if you're failing to realize yet that all species are equally transitional, and you seem to be under some kind of a belief that humans are The Final Product of evolution, then perhaps there remains no basis on which to engage in further discussion. Perhaps we'll have to start from very basics here. Do you doubt the validity of evolution? deeptrivia (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Woof

(I don't know why we're really into odd, terse subsection titles now, but I guess I'll join in on the fun!)

1. "romantic beliefs that humans are special animals Humans have gone to the moon. This is real, not romantic."

  • I think his point was not that humans aren't unusual—humans have done a great many remarkable and unique things. What we're disputing is that these things make humans somehow "more than animals" or "non-animals", which is patently untrue for the same reason that the platypus is not "more than an animal". Being an animal is an either/or proposition, not a matter of degrees.

2. "There's no such thing as a "non-homo-sapiens body" robot"

  • I think you missed the point here, too. Robots aren't Homo sapiens, but they're equally not humans, regardless of their mental capacity. He wasn't saying that there is no such thing as a body that's non-human (cats have bodies too, after all!), he was saying that there is no such thing as a human body that isn't a Homo sapiens body. Thus your distinction between the two words is your own fabrication.

4. "Your main error is not in your contrasting of biological and nonbiological, it's in your assumption that this contrast is equatable with a contrast between the terms human and Homo sapiens. I failed to communicate. You are addressing aspects of my failure to communicate and not the substance of what I an trying to discuss. I apologize for my inarticulateness."

  • Really? I thought I'd addressed the very core of your message, considering that the thread you made was titled "Why I distinguish between 'homo sapien' and 'human'". So do you distinguish between them, or not?

5. "All species are equally transitional. false"

  • You are deeply mistaken. Please read up on the topic. Under modern evolutionary theory, all species are equally "transitional", from an objective perspective: they are all just as much in the process of evolving, just as quickly and just as much, and every species that produces offspring can be considered a "transitional species". Ideas of only certain organisms being transitional are profoundly outmoded and outdated in modern biology.

9. "And yet PCs will never "evolve beyond their hardware" PCs are evolving faster than organic life forms"

  • And yet PCs will never "evolve beyond their hardware". Thank you for cementing my point. Your assumption that humans will somehow move beyond their "hardware" (i.e. their brains) as the "next step" in their development is based purely in speculation.

12. ""Creator of the future"? What is this, a cult pamphlet? Do you believe you can make a choice that affects the future?"

  • Do you believe that anyone can make a choice that doesn't affect the future? Or that affects the past? Your statement is quasi-mystical rhetoric.

13. "First you argued that people lose their legal "human rights" when they have no mind because No. No. No. all the stuff after the "because" is garbage. Brain dead people are not legally alive anymore. it's a fact. I'm not arguing from theory. I'm stating observable fact."

  • But the key word is "legally". We were not discussing law, we were discussing biology. Law does not define biology. Therefore your repeated allusions to human rights "ending" when someone's brain dies are a complete (and now cyclic) non sequitur.

14. "Please refrain from incivility: if someone tells you that something you said is highly offensive, it is extremely inappropriate and irresponsible of you to respond with "be responsible for your own emotions". There is a great difference between an offensive/infammatory word and an idea. You may not censor ideas under the principl of civility."

  • I didn't ask you to censor your idea, I asked you not to attack people who are offended when you make dramatic statements like "braindead people are not human beings". Such disagreements are inevitable, and should be handled in a civil tone. You are, in affect, trying to censor their valid reactions to your claims. Writing off genuine concerns as just being the fault of the concerned is dismissive and rude.

15. "Biology is a field of study, not a "point of view" the two are not exclusive."

  • Perhaps, but they are distinct, so don't conflate the two. Speaking of a "biological point of view" is about as silly as speaking of a "mathematical point of view", after all. -Silence 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Biology is a word. That word can be used identify a field of study. That word can be used to identify a point of view. That you don't see it as a point of view and that there are other points of view is my point. This relates to this article in that Homo Sapiens should be an article (that explores in full the point of view that human=homo sapiens) and not be a redirect. The article human can and should remain similar to what it is but with more room to explore other points of view and less needing to fully flesh out the homo sapiens aspect of being human (one of many correct viewpoints). Argumentation for the sake of argumentation is not what I came here for. Instead of engaging in a conversation to improve the article, I receive debate for the sake of debate. Nonsense like "evolution" can only mean biological evolution in the context of the evolution of the PC is debate for the sake of debate. WAS 4.250 13:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Example: Legal point of view. What is it "to be human" from a current Western government legal point of view? I point out that humans lose their legal "human rights" when they have no mind (but are still "homo sapiens"). The responses I got were from a biology point of view. WAS 4.250 14:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article already overemphasizes too much the cultural aspects of humans, which describes an extremely small aspect of what it means to be human. A human is primarily an animal, and even if you strip off all the art, culture, language, etc, a human doesn't become any lesser human. Besides there are so many articles to talk about these aspects on wikipedia, and in such a limited space, you anyway cannot do any justice to these vast topics. deeptrivia (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: Losing human rights in no way imply that a person is no longer a human, nor does any law stripping a person off human rights says as much. There were no human rights until very recently. In their history of millions of years, humans have invented the notion of human rights only a hundred or so years ago. And still this concept doesn't enjoy universal acceptance, despite the UN declaration. So are you saying that humans came into existence only a hundred years ago? deeptrivia (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If this article adequately dealt with the historical point of view of the word/concept of "human" I could refer you to it for a rebuttle. WAS 4.250 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

Anyway, I was thinking of replacing the image of the two poorly drawn NASA things for the people in outer-space with an actual human, it should be an adult and any ethnicity or gender will do, And I argue to the fact that we would need to show so many humans to represent every kind is that the Pleocyemata article does not show every type, just an American lobster.

The other images should also not be artist's deceptions of humans but instead ACTUAL humans with execption to the art category. I'd rather see humans in their activities and habitat then a drawing or sclupture of a man.

--FlareNUKE 22:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I made my point to this effect above, which I recommend reading over to help in choosing an appropriate image. -Silence 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Also noted these other discussions on this topic. Talk:Human#Human_image, Talk:Human/Archive_19#human_picture and Talk:Human/Archive_20#Image_to_represent_Human. David D. (Talk) 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yet another go-round. da Vinci, anyone? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheesy, childlike and colorful. No I don't like it, I merely post.
Surely you jest.. The whole point of FlareNUKE's idea is to replace artist's depictions with an actual photo of a human, for the blatantly obvious reason that a photo is more accurate and informative than a little old drawing! (The same reason we have a photo, not a drawing, on almost every other page about a species of life on Wikiedia.) Nothing whatsoever would be accomplished by replacing one artist's depiction with another! -Silence 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear me, I thought it was semi-obvious... apologies. In other words, yes was jesting. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying. I could tell the People.svg image was a joke, but the "da Vinci, anyone?" suggestion looked serious. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -Silence 23:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's a semi-serious suggestion. Btw, I still strongly like the family picture, above. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the nude woman suggestion either, for the same reason that I didn't like most of the suggestions we got at #Human image: it's too artsy, with arbitrary details added in that aren't remotely helpful and would obviously confuse anyone who didn't already know what humans look like. If we needed an image for the top of the wolf article, would the best image by a simple, clear, unadorned color photograph displaying 1– wolves behaving normally in their natural habitat, or would the best image by an evocative, black-and-white, melodramatic strangely-angled photo or illustration of a wolf where you can only see its back and where its surrounded by enigmatic scenery or images that will likely confuse or misleading viewers? The obvious answer is the former: a simple, clear photograph is always better than a more profound image, because we are an encyclopedia. Images like the Vitruvian man may have a lot of cultural and historical significance, but as a clear biological representation of humans they are atrocious, conveying little reliable information and leaving open the possibility for major misunderstandings. (e.g., "So humans have four arms and four legs?") Political Correctness is always less important than informativeness and clarity; we don't need an image that represents every possible body-type, race, culture, etc. of humans at the top of the article, we just need one that represents a relatively ordinary human being. So far, almost all of the proposed images have failed even in that very basic requirement, which demonstrates that people have a poor understanding of what's actually important in selecting an image for the top of the article. -Silence 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, although we'll surely have to settle for a sub-optimal image, in my view, an absolutely ideal image for the top of the "human" article would have the following characteristics:
  1. It would be a very high-quality color photograph, with nice use of framing and an eye-catching (but not disorienting) perspective.
  2. Despite conveying as much important information as possible, it should, above all, not be crowded: simplicity and clarity is one of the most important elements of an informative and eye-catching photograph.
  3. It should be clearly focused on the human(s) in the shot, with as little as possible background or side-information.
  4. To facilitate this, the background should be relatively simple, and, preferably, it should be in an urban environment, not a countryside scene, so as to peripherally showcase human-made structures such as buildings in the background.
  5. It would have 1–3 people focused on in the shot, preferably an adult (35–65 years old) male and female human, accompanied by a male or female child (representing the basic family unit).
  6. It would depict the human(s) walking, not standing still or sitting or running, in order to demonstrate the typical, two-legged ambulation that characterizes humans and frees their arms for tool-using.
  7. Accordingly, there would be at least one hand-held tool or device being used by the humans, such as a cell phone. This would emphasize the important aspect of humans that they make constant usage of elaborate tools in day-to-day life, most often manipulated by their hands.
  8. At least one of the humans would be clearly talking, ideally with accompanying hand-gestures (like pointing off in the distance of making a motion emphasizing a point), in order to demonstrate human communication, another very important aspect of human society.
  9. All of the humans would be clothed, because that's how human beings are most commonly encountered: unclothed depictions should be used at the top of the "biology" section, in order to clearly depict their anatomy, but it is potentially misleading to use such an image as the lead image in the article: even though it is more anatomically informative to have a naked picture, it is less informative regarding human society and culture.
  10. It must be free-use, not fair-use.
  • Just providing the list so we have a better general idea of what qualities to look for in images. An image doesn't have to meet all the requirements to be sufficient, but it's certainly something to aim for. -Silence 00:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like one of those shots of a busy New York City sidewalk from a slightly elevated position you always see in movies could be close to ideal. (Congratulations, you have witnessed my first ever talk page contribution! :-)) Captain Chaos 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Silence i just saw your post above which makes this compilation i made a bit moot. i thought we could look at some different types of pictures to see try and get a feeling for style. Now i have seen your list above I'll think of some more with respect to other pictures i might have seen while googling this bunch. The major problem here is that we will need someone to doante the appropriate picture for our use.

When i picked out these photos i was thinking of what types of things would be needed. A) invokes generations and age, B) a street seen people about their business, including children, men and women but also eye catching. C) emotion, love (heterosexual) D) youth, male and female, E) athleticism, diversity F) great picture from the depression, emotion despair ( a bit depressing and probaly too arty), G) I forgot this one. H) diversity, racial and gender with emotions on top. I) another depression era photo, i couldn't resist it since it is a great photo of the worried mother and scared/tired children, in retrospect really not that useful for this article. David D. (Talk) 05:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not much on commons that even comes close to the list. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Humans chimp gene inconsistency

the 2 refs give diferent numbers. is it 98.4% or 96% or is it disputed? someone find out. ... humans have approximately 20,000–25,000 genes and share 98.4% of their DNA with their closest living evolutionary relatives, the two species of chimpanzees.[7]... ... in fact, chimpanzee and human DNA is 96% identical.[13] ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.94.200.9 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The most widespread number seems to be 98.4%, so I recommend sticking with that. Which number one uses depends on what, specifically, one is measuring. We may want to provide a link to this page in order to clear up any potential confusion, as it explains the source of the various percentages. -Silence 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Connectivity and organization

Perhaps some combination of the below two ideas would be useful. WAS 4.250 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A suite of articles at the top in a navigation box

{{Humans}}

  • How about none of them? They're all really, really awful ideas. If we have to use one of them, then, obviously, the footer is the only one that wouldn't harm the article, so go with that. But I'm disappointed that we have to waste more time and space on templates, when we should be worrying about the contents of the article. -Silence 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is useful to tie articles together. We already do this in a variety of ways. One common technique is a footer. We already have those on this article, although the one Silence created (and I moved to a new name) above could be added to the foot of this article, especially as it lacks a see also section. WAS 4.250 22:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also common on articles (that in Britannica would be larger than our format allows) for the article to be divided up into a suite of articles with a navigation box at the top of each of them allowing a reader to quickly find the exact part of the issue they are looking for. This can also be done to create a suite of articles from articles rthat were comcieved and created as seperate entities as a step in coordinating them. I think it would be useful to think of the human article as a flagship article for a suite of articles that once connected with a navigation box at the top can be coordinated over time to be a representation of Wikipedia at its best. WAS 4.250 22:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

large head and childbirth

The relatively unique labor during childbirth is mentioned but not why - the relatively large head size due to a relatively large brain. I have replaced this.

I also rewrote some of the next sentence - it said childbirth is a "dangerous ordeal, in remote, underdeveloped regions". Remote? Where is Rio de Janeiro remote from, the person writing that sentence? And where is that person from? I rewrote that. Ruy Lopez 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Picture

Yeah, i know, wikipedia is not cencored and what more, but i would still prefere to not get a dick in my face every time i get to this page...--Striver 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. This page is for discussing the article's contents, not general Wikipedia policy; moving discussion to User talk:Striver. Also, please remember not to feed the trolls, guys. -Silence 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with User:Striver's complaint, but I find User:Silence's personal attacks on Striver and his removal of Striver's comments to be contemptible. User:Silence's actions and haughty attitude should be condemned. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. — goethean ॐ 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
As someone who got deleted here in silences edit, i have no complaint. It was starting to get off topic with respect to which picture is appropriate. i have to agree i do not think Striver is a troll, although i can see how his choice of wording could be taken that way. David D. (Talk) 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's understandable. Those adhering to the majority opinion often overlook it when other opinions are silenced. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Striver was silenced, his intial point "i would still prefere to not get a dick in my face every time i get to this page" was not censored, it was the juvenile, unconstructive comments that came after that were removed by Silence. David D. (Talk) 16:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that is human nature, like Zidane being hailed as a hero in France, whats up with that? But i digress. What did you think of the criteria silence laid out for the picture above? i think we will need a customised picture as there is nothing suitable in commons. Until that time i am happy to stay with the pioneer photo. It's hardly pornographic and has some history associated with it, not just a random drawing. David D. (Talk) 16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Silence, im not a troll, i am ea editor with more than 10k edits. And i am talking about this pages content. I really do not appreciate you moving away my comments to my talk page, but i won't move them back.

I repeat: I see no point in showing a pair of breast and a dick in a article about human. i dont see (explicit!) this picture over at horse, and i dont get why i get the dick and breast in this article. Either tell me that you support puting (explicit!) this picture into Donkey, or support me on removing the picture away from here. --Striver 19:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello? --Striver 15:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Which picture are you proposing? David D. (Talk) 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no need for any proposing, the current image is perfectly fine. Wikipedia is not censored, and besides the image is a simple illustration of the human male and female body. I do not understand Striver's concearns, and I also do not see how that image of the donkey with an erect penis is explicit. What's so insulting about penis, breast, and vagina? Most of us have at least one of these. Dionyseus 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, does that mean you would support the donkey pic in the donkey article to demostrate that part of the animals anatomy? --Striver 01:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The drawing is not pornographic in nature, and is on the Pioneer Plaque making it quite appropriate for display on wikipedia, since it is on display for the universe. RussS 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Homo sapiens sapiens Linnaeus, 1758

I am rather sure that this is wrong. Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 is correct. But I am very skeptical that Linnaeus named a subspecies. Technically we need to find who first used H. s. sapiens for anatomically modern human and credit that person or persons with the trinomial name while giving Linnaeus credit for Homo and H. sapiens. Anyone with documentation, one way or the other, please speak up. MichaelSH 00:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

According to The Paleobiology Database, Linnaeus is responsible for the Primates designation, but it's got no information on either Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens, unfortunately, though it's a great resource for the origin of many other taxonomic names. -Silence 08:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Taxonomicon, it is indeed Homo sapiens sapiens Linnaeus, 1758. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 19:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Homo sapiens sapiens is an autonym since the subspecies idaltu was described. Mgiganteus1 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Audience

When I read the article, it seemed that it was aimed at a non-human. Should it be changed? 0L1 21:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean. The article shouldn't seem to be written by a complete alien to humans, as that will just look silly, but it also shouldn't allude to the author's humanity, as Wikipedia (like all encyclopedias) must avoid self-references. If you could provide an example of a passage or sentence that struck you as strange, or that you would reword in a different way? -Silence 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Difference

I still don't see the difference between the Homo sapiens idaltu, and the Cro-Magnons. Are the Cro-Magnons essentially early modern-day humans? And what about the idaltu? I've looked at representational images of each, and they all look like modern day humans to me. What is the difference? Are they of the same species/subspecies as us? The article seems to indicate that Cro-Magnons are early humans. So which would be the closest relative/species/sub-species to modern day man (that ever lived); would this be the floriensis, cro-magnon, neanderthals, or the idaltu; in which of our closest relatives are the most "intelligent"? 165.196.149.50 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Homo sapiens idaltu appears to be the earliest form of H. sapiens. "Cro-Magnon" is merely the earliest known example of H. sapiens sapiens in Europe, although H. sapiens sapiens had spread through Asia and reached Australia 25,000 years before "Cro-Magnon" appeared in Europe. Neanderthals were a different species.[6] Homo floresiensis was a specialized species, possibly descended from Homo erectus (see Homo floresiensis). Intelligence is a tricky concept, even when the subjects of study are alive. Neanderthals, Flores man, and early H. sapiens all left tools behind. I'm not qualified to evaluate the intelligence required to produce their respective tool kits, but I will note that H. sapiens was around for 150,000 years or more before any of them began to advance beyond Paleolithic cultures. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Omnivore vs. herbivore

Rather than engage in an edit war on the article page, I will state here that I believe that the view that humans are herbivores and not omnivores is a fringe belief, held by a small minority, and should be treated accordingly in the article. As is discussed in the reference I added, vegetarians do not necessarily deny that humans are omnivores. The argument for vegetarianism can be made without distorting the facts of human anatomy, physiology and history. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that vegetarians sometimes use the "humans are herbivores" argument doesn't make it invalid.
I agree it's a belief held by a small minority, BUT:
1. There are reputable scientists among that minority
2. A small minority believing in something doesn't mean it can't be right
I can agree with a treatment as such in the article, as long as it's mentioned (like a small minority of people believes humans are herbivorous - see [19]). The edit made by Jefffire is wrong, as the sentence is now a non sequitur (the statement doesn't follow from the previously given facts). MrTroy 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think what people mean to be saying is that some scientists believe humans anatomically herbivorous but which eat meat regardless, like some rats. Obviously since human do eat meat they are omniverious, but that is incidental to anatomy. Incidently, I am both a vegitarian, and a biologist. Jefffire 12:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think the issue is semantical in nature. The website under [19] uses as a definition for omnivore: a species that has to eat both plants & meat to survive. Using that definition, humans obviously aren't omnivores (because that would mean vegetarianism is lethal).
If you say omnivores can eat meat but don't have to, however, humans can perfectly well be omnivores. As I said, it's not only a biologic, but also a semantical discussion. MrTroy 14:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the omega 3 fats? Are they not vitamins absent in plants? David D. (Talk) 15:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll answer my own question. There are plenty of plant sources for the Omega-3 fatty acid in plants. I should have researched that myself before asing the question. David D. (Talk) 16:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the previous point, I have never heard that definition of omnivore in all my years studying omnivores. That website is playing with words to force a point. Jefffire 11:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

lol wow... i cant believe this is even debatable. Humans are obviously omnivores, and arguing that they arent is just a lame fabrication to push a vegetarian's agenda. Period. I DIDNT EAT ANY VEGETABLES THIS WEEK AND I THINK I MIGHT LIVE! --D-Gen 08:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

we all are the human species!

why does the main picture contain a white women, and a white man, clearly judging from the colorless picture, and facial attributes, I think the picture should be replaced with a big circle of people of all colors holding hands.. with a rainbow (just kidding) but it should have all colors of people in one picture, because i personally find it offensive to look for a diffenition of human and see only white people in the main picture... and thats coming from a white person.i just hope you guys to take note. just to clarify we 'all' are the human species, i wasn't going to bring up racial differences but the main picture just made me mad! especially with the stereotypes of 'whiteman' and 'whitewomen' being dominant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.236.166 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, the image is the one sent on Pioneer to greet any non-terrestrials that encounter it. The image contains features which are an amalgam of all the "races" of humanity. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. 75.15.236.166, please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Accusing fellow editors of racism, and of somehow implying that humans are not "all the human species" (a rather absurd remark) without provocation is unacceptably uncivil and inflammatory. You'll find that you get better results when you treat other people respectfully, even when you disagree with them.
  2. It is not a picture of a white man and woman. If anything, if we took the coloration semi-literally, it would be an exaggerated, simplified picture of an albino man and woman; real "white people" are not actually, literally white, but a variety of tan-pink-etc. shades. Consequently, it is obvious that the picture is a colorless image of a man and woman, not one colored to conform to any one race.
  3. This has already been discussed, many times. It has been agreed that although the NASA-derived image isn't ideal, until we find a better image to replace it, it will suffice.
  4. You are exhibiting a classic case of excessive "politically correct racism"—being offended by any image of people who are not blatantly foreign yet are treated as globally representative, even though, thinking about it objectively, treating any one skin color or body type as "representative" would be equally inaccurate—if using a pic of a white man somehow implies that all people are white, then using a pic of a black man would surely imply that all people are black, which is just as inaccurate.
  5. And even if we address your core assumption that a picture of a black person is inherently "fairer" than a picture with a white one, we run into major problems: There are more "light-skinned" than "dark-skinned" people in the world, so, logically, a picture with light or middle skin tones would be more representative than one with dark skinned tones.
  6. This is the article about human beings, not the article about race. Consequently, since race is such a trivial aspect of human existence, telling us next to nothing about a person's culture, personality, age, nationality, language, profession, diet, social status, relationship status, history, or anything else, race should be one of the least important factors in considering an image to use at the top of the article. Accepting or rejecting an image based solely (or primarily) upon the skin color of the people in the photo is one of the most absurd, offensive, and inane things we could possibly do.
  7. Using a photo of someone of a specific race no more implies that all humans are that race than using someone of a specific hair color implies that all humans have that hair color. If we use an image of a green frog at the top of the Frog article, does that imply that all frogs are green? No. We should select the image we end up using at the top of the human article based on infinitely more important and significant factors than skin coloration; see #Images, above, for a few of the many factors we should be looking for.
  8. Also, your idea for a picture with "all colors of people in one picture" is a very, very poor idea, for too many reasons to count. First: again, this is an article about humans, not an article about race, so using such an image would be completely off-topic here. Second: such an image would be unencyclopedic and unscientific, being clearly designed to advocate a certain idea rather than to neutrally present information. Third: such an image would misinform readers about the reality of race relations, implying that most groups of humans consist entirely of people of radically different colorations, when in fact, especially in non-industrialized parts of the world, it is much more common for people of similar skin color to be found together, and in particular families will not feature dramatically different and new skin colors, as such an image would imply—in fact, such an image would probably give an uninformed reader the impression that every single human on the planet has a completely different skin color, from red to purple to green! Which brings us to the fourth problem: every human does have, at the least, a slightly different tone; for us to truly include "all colors of people" in one picture would require hundreds of billions of people clustered into one pic. And, fifth, even if we cut it down to only a few "representative samples", the pic would be too bloated with different people and there would be no room for people to make out the basic features of humans. The top image in an article on humans should not be some sappy, uninformative cluster of people of all different races, it should be a simple, clear photograph demonstrating the different human body parts and general features, which are much more important than skin color. Can you imagine if the image at the top of frog featured 20 different kinds of frogs in a mass, to the extent that we couldn't even see one of them clearly? Having a single, close-up image on an individual frog, on the other hand, sacrifices diversity for the sake of informativeness and clarity. Please try to keep the big picture in mind; there are thousands of features of human existence more important than race issues, and we can't possible fit them all into a single image, so we should start with the most important ones and work our way down. I, too, would prefer a photo of a non-white person at the top of the article (simply because we have plenty of illustrations of them lower down in the article, and more diversity = more informativeness), but it should be our sixtieth or seventieth priority on the list, not our first. -Silence 19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


i deeply regret even bringing this topic up, i wasn't accusining anyone of racism i was just implying from what i got out of the picture were one distinct race on the main page, i feel incrediably stupid, and again it's not about race, it about human beings, i don't like labeling or classifying people by their skin color, or religion, at the time i was just not thinking... thanks for the insight


You shouldn't feel bad about labeling people according to their skin colour - my skin colour is a pale olive - I am therefore an olive skinned person - it's not a slur, it's an observable fact! It is patently obvious that people from different geographical areas who share a genetic ancestry have a set of physical characteristics in common. I wish we could discuss these things openly and not feel guilty for observing the obvious fact that people who's genetic heritage is from say Scandinavia are physically different from the poeple who's ancestry lies in the the forests of equatorial Africa or the Tibetan plateau. These are not evaluative jugments - they are observable, physical facts. Shoebill 22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That's only true in a statistical sense. Individuals are not so easily categorized. -- Donald Albury 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is "War" unique to humans? Apparently not.

<War is a concept seemingly unique to humans.>

Apparently the above statement is wrong. See Wrangham & Peterson, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (1996). To make the above statement conform to empirical evidence, perhaps you must define "war" in a distorted way--or perhaps you must adopt a strange definition of "unique"--or maybe even a non-traditional definiton of "human." In any case, surely you should find and cite a reputable scholar who would support such a strange idea as "War is a concept seemingly unique to humans." --Rednblu 06:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The conventional dictionary definition of war is "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties"; since non-humans lack nations, states, and arms, non-humans by definition do not participate in wars. However, other, broader definitions of war do allow for wars between members of other species, though war is usually applied to non-humans only in a poetic or allegorical fashion. However, I do agree that the statement you singled out is a poor one: if war is unique to humans, it's only because it's so by definition (in which case we should point out what aspects of war makes it unique), and "seemingly unique" is strange wording indeed. Moreover, it is indeed very correct to point out strong similarities between humans and non-humans in this, and many other, areas, so using such loaded terminology may cloud that informational end. Don't get hung up on word usage; use a synonym if necessary. -Silence 06:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Good advice, it seems to me. A citation to a reputable scholar would help us here. --Rednblu 06:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is far too much a lesson in semantics resting on the definition of war as a "conflict between nations". Does that exclude human tribes, or non-human tribes or insectile nests, that engage in protracted conflict? Better to just drop the sentence I think. Jefffire 12:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Would it not be fair to say that war is a form of *conflict* unique to humans?

Lostsocks 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that depends on what you define as "parties". Two ant colonies can be defined as two opposing parties, and ant colonies fight all the time, even using advanced field tactics besides simple wave-attacks. Warfare does extend to other species, if you use a loose interpretation of the term "war". The Gonz 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition, chimpanzee males patrol the boundaries of their group's territory, and raid other groups, sometimes killing members of the attacked group. If one group of chimpanzees manages to weaken another group by such raids, they will take over all or part of the weakened group's territory. Sounds a lot like war to me. -- Donald Albury 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution?

What's up with everything in the evolution section sounding like its 100% fact? I'd like to see some emphasis on the fact that it is a theory. Also, since we have evolution, there should be some balance with a creationistic view of human origin.--Gotmesomepants 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact, attested by the fossil record and observation of changes presently occurring in natural populations. Darwin's theory is that evolution occurs through natural selection. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 19:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Evolution isn't a fact, it's a commonly held scientific view but still just a theory hence the name Theory of Evolution. Until the missing link is found the Theory of Evolution is purely speculation and will remain just a theory. This part of the article should be altered or removed in order to comply with wikipedia's POV guidelines, because as it stands the Evolution Theory is just a point of view and that should be duely noted. SynthesiseD 23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read Evolution as Fact and Theory. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Both you and Stephen Jay Gould are wrong, my friend. Evolution cannot possibly be fact. Reality is not put together in a way that evolution could be fact. The passion of your blind faith is understandable. The inquisitional Catholic Church made the same mistake in saying that "God is fact." So your mistake is very understandable. But the greater flaw is that your mistake does not convince those who would benefit greatly from understanding what you are trying to tell them. You are in the position of the geometer who makes the mistake of asserting to the slow student that has not yet made it over the hurdle of understanding; "Geometry is fact," you say. But that is a pedagogical mistake. For it would not help the student one whit to approach geometry as fact. That is, it would be far more worthwhile to design some live demonstration that would trigger the slow student's understanding. --Rednblu 05:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is the point with respect to evolution? Are you saying it is not possible to design some live demonstration that would trigger the slow student's understanding? Also i don't understand your interpretation of reality. Fossils are not reality? Or dating fossils are not reality? Or something else? David D. (Talk) 05:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So what are fossils, miracles? But even then the analogy breaks down. Fossils are real, one can touch them. One can make predictions of which fossils will be found in which strata. This is evidence for evolution. If evolution is not reality what is the alternative interpretation of these fossils? David D. (Talk) 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said. The homologous mistake is the following. "So what are fossils, miracles? But even then the analogy breaks down. Fossils are real, one can touch them. One can make predictions of which fossils will be found in which strata. This is evidence for God. If God is not reality what is the alternative interpretation of these fossils?" --Rednblu 06:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Given this interpretation of reality can anything other than observable things be real? There is no room for deduction in this reality? David D. (Talk) 06:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • An extrapolation of facts. The more facts you get the better the extrapolation. This is why the theory of evolution is quite strong, there are many facts that can be used to deduce the same idea. Are there any facts that do not fit the idea? David D. (Talk) 06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No. But that does not make evolution a fact. --Rednblu 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • True, so now i see your point more clearly. What about bacteria does their ability to adapt not count as an observation of the principle of evolution? David D. (Talk) 06:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure--in my opinion. But then I want very much to understand how I got here without divine intervention. That does not make evolution a fact. And I object when people who should know better get into a faith fight with the creationists by making the claim that "evolution is fact" when it is not true--cannot be true, given the nature of the universe into which we were born--and when that assertion makes it more difficult for the creationists to take responsibility for having been born into a universe in which there is no God, no Creator, and no divine anything. --Rednblu 07:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Evolution is a fact and just because you don't believe in it doesn't make it any less right. In fact because it is scientific fact, like gravity, you can't say whether you believe in it or not. You can't believe in gravity or not and you can't believe in Evolution or not. God theory and religion is the worst thing to ever happen to humans, it has stifled us and kept us from truly stepping forward, with religion it will always be two steps forward and one step back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.56.5 (talk • contribs)
  • See what Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory has to say. Note that Newton's theories about gravity fall under the sentence, Scientific theories such that the confidence in them is so high that nobody reasonably doubts their validity are sometimes referred to as "laws" or even "facts". Einstein's theories of relativity have risen to much the same status. As far as I'm concerned, Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection belongs there, as well. Please note that Darwin did not propose a theory of evolution, he proposed a "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" to explain the facts of evolution that he had observed in his field studies. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It does not fit the criteria you stated to be considered fact; 'Scientific theories such that the confidence in them is so high that nobody reasonably doubts their validity are sometimes referred to as "laws" or even "facts"', obviously a very large proportion of people do not believe in evolution and DO question the theory's validity and so by your very own criteria it is not considered fact. I have removed the section on evolution to conform with wikipedia's policies, unless evolution becomes an accepted fact among the majority this change should not be reverted. SynthesiseD2 August 2006 (UTC)
While a large percentage of Americans do question evolution, it seems, that doesnt mean evolution is not a fact. Evolution as a scientific theory holds high confidence within the scientific community and can rightly be considered a fact as such. JPotter 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not just Americans, but rather people the whole world over, i'm English and I don't buy it. The proof for evolution is not definitive, the Theory of Evolution is, in my opinion, a very fill-in-the-gaps affair. If the ever-elusive missing link is indeed found then i'll embrace evolution with open arms, but I at the moment, as an objective person, do not accept this as fact. This lack of acceptence for this theory seems to be very pronounced throughout the general populace (i've met about two or three people who agree with evolution in my life, and i live in an urban area not Hicksville, USA), I believe the reason it has high acceptance in the scientific community is because it is 'in' at the moment and scientists care greatly about the opinions of their peers and so wish to not attract criticism for not buying into the latest scientific fad. SynthesiseD 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly is are you expecting from the missing link? If you mean transitional fossils, there are many.
So is anyone going to throwout some potential changes for discussion? David D. (Talk) 04:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

<<<<<Can we go back and discuss the article, and ways to improve it? These pages are not designed to be used as a discussion forum. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I suggest you should start a new section that discusses the ways that you think we could improve the article--if you think this section does not address them. This section is about the serious flaws in the article in misrepresenting what 90% of the distinguished scholars throughout history have writen about what is human. --Rednblu 04:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that this article misrepresents the cited sources, or are you saying that viewpoints published by reliable sources have been left out of the article? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that this article needs to have non-scientific views on what a human is. For example it would be ridiculous to note that people may be made of bile and cholor. Plus if we were to add every single unsubstantiated or unverifyable (scientifically) there wouldn't be enough room (Since we would need to add one for every exisiting view to remain unbiased.)We are much better off just reporting the current prevailing scientific attitude for both brevity and accuracy. -- RussS 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't just about the prevailing scientific theory, or what some people see as fact. Please note, I am a former Christian turned Athiest who believes in Evolution. Anyway, A maximum of 22% of the world believes in Evolution according to Major religious groups, so seeing as we are the minority we almost have to provide them a section under Evolution to improve on their own, while making sure that every single Creationist hypothesis doesn't end up under it, just like we don't put every single method of evolution that could have happened under it either. Hybrid 22:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You say:
"Anyway, A maximum of 22% of the world believes in Evolution according to Major religious groups"
This is a false dichotomy. There are religious people who accept evolution. David D. (Talk) 00:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the non Abrahamic religious often don't have the extreme views on human origins as the Abrahamic ones. Also, although all Abrahamic religions tend to teach similar things with regards to human evolution, it is my believe that the acceptance of evolution doesn't appear to be that great an issue for most Muslims (and perhaps Jews) as it seems to be for (some) Christians. Finally, I would have to suggest all this is getting a bit OT. The acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact is well establish on wikipedia. If you wish to dispute this, it would be best to try somewhere else perhaps the evolution article talk page rather then bringing this issue here. Nil Einne 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This is about what gets put into THIS article. I'm not concerned with scientific facts, remember I accept evolution as well, I'm concerned with what most of the world believes. The Abrahamaic religions, specifically Islam and Christianity, have tremendous followings, and stick closer to their core beliefs than you know. The Christians that fight evolution are simply the most vocal of the groups, silence does not equal acceptance or a condoning of the belief. Yes, there are religious people who believe in evolution, but they are very few in number and tend to be disowned by the leaders of their religion. Hybrid 00:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well off offer us a bone. What section are you considering to upgrade? And with what? David D. (Talk) 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That isn't true. Most forms of Judaism, indeed many if not most Orthodox Jews are fine with evolution as our many Christian denominations. (In fact if anything anti-evolutionism/creationism and such is more of a grassroots movement disconnected from the leadership). JoshuaZ 01:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And what goes in THIS article needs to be very notable to be worthy of inclusion given the breadth it is trying to cover. As i said below, this so-called controversey does not seem to warrant such inclusion. Hybrid, you cannot conclude that all religious people are interested, let alone support, creationism as popularised by the Discovery Institute. David D. (Talk) 01:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
<<<<As far as JoshuaZ's claim, I know you are correct on Judaism, but as far as my claims on the Christian belief system I wish to make no more unreferenced claims, as they tend to be contradicted and need a reference backbone. I request a few days for research. Anyway, what I would like to see is a section under the Evolution section named "Creation?" Seeing as I have never been involved in a debate of this type on Wikipedia before I don't know anyone educated on the Creationist belief system, but I think it would be best to have someone that fits that description put their side into that section and then we overhaul it. We organize it into why they believe Creation is true, and delete why they think Evolution is false, which will inevitably end up in it. Then we add disclaimers saying it is considered psuedoscience by the scientific community, and add references to the major articles on the subject. I think that would help to balance the situation, and it would be fairly easy to keep under control. Hybrid 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What particular viewpoint would you take in this endeavor? Are you an anthropologist, a mythologist, a historian, ... ? How would this endeavor be different from the Creation-evolution_controversy page? --Rednblu
You also have not addressed why you believe it is notable enough to be included. David D. (Talk) 09:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Forget about notability for a second. By any reasonable standard of notability, the superstitions of humans are notable--from creationism to Nuclear deterrence. But, you have to understand that certain topics have been banned from the Human page, and if you insert any of the banned topics into the Human page, you need some context to interpret what will happen in retaliation. Does that make sense? --Rednblu 12:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as saying the topic is banned. Inserting a sentence somewhere might be fine. However this user is proposing a whole section analysing the debate. To warrant a whole section it would have to be VERY notable. David D. (Talk) 15:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In the past, there were sprinklings of the banned topics throughout. Then the pack came and overwhelmed any insertion of NPOV about the superstitious past of "humans." Accordingly, anyone who inserts the banned topics back into the Human page should welcome the return of the pack to take them out. I doubt that Wikipedia:Notability would be in a single one of the pack's Edit summaries. But you may be right about "notability." We shall see. --Rednblu 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I am educated in Mythology and the Major Religions of the World. I am more educated on the Abrahamaic Religions than the others, and Christianity is my specialty. I am educated in the history of all 3 Abrahamaic religions, but I only know the basic history of the other major religions. Now, I would simply like to have both the Evolution and Creation sections give their account of Origins, and not even acknowledge that the other side exists. I would leave a hidden message at the openning of each section telling the editor to avoid starting another mass debate. It would really help I could get specifics on what the "banned" topics are and a summary of what happened before so I can know exactly what I'm dealing with here. If it was as bad as you are making it sound maybe it isn't worth the risk. Hybrid 22:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No risk. Just be as polite as you are. And, whenever you feel that the pack at your heels is being unfair, leave a message on my TalkPage instead of biting back at 'them.' I will be caught up in a modeling and writing project and may not see your message for weeks. Also, User:David D. is an independent thinker, and he can talk you through a reasonable strategy or through your pockets of retaliatory passion if I am gone and busy--which I will be. But, there is no risk--if you be as polite as you are--except you may see some of your carefully cited and accurate NPOV statements of what scholars have actually said get deleted or ripped to shreds beyond recognition of what scholars have actually written about "human." As for the banned topics, search the Human page. Don't you find it amazing that the page is dominated by Evolution with not even a mention of Creationism? As User:David D. has wisely observed above: the project you describe--though justified by any reasonable standard of NPOV--is definitely against the grain of those who control what is on the Human page. Doesn't it make sense from the History of religion that the infidels are banned from the MainPage? --Rednblu 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Rednblu, I am getting very tired of your constant accusations. The claim that subjects are "banned" is to be blunt either a lie or a massive misunderstanding. Creationism as such is an almost completely US thing and even then is in the minority. Mention of creationism here would be both a violation of WP:NPOV and furthering general problems of systemic bias. JoshuaZ 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I would still like some details on the "pack", as you call them. I would also like a summary of what happened before. Don't take this the wrong way, but Rednblu, you sound almost paranoid. What happened, to cause someone who is clearly intelligent to be so bitter? JoshuaZ, I dissagree with your statements as to who is the minority, but until I decide if it is worth proceeding I won't dispute you at this time, but I will soon. Hybrid 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk to JoshuaZ. He is a good man. Give him cited references for what you want to say. And if JoshuaZ cannot help you, send me a note. How is that for a plan? --Rednblu 08:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I have yet to finish my reaserch, but I am close. JoshuaZ, would you rather me post it on this page, or on your talk page? Hybrid 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The definition of Theory from Dictionary.com : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art. Thus, theory = fact! Maniac 05:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the section on evolution

I am restoring here a "proposal" from this edit that was inadvertently dropped in recovering from something the system did. I have no comment on the "proposal." --Rednblu 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a great deal of people have debated about whether the section on evolution in this article should be altered, kept intact, or removed entirely. Proponents of all sides of the argument seem to be missing the point that Wikipedia's ultimate goal, as I understand it, is to create a database of accurate, unbiased information on as many worthwhile subjects as possible. The current section on evolution isn't particularly biased, but what could be considered a bias of some form is the omission of any section regarding alternate theories (I know, the "T" word!) or beliefs about the origin of humans.

Therefore, I propose that a new section be created which details all of the major "sides" of the "where did we come from" question. This section could include both evolution and creationism, but keep in mind that Christian creationism is not the only form of creationism belief out there, and in fact I'm certain that if one were to look hard enough a third or even fourth completely different belief regarding our beginnings could be unearthed. Ultimately, what I'm saying is that humans are most likely never going to come to a 100% complete consensus on... well, probably any topic in particular, but contributors should recognize that having alternate theories on our origin could be very useful for those searching for more detailed information on humans. It doesn't have to be deep and soulfull, but it should definitely be informative, and I figure that so long as everyone gets their equal share of opinion-space (man do I hate saying this, since opinion rarely has a place in an encyclopedia article, but with this topic there's not much that can be done to avoid that), then everyone will at least agree that the article touches base on the important things and we can move on to improving other sections.

I would appreciate feedback on my proposal, including constructive critisicm or just generally whatever you think. 70.56.153.122 08:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (Josh M)

I like it, I think it would make everybody happy and save a lot of debates that start out on topic, but turn into Jesus vs. Darwin. I would like to think that everyone is grown up enough to refraim from vandalising the other side, but sadly I don't think that is the case. That is probably the bigest problem. Secondly, is the Evolutionist side willing to give that much ground? From my study of the debates, the Creationist side wants equal representation, and the Evolutionists won't give it to them. According to my source listed above the Creationists are the world majority, so I think equal representation is fair. Related to the first problem is the edit wars that will probably take place. Seeing a niether believes the other's proof for what they see as fact, nothing could ever be solved. I like your idea, but a when you get to different belief systems editing the same section, they are eventually going to try to turn it into a persuasive essay for their side, or a disuasive essay if you will, aimed at disprooving the other side. If everyone were grown up enough to resist the temptation to fire the first shot of a huge edit war, and the page were protected so that vandals couldn't vandalise, then I think your idea would work. Hybrid 22:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering there are masses of articles on this topic in wikipedia (see template:creationism2, template:Intelligent Design) and this article is an overview article, why it is necessary? Also, consider that many religious people do not have a problem with evolution. This is not a black and white argument and one cannot label people a supporter of creationism (intelligent design flavour) since they profess to be religious. If you really want to bring this topic into the aricle, a better solution be to expand the section on religion. The relevant paragraph currently reads as follows:
Some of the chief questions and issues religions are concerned with include life after death (commonly involving belief in an afterlife), the origin of life (the source of a variety of origin beliefs), the nature of the universe (religious cosmology) and its ultimate fate (eschatology), and what is moral or immoral. A common source in religions for answers to these questions are transcendent divine beings such as deities or a singular God, although not all religions are theistic—many are nontheistic or ambiguous on the topic, particularly among the Eastern religions.
Placing creationist arguments into the biology section is to consider them scientific. I doubt any biological or geological scientists, and suspect many non-scientists, would consider this to be true. For proof, read the judges view on creationism that resulted from the Dover case in Pennsylvannia. He is a conservative, appointed by Bush, and deeply religious. His summary was it is not science.
If the idea is to create a whole section outside the religious section i'm not sure how one could justify such a section. Are we really going to rank the controversey as important as the whole of religion or philosophy? I think this dispute is trivial with respect to the scope of this article. It might be worth a mention beyond the link to origin beliefs that is already present. Beyond that would be disproportionate to its importance. David D. (Talk) 02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm listening. How do you think our Policy on Neutral Point of View would advise us here? Can you cite to a particularly useful paragraph? --Rednblu 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure policy pages are going to help us reach the right balance here, with respect to including information of the current creationism controversy. How important is this to the Human article is the first question. I think we could write a lot about the Iraq war too but would that warrant anything at all in this article? What I find worrying about this controversy is that it is always framed as religion vs science. We do not want to fall into that mistake here. David D. (Talk) 04:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Why should we care whether it falls into religion vs. science? Aren't we just reporters of what published scholars have said? If 50% of the scholars say this falls into religion vs. science, according to WP:NPOV shouldn't we just "represent all significant views fairly and without bias"? --Rednblu 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what most scholars report it as since it seems it is ignored by the majority. Since the Catholic church seems to endorse evolution it would appear they ignore it too. The Discovery Institute seem to present it as science. Clearly the media lap it up as science vs religion. The question here is should the human article be outlining this debate? Is it important enough to be included in the article? Clearly the debate exists but there are many controverial debates that are not in this article. Why does this one rise above such a high threshold of notability? David D. (Talk) 04:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Sounds good. Fair enough. So I ask you. Why should evolution be in the human article? If we are talking about "human"--why should we bring up the specter of evolution vs. creation? Is evolution relevant to "human"? --Rednblu 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a fair question and worthy of more debate; let's not get bogged down in argument the inclusion of the evolution creationism controversy. Much of this depends on the role of this article. As named, human, I would argue that evolution is relevant. And it has been argued endlessly above with better arguments than i could produce. However, if this article is about humanity, then the science (biology) section is way too long. David D. (Talk) 05:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Evolution is relevant to human because it is a way humans may have come into being. It is basically the exposition of the human race. However, the majority of the world does not believe that Evolution is true, or they ignore it altogether. In fact, the biologists that believe in Creationism use much of the same evidence as the Evolutionists, they just interperate the evidence in a different way. Seeing as the majority of the world believes evolution is false, or ignore it, and there is some scientific evidence for their side, then it deserves some mention in the Biology section. Hybrid 05:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Serious question Hybrid, where are you getting these ideas and numbers from? Who are all these biologists that believe in Creationism, are they the ones that consider themselves theistic evolutionists or are you thinking of people such as Jonathan Wells? David D. (Talk) 05:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Troubling answers from both of you tonight. I must think about what you have said. Thank you and good night! --Rednblu 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
People such as Jonathan Wells. Also, the scientific community may consider what he does psuedoscience, but not the members of the religions, they flock behind people like him and Ken Ham. I'm not conserned with Theistic Evoulutionists, as a former Catholic let me say that they are the extreme minority in the church and are usually disowned. My numbers come from the numbers on Major Religious Groups, an examination of their core beliefs, and my own experience in the Catholic church, as well as my brother's eye-witness accounts of the Protestant community. The Catholic church may act neutral-to-somewhat supportive of Evolution, but once you get inside of a church it is obvious that they don't support it at all. Protestants hate them. Hybrid 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't think my remark would cause this much debate. What I was suggesting is that there be a little more emphasis on the fact that evolution is a theory, that is all.Gotmesomepants 00:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How about giving some examples? The evolution section even discusses two different theories, so i'm not sure what you are thinking here. David D. (Talk) 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Picture Is Wrong

The picture at the top of the article is wrong. First, it shows drawings. Bad Drawings. In Black and White. I understand that it may be too "extreme" to include color pictures of real humans, given the fact that wikipedia is so staunchly conservative(which is a good thing), but don't you think we could provide a more accurate depicton than that? It can even be a drawing, as long as it was done by someone who can actually write, like the vitruvian man by leonardo da vinci maybe? Or, even better, a picture that is in color. Imagine if there was aliens, they would think all humans look like they are 30 years old, and as white as this background. Now this may all sound unnecessary, I mean, who doesn't know what a human looks like? But I remember that when I was a kid, I always saw these images, and because they were all I saw, I did not know what a human being looked like for real. I'm talking about pubic hair.

THERE ARE NO PUBES IN THE IMAGE! When I was a kid I thought I was a freak for having pubes, but now, as far as I know, 100% of adults have them(if they're straight.) Don't make another child go through what I went through.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.211.246 (talk • contribs)

Have you heard of the spacecraft Pioneer? The picture has significance. Not the most appropriate but all we have for now. Any other suggestions for a picture? David D. (Talk) 04:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Vitruvian Man is a good idea. As would somewhere in the article there being some kind of "timeline" of what a human looks like from birth (or, preferably, the Fertilized egg) to death (or at least old age) Tar7arus 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How About Michelangelo's David?

Or we could just use a real picture for people. There are plenty of those floating around.TostitosAreGross

There was discussion earlier about this topic (somewhere in the archive, not sure where). The use of actual pictures was decided to be problematic in that it would inevitably emphasize certain racial groups over others. JoshuaZ 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Origins: Why Africa?

Why were the primates in Africa exclusively those that evolved into humans? Why not primates on other continents? And if Africa was the only one with primates, why were they?

-G—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.132.103 (talk • contribs)

That is one of those questions that cannot really be answered. Many things happen by chance, and the development of humans from the primates of Africa seems to be such a random event. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I like that question very much, thank you. Many of us have constructed various modules of computer models and Gedanken experiments to tease out some of the special qualities of what happened in Africa five million years ago when some of our ancestors had to evolve into humans--or perish. (Richard Wrangham & Dale Peterson, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (1996). So what was so special about the environment in Africa five million years ago?

  • Apparently, the most important driving force that put our ancestors through an incredible test of our ability to evolve was a drying event in which our ancestors lost their fruit trees that gave them food and a place to sleep. But the drying event had to be big enough and slow enough that our ancestors could keep living and still could evolve to meet the challenges of food and survival at a solvable pace.
  • Five million years ago, our ancestors and cousins were very much like modern chimpanzees spread all along the rivers that made up the huge Congo River system and tributaries at that time. In those days, we ate fruit from the abundant trees, and we wove hammocks from the tree limbs every night for sleeping--very much like the modern chimpanzees.
  • During the drying event, the chimpanzees on the northern bank of the Congo River did not have to evolve very much at all--because they did not lose their fruit trees that provided them food and a place to sleep. And the chimpanzees on the southern bank of the Congo River evolved some but only as far as bonobos. And neither chimpanzee species will swim across the Congo River so they remained isolated gene pools.
  • In Eastern Africa where our ancestors became human, the drying event left a large jungle area of fruit trees as a shrinking island of trees that over the millennia during the slow drying became separated by dried land and dried river beds from the still thriving Congo River to the west by a vast plain without trees across which mere chimpanzees would never venture.
  • And as the trees died out, our ancestors had to change what they ate--or they would die. And they evolved as they changed what they ate, shifting slowly from a mainly fruit diet to a mainly tuber diet--which caused our ancestors to evolve broad flat teeth and big guts. And the changes and stresses of the drying event were slow enough that our ancestors could evolve to match the changes.
  • Then about 1.3 million years ago, our ancestors discovered the technology of fire that they passed from generation to generation. Having fire, our ancestors could improve their diet tremendously. And they could stop sleeping in the trees; fire provided them protection from predators. Major evolutionary changes in walking feet, smaller gut, and bigger brain were made possible by the technology of fire and the accompanying technology of cooking and the resulting improvement in nutrition that we could take with us anywhere we migrated on this earth.

Could these changes have occurred other places on earth? Everybody is still looking for good evidence that some of us may have evolved from environments other than Africa five million years ago. But all of the humans all over the world tested and gene-matched so far come from ancestors in Africa.

Where else on Earth do you have a vast jungle in which people might have evolved? How about the Amazon? The trouble with the Amazon is that in the last five million years, there has not been a vast drying event that left a slowly shrinking island of fruit trees that would force ancestors to evolve into people. But you may say, "Why couldn't a plains dwelling buffalo-like creature in North America five million years ago evolve into humans?" And I would say, "Well, just look at the average baseball pitcher's arm. That shoulder blade that powers that whip that makes the curveball do its thing was evolved from millions of year of swinging from one fruit-bearing tree-branch to another. So without millions of years swinging from trees, you would not get what evolved into humans. So humans surely started in a jungle of trees."

So all of this above is hypothesis for testing against new and old facts as we find them. But apparently it happened only in Africa because only in Africa was there a 1) vast-enough patch of fruit trees that 2) dried slowly enough to force ancestors to evolve into humans that changed their diet, evolved, and discovered enough technology to make it through the tough times. --Rednblu 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Human being" = species sapiens or genus Homo?

From Talk:Person

"A human being is a member of the genetic species Homo sapiens" -- Two different senses of "is" are possible here: (1) "Is" of time (what situation currently exists) ("My dog is eating") or (2) "Logical is", independent of time ("A dog is a mammal."). In sense (1), a human being is [currently] a member of the genetic species Homo sapiens; however in sense (2), should all members of genus Homo be included as human beings or not? "Neanderthals were human beings", "Homo erectus were human beings." -- I suspect that this has been discussed here before, but I've skimmed this page and didn't see this specific issue (species sapiens vs genus Homo as the definition of "human being"). -- 201.50.123.251 14:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


In my eyes, either is acceptable, although I suspect sense 1 is more apporpriate Tar7arus 14:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Important info ommitted

This article does not answer (I spend half a minut scanning it) a very important questions: how old humans (homo sapiens - redirectts here) is. This information should be in lead!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends of your definition of humans.The separation in too species is rather arbitrary.But an anser would be that the last 50.000 years we are virtually the same.--Pixel ;-) 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Humans and the environment

How come there's a bunch of self glorifing, egocentric, flattering stuff. And the destruction of the planet is buried somewhere. For example, it was found that the Chernobyl disaster effects were beneficial to the environment.--Pixel ;-) 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Beneficial to diversity does not necessarily mean beneficial to the environment. I suppose there is a short term and long term perspective here but it is a complex issue. David D. (Talk) 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

From the infobox "Conservation status: Secure". I personaly find that assertion rather indescent.--Pixel ;-) 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that is purely an indication of the population size and breeding rate. Why do you view it as indescent? Possibly because you consider that humans are destroying their environment? With that in mind, the secure issue could well be needing an update in the future, however, there is a policy that wikipedia is not a crystall ball. David D. (Talk) 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity statement

I have moved the following paragrpah here from the article page because it s unsourced, and a citation has been requested for more than a month. Do not re-insert it in the article without citing a source.

Although most humans recognize that variances occur within a species, it is often a point of dispute as to what these differences entail, their importance, and whether discrimination based on race (racism) is acceptable. Some societies have placed a great deal of emphasis on race, while others have not.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

-- Donald Albury 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Alternate Origins"

I think that to make this article complete, it is necessary to recognize alternate theories for the origin of man, including Creationism. However, I also think that the section should include the origin theories of the Hindu, Buddhist, Norse, Greek, Zoroastrian, Mayan, ... ...etc. I see it as the same as acknowledging the etymology of certain words. We should acknowledge the huge variety of different "origin of species" theories. ..While maintaining that Evolution is the only theory supported by evidence and research. -- Trajan 01:34, 20 September 2006

You mean something like this:
Some of the chief questions and issues religions are concerned with include life after death (commonly involving belief in an afterlife), the origin of life (the source of a variety of origin beliefs), the nature of the universe (religious cosmology) and its ultimate fate (eschatology), and what is moral or immoral. A common source in religions for answers to these questions are transcendent divine beings such as deities or a singular God, although not all religions are theistic—many are nontheistic or ambiguous on the topic, particularly among the Eastern religions.
How do you think this could be improved? David D. (Talk) 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Trajan, this is the article for human, not the article for origin belief (the article on cultural perspectives of human origins) or even for human evolution (the article on scientific perspectives of human origins); we simply do not have room to go into the level of detail you ask for, considering the enormous variety of origin beliefs that have existed throughout history. There is plenty of room on the numerous daughter articles of human, however, to go into that sort of historical perspective in significant detail. -Silence 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the now PC term for creationist theories termed as creationist myths. I don't think myths should be placed in a factual article, it should be treated like any other article about an animal species. Your statement also has flaws. Like for instance you want the origin theory for Buddhism? Err Buddhism doesn't have any origin theories, in fact Buddha taught his followers not to question the creation of the universe, they are ignostics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.56.5 (talk • contribs)

North American

The average healthy North Americam male 21 years old is now over 6"-2" or 185 cm and weights about 191 lbs or 87 kg (athletic built).

The average healthy (excluding anorexiacs) North Americam female 21 years old is now over 5"- 9" or 175 cm and weights about 150 lbs or 67 kg (athletic built).

It is related to different nutrition which is now making changes in healthy US style of life. So the data about average North American male and female looks like just a little distorted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.251.246 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a citation for these observations? David D. (Talk) 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd like to see the citation, too, considering that I just heard on the news (yesterday) that the Dutch have surpassed North Americans as the tallest people (on average) at 6'0" for males (I think females were 5'8", but I honestly don't remember). - FlyingOrca 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The Dutch being the tallest in the world is true, do a news search for "Dutch tallest" or "Dutch" and you will find the article. Dutch men average at a little over 6 feet and females average at almost 5'7". Considering the Dutch are now the world's tallest people, I can't see how the North American average can be higher.Gotmesomepants 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
North American women taller than 5'9", are you serious?? The average height for American women cannot possibly be higher than 5'5". Dionyseus 10:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How can the U.S.A. have such a low weight average for both men and women considering that they are the most obese country in the world!! This would suggest that no other country in the world would have an average weight of more than what was suggested for the U.S.A.!! That's obsurd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.20.201 (talk • contribs)

It all depends on the standard deviation. You can have many obese people and still have a low average. Anyone got some stats? David D. (Talk) 15:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to solve this bias problem by substituting the data for the tallest and shortest peoples instead. TimVickers 16:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What!?

This article seems to assume you're not human. thart makes no sence. Zazaban 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The article neither assumes you are human nor nonhuman. Wikipedia avoids self-references: referencing the nature of the authors of the page itself is both unencyclopedic and unnecessary. What benefit would there be in adding first-person pronouns like "we" to this article, for example? It would only add ambiguity and a nonacademic tone. However, if you have any specific passages you think should be changed, feel free to bring them up and we consider ways to make certain passages seem less awkward or stilted. -Silence 16:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
My contention with the opening paragraphs is that it doesn't seem academic enough and in fact DOES contain a degree of self-refence, or at least pro-human bias. It seems and over-emphasise our apparent cultural or communicative advantage and does not spend any time in a comparative analysis between humans and other members of the animal kingdom (or at least other primates) as you would expect from any other article discussing a particular species of animal. For and example of pro-human bias:
"Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection"
While it is true that evidence suggests that we have a highly developed brain that is indeed capable of reasoning, language and introspection, the sentence strongly implies that there is no evidence that other animals are also incapable of these things. This is simply not the case. As this is the second sentence of the first paragraph, this sentence should summarise the main defining features of human beings, and I feel that there are various other, less arguable features that could be listed instead.
This may have been mentioned in other forum topics, but I certainly hope that encyclopaedic (and scientific) integrity is not being compromised for the sake of not hurting anyone's feelings. 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
...the sentence strongly implies that there is no evidence that other animals are also [capable] of these things. - it does not. It implies only that these properties are remarkable enough to be mentioned in the introduction. If they were considered unique, don't you think the introduction would mention such an amazing phenomenon? Of course it would. And while other examples of animals demonstrating language and introspection certainly warrant a place in the article, the introduction doesn't need to mention such details. --Yath 08:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Well, I'm sure your dog will be offended when he reads this and finds out we dont think he's introspective. Seriously though, maybe it can be fixed with a simple "Humans are the only prinates evidenced to have a highly developed.... (etc)". Amirite? --D-Gen 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

herbivorous vs canivorous

To me, this passage does not make sense:


"A minority believes they are an anatomically herbivorous species, and have started using agriculture (non-animal based) foodstuffs only recently.[19] Another minority believes that anatomically, they are primarily carnivorous, many members of which have begun consuming food of animal origin.[20]"

Some people believe that we are anatomically herbivorous, who have started using non-animal food only recently. This is backwards. If we were anatomically herbivorous, we would eat non-animal food by default, and only start eating animal food in the recent past. The next sentance is also backwards. I have changed it, if my reading of it is incorrect, well, change it back I guess Harley peters 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the minority of people who believe that humans are herbivores or carnivores is so exceedingly small that I'm not even sure they warrant a mention on the top-level Human article. There is more consensus for the fact that humans are omnivores than there is for dozens and dozens of other things stated as facts in this article. NPOV policy requires that we not give undue weight or exposure to extremely outside-of-the-mainstream perspectives, especially in an article as general as this one; it would be like starting the life-cycle section off by mentioning "Most people believe that the human life cycle is similar to that of other placental mammals. However, a minority believes that humans are immortal." In this case, mentions of such views would be better-placed in an article like Omnivore or Diet (nutrition). -Silence 15:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mispelled word

Centimeters is spelled wrong. And The Difference between Homo Sapeins Sapeins and Homo Sapiens is that H.S. Sapiens is the speices and sub speices.Homo Sapiens is just the spieces. Amanda J. Rowe 18:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC) DarkDragon123

Picture 2

I agree with Striver I don't want to see that , because I just want The info for my report.It's completely disturbing. for more information adout this go to Dicussion 12 Picture 

        Amanda J. Rowe 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)DarkDragon123

Minority Beliefs

"A minority believes they are an anatomically carnivorous species, and have started using agriculture (non-animal based) foodstuffs only recently.[19] Another minority believes that anatomically, they are primarily herbivorous, many members of which have begun consuming food of animal origin.[20]" Shouldn't carnivorous and herbivorous be switched around in the above place, becuase what the atricle is curently stateing is " minority believes they are an anatomically 'meat-eaters'and have started using agriculture (non-animal based) foodstuffs only recently. Another minority believes that anatomically, they are primarily non-meat eaters(plant), many members of which have begun consuming food of animal origin" That doesn't make sense enless what it means is " a group that ONCE belived humans were anatomically carnivorous has started to eat non-animal based food products" and vice-versa? Acurding to what is wriiten above it was chanegd from what I vewi as a correct format to an incorect one. Which way is right. I belive the orginal way was right, and the words in the article currently need to be switched around. Also make this statement clear(er) for the reader.

Thank you for making the part of the article I was refering to above clearer to the reader. (September 26 2006)

capping

Accoarding to Wik's strange convention, common names of species should be capitalized. So, what about "humans"? Kdammers 03:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Where have you seen this convention written, is this in the mannual of style section? I have noticed it too but correct it when I have seen it. There is no good reason to do this. David D. (Talk) 05:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fossi Southeast Asian humans

Have there been any fossil Homo sapiens sapiens discovered in Southeast Asia so far? When did they live? From which which ancestors did they evolve?

This page is for discussing the article, not for general questions, but look at Java Man and Homo floresiensis. -- Donald Albury 19:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena

"Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through religion, science, philosophy and mythology. " - This phrase is inaccurate - religion does not actually explain nor manipulate natural phenomena, and in any case the parts of religion which were postulated in order to 'explain' things such as lighting would come under mythology. Therefore surely 'religion' is unnecessary in this sentence? Retsudo 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the Bible much? Genesis 1:1 - hey, it's an explanation of natural phenomena. And "mythology" and "religion" are not mutually exclusive. --Yath 20:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Retsudo, the article says "seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena", not "explaining and manipulating natural phenomena". It makes no assertions about the efficacy of religion or mythology in either of these endeavors; it merely points out their sociological function. -Silence 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe "religion" should be changed to "some religion". The way this phrase is worded, it makes one think that humans made up all religions because they wanted to come up with a way to explain natural phenomena.Gotmesomepants 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Humans,more toxic than radioactive waste

Chernobyl disaster effects#Effect on the natural world

I'm proposing to include a section on the isue.The destruction of the environment i mean.If Chernobyll is beter now with radiation and no humans,than with humans and no radiation,then shurely the destruction of the environment deserves a section.--Pixel ;-) 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way why are you still living? Your life is harming many animals. Deer populations rise when wolves are removed from the area. Humans just have a wide variety of "prey" so its not special and shouldent be in the article.

The morality or inevitability of humanity's effect on the world shouldn't determine whether it is notable enough to be included. Maybe a link to the Holocene_extinction_event article is in order? Ashmoo 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Society and culture

2.6. Philosophy and self-reflection

There are many thing wrong with the rest of the text. I fixed it by rewriting the first paragraph and removing the last. The text has an attitude of antihumanism, antiphilosophy, authoritarianism and nihilism. It prevents understading by derouting the subject with an overly complicated text, it suggests that philosophy is a futile hobby, where people think more than is necessairy and make things too complicated. It favors the dictated form of action where things are what they are and not to be questioned. It puts quantitative and qualitative, and observational and hypothetical in a line of better and worse and dispises speculative as a form of prejudice, which has nothing to do with reality. It suggests that hypothetical has only a speculative value. Please rewrite this. Teemu Ruskeepää 08:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

However, I found your version to imply that philosophy is like science, and I think that is a bit of a stretch. Yes, science arose out of natural philosophy, but science and philosophy deal with different fields of inquiry that only partly overlap. As for the last paragraph, it is unsourced like too much else in this article, and it may well belong somewhere else in WP other than this article, but I think we need to discuss that. -- Donald Albury 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I going to let other people react to you comments, to avoid being enslaved by you. Let them add to the contradiction started by myself. Do you know what a capitalism or a hegemony mean? I'm talking about the way you claim the reasons for your will to discuss here to be different than what they really are. You're trying to prove your superiority over me and the rest of the Internet by going into your type of conversation, which you have designed from the beginning to be beneficial only to yourself. The best proof of your agenda is that you are defending a definition of philosophy, which represents only the schools of thoughts of authoritarianism and nihilism. Capitalism is the social situation, where one class has permanently more power because they possess the means. Others can't even start to have as much as the capitalists always have. .) Teemu Ruskeepää 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

wtf are u talking about?!--D-Gen 08:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Developing country versus unindustrialized country

These two terms seem to be used interchangeably in the article, I think the most common usage is "developing country" as even highly developed countries can be relatively unindustrialized if they depend heavily on agriculture for industry. Can I standardise this as "developed/developing" in the article? TimVickers 16:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good article

As someone who enjoys Wikipedia, but is often rather critical of it, I just wanted to say this struck me as a very good article. Obviously, judging from the talk page here, people are still arguing about parts of it, and the article probably could indeed be improved, but I really think this is still a great example of what Wikipedia can be... I find it far better than a lot of the so-called "feature articles". So, congrats everybody. :) 69.175.141.106 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Promotion to good article

Hi all,

I have promoted this article to good article status. Apart from the good ideas in the FARC nomination. Some other things you might want to look at:

  • "and among the oldest, there are 53 men for every 100 women" doesn't explain what the "oldest" age bracket is.
  • Habitat and population gives no indication of when human settlements started to emerge.
  • The discussion of the afterlife in the last paragraph of Life cycle would be better left to Spirituality and religion.
  • Wikilinks are being used excessively.
  • The Government and politics section essentially defines some key terms related to the section topic, but does not adequately relate it to the article's subject (humans).
  • The War section also does not adequately discuss the relationship between the section topic and the article's subject.
  • Citations drop off towards the end of the article.
  • The article is very long (63 kB).

Cedars 07:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Humans are primates

May I call a person a primate? A tetrapod? A reptile? 72.194.116.63 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 17.03 24 March 2007

Confusion with scientific classification

Hello,

Below is a reconstructed, exhaustive, scientific classification of human, that I have made solely by following links.

Taxon Name
Domain Eukaryota
Kingdom Animalia
Subkingdom Eumetazoa
(unranked) (why?) Bilateria
Superphylum Deuterostomia
Phylum Chordata
(unranked) (why?) Craniata
Subphylum Vertebrata
Infraphylum Gnathostomata
Microphylum Eugnathostomata
(unranked) (why?) Teleostomi
Superclass Osteichthyes
Class Sarcopterygii
Subclass Tetrapodomorpha
Superclass (Yes, again) Tetrapoda
(unranked) (why?) Amniota
Class (yes, again) Synapsida
(unranked) (why?) Mammaliaformes
Class (yes, once again) Mammalia
Subclass Theria
Subclass (yes, again) Eutheria
Infraclass Epitheria
Superorder Euarchontoglires
Superorder (yes, again) Euarchonta
Order Primates
Suborder Haplorrhin
Parvorder Catarrhini
Superfamily Hominoidea
Family Hominidae
Subfamily Homininae
Tribe Hominini
Subtribe Hominina
Genus Homo
Species Homo sapiens
Subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens

As you can see, this is a bit inconsistent. Could someone tell me what is wrong? Some Wikipedia information are incorrect here, but which ones? Thank you.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written by many different editors who usually do not coordinate between themselves. They are drawing on many different sources, which often do not agree on details of classification. The whole classification business is an attempt to fit a messy natural process into a neat but arbitrary framework, and how a given authority does so depends on many factors, including what new knowledge or interpretation of knowledge has turned up since the last attempt to classify. It is therefore not surprising that sources may differ in the details of classification. An article about a given taxon must cite sources that are relevant to that taxon, and so articles may differ in details of classification because the sources used for the articles differ in those details. It is not the place of Wikipedia to reconcile such differences, as that would call for original research. -- Donald Albury 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the ambiguity comes from trying to shoehorn modern cladistic taxonomy (arbitrarily many levels, ideally one for each binary split in the tree of life) into the traditional Linnean kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species system (seven levels, not necessarily monophyletic). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.19.132 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
I was suspecting something like this. Thank you.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I just noticed that Wikinfo's human article is more neutral than Wikipedia's. — goethean ॐ 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We still have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&oldid=3745566 I guess things have moved on since then. Are you referring to the the "According to biology...."? David D. (Talk) 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
We still have it
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Is it supposed to be gratifying that a more-neutral version exists somewhere in the page history?
Are you referring to the the "According to biology...."?
It has a few clauses which make reference to the fact that the naturalist account of origins is not universally accepted, as your article falsely implies (it is, indeed, held by a minority). These clauses are: "Biologists classify humans..."; "According to mainstream biology, the closest living..."; and

Various religious groups have raised objections and controversy concerning the theory of humanity's evolution from a common ancestor with the other hominoids. See creationism and argument from evolution for opposing points of view.

— goethean ॐ 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I take a evolutionary view of this. If the wikinfo version is indeed superior, then more people will use it. All we need do is let the fittest version of the article survive. TimVickers 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that a joke? — goethean ॐ 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That depends on your perspective. According to a naturalist biological perspective, yes - it is a joke. TimVickers 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikinfo policy is not Neutral Point of View. It is Sympathetic Point of View. Also, I am having trouble understanding your issues with this article. What exactly is not appropriate? Are you saying that a majority do not accept the naturalist account of human origins, or the opposite? A majority of what? JPotter 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Human evolution: the fossil evidence in 3D, by Philip L. Walker and Edward H. Hagen, Dept of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, retrieved April 5, 2005.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human/Archive_23&oldid=1142764030"