Talk:Names for the human species

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Primates High‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_5#Category:Names_for_Human conversion from category to list. Suryadas 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoon politikon

Why does Zoon politikon redirect here if the page does not even mention Zoon politikon once? It just does not make any sense. Obviously, Zoon politikon should be included and if for some reason that cannot be done then Zoon politikon simply should not redirect to this page. 139.133.36.23 (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To compensate the same

What about the homo compensator? 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Undead Herle King (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non sucker

I removed Homo sacer from the list. While it fits in with the rest in form, it is actually a Roman legal term used to refer to individuals, not the human species.

Also, Homo ludens should perhaps be on the list, since it is often used in contrast with Homo faber (already on the list). I didn't add it because there's no existing page for Homo ludens, and it's not a topic I'm knowledgeable about. Aidan 18:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homo ignorantis

Hi, I came across this during a passage for comprehension in a management exam in addition to Homo economicus and Homo faber. Perhaps this term needs to be included, if genuine. AshLin (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now added (they meant ignorans but were ignorant of Latin). --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

list of terms and references taken from [1] --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clothes Wearing

I've never seen this, but as far as I know, humans are the only animals who wear clothing. We're finding that other animals use tools, build things, even communicate verbally; but I haven't heard of any animals who wear clothes.Baruch60610 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

homo vestitus -- apparenty, Thomas of Aquinas thought of it and thought it was absurd.Contra Gent 2.84. Thomas is saying that if you take away the clothes, the naked man is still a man. But of course the argument that "alone among primates, man has the tendency to wear clothes" is different, and outside of the scope of Thomas' point. It's still interesting that the term is considered and rejected as a "species" name by Thomas back in the 13th century. --dab (𒁳) 12:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Absconditus

The term is often attributed to Joseph Soloveitchik's 1965 essay, "The Lonely Man of Faith." Some also attribute it to H. O. Pappe's 1961 article "On philosophical anthropology." I have been unable to find the term in either work. The only source I've found is Luigi Romeo's "Ecco Home: A Lexicon of Man." Romeo attributes the term to H. O. Pappe, but I have been unable to find the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlsonloggie (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]