Wikipedia

Talk:Human/Archive 25

< Talk:Human
Latest comment: 17 years ago by 74.38.99.188 in topic Bias, reverting vandalism
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Snozzer's spelling changes

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Snozzer, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English before you try to change spelling norms wholesale in an established article. Also, please do not leave edit summaries disparaging American English, such as "Non regionalised spelling - WIKIisnt American centric - Use Standard English in generic articles, you may use American in an American specific article" which, by the way, misrepresents the guidance in the Manual of Style. -- Donald Albury 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Snozzer is of course incorrect in his resons for making the changes, and for his approach to making the changes, but this article was formerly in UK english spelling not American. I don't know who changed it or when - it might have been when I was away this past summer - but we should possibly consider having, once again, the discussion about which spelling method to use on this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Not an American article therefore should not be in a regional variation of English "Snorkel | Talk" 12:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And I remind you, Not a UK article therefore should not be a regional variation of English. UK spelling applies to specifically UK subjects, and last time I checked, Americans are Human also. I could be in error, but I'd like to see a reliable source before I retract that position. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, didn't know that. I don't particularly care which spelling convention is used, and I normally ignore changes back and forth if I think they are made by editors unfamiliar with the idea that there is more than one acceptable spelling convention in Wikipedia, but Snozzer's attitude, as displayed in his edit summeries, set off alarms in my head. -- Donald Albury 14:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur. Snozzer is completely in the wrong on his edits - just thought we might want to revisit the Which Spelling Consensus thing again. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as somebody British living in America, I really could not care less which type of English we use. Although American English is a regional dialect, it is widely spoken and perfectly understandable. However, I might draw a line at Geordie. TimVickers 13:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as somebody American living in America, I don't care either, so long as its consistent. I draw the line, however, at Ebonics. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 
Distribution of first-language native English speakers by country (Crystal 1997)

It is clear that the consensus in Wikipedia in individual generic articles, i.e., on non-regional topics, tends to favour the North American spelling in general. Far from being a parochial or an "American-centric" bias, there actually are sensible reasons for this general trend in WP. "British English" is used by about 60 million in Great Britain today. This is as compared to over 300 million who use what's typically termed "North American English". Of these, nearly 250 million with internet access appear to use North American English, versus roughly 40 million using British English as a first language.

Crystal's figures, in the illustration, present it a little bit differently but lead to a similar conclusion. By Crystal's numbers, about 75%, three out of four, persons who use English as a first language use the North American convention.

There are, in addition, several hundreds of millions using several variations of British English conventions worldwide as a second language, compared to many, many hundreds of millions, perhaps over a billion, using the North American English conventions as a second language. Although there is wide debate about the numbers, it is clear that the general trend worldwide somewhat favors the North American conventions, with a very wide audience for the UK OED (Oxford English Dictionary) style as well. (See, e.g., [1].) The latter always uses "..ize" as opposed to "..ise" with respect to words such as "realize", "synthesize", "popularize", etc. So, while the worldwide preferences are debatable, it is clear that the "..ise" spelling is a minority view limited mainly to the British Isles proper. ... Kenosis 18:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, when it comes to spelling you should count Canadians (mostly) with the British and let's not forget the Aussies, Kiwis, S. Africans, etc. But even when you stack all of us up we're still outnumbered. And, as has been pointed out, this explains the tendency to favour the US style. The best approach (we have available at the moment) is to be consistent within an article and not go about changing things to suit yourself. This is what WP:MOS recommends and is this what should have been adhered to here. The article should be spelt in the style it was originally. Jimp 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Avoid using words that are spelled differently regionally. For example, instead of colour (or color), use hue, pigmentation, etc. Mark Forest 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Invasive species?

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion

I was going to remove the categorisation of humans as invasive species, but looking at the definition I'm not sure if this isn't actually correct.

An "invasive species" is defined as a species that is

  1. non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and
  2. whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

TimVickers 00:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks accurate to me. We have environmental harm covered well (as a species, not in the article.) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"Which definition of invasive species are you using" I'm using the one the category is based on, which is at Invasive Species. A quote from there:
A species is regarded as invasive if it has been introduced by human action to a location, area, or region where it did not previously occur naturally (i.e., invasive), becomes capable of establishing a breeding population in the new location without further intervention by humans, and spreads widely throughout the new location.
Humans obviously cannot fall under this category because we survive through human intervention, not to mention any of the other requirements listed. 2nd Piston Honda 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think invasive species are only those introduced by human action, for instance the USDA defines a alien species as

“a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” link.

The introduction of humans into North America caused a mass extinction of the large land animals and our spread across the globe has caused immeasurable environmental harm. We fit the definition. TimVickers 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about the USDA's definiton of "Alien Species", we're talking about WP's definition of "Invasive Species". If you wish to change the definition, then go ahead and try, but until then, the category is not appropriate for this article. 2nd Piston Honda 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not define anything. We are not an authority and only quote other sources. The USDA is a reliable source, Wikipedia is not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The definition I an using is also used by the The Global Invasive Species Information Network. The World Conservation Union uses the definition:
Invasive species are organisms (usually transported by humans) which successfully establish themselves in, and then overcome, otherwise intact, pre-existing native ecosystems. link
TimVickers 19:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't humans native to Earth as a whole? If you disagree, what do you consider to be humanity's native locale/ecosystem? 2nd Piston Honda 19:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Humans are not an invasive species because they do not meet this criterion: "becomes capable of establishing a breeding population in the new location without further intervention by humans". Humans cannot breed without humans getting involved. :)
Seriously, though, this is either a joke or an amazing misunderstanding. Invasive species are implicitly defined as being non-human; they are species other than humans that are introduced by humans to new locations and become widespread there. To characterize humans as having been "transported by humans" to new areas is simple wordplay, in this context. Either provide a reliable source which lists "humans" as an invasive species, or take it to Uncyclopedia. -Silence 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that humans fit the two published definitions of an invasive species I have provided above. They are not commonly listed as an invasive species, but they fit the published definition. How Wikipedia defines an invasive species is irrelevant, we have to use the more authoritative sources such as the USDA or the ISSG.
On the contrary of this discussion, I have checked the lists of invasive species published by these organisations and humans are not on them. The Wikipedia verifiability guideline states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I think for this tag to stay we need to find a more reliable source than this or Holocene Rain-Forest Wilderness: A Neotropical Perspective on Humans as an Exotic, Invasive Species Page 1. 168 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. (2000) stating that humans are classified as invasive species. Merely saying that they fit published definitions is insufficient, as it seems we cannot agree on a definition and this would be original research. Here is a link that discusses the difficulty in defining this term and here is an essay in Austral Ecology that discusses the difficulty in separating humans from other invasive species. My websearching has convinced me that although humans have been described as an invasive species, and they fit the official definitions, this is not a widely-used classification and using it would place undue weight on this interpretation. TimVickers 20:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Concur completely with TimVickers clear summary of the situation. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. I think it's clear, whether it's an explicit part of any definition or not, that invasive species must be introduced through unnatural (human) means. Anything humans have accomplished for ourselves has to be seen as part of our natural history and thus introducing ourselves means that we can't possibly be invasive. Additionally, if we were an invasive species, at what point did we become invasive? When we began farming? When we left Africa (and of course we weren't the first Hominids to leave Africa)? When we arrived in the Americas? QuinnHK 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless you want to define 'invasive species' as requiring human intervention, I think it should be recognized that some species aggressively colonize new territories without any assistance from humnans, such as the Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis has done. -- Donald Albury 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Let's cut to the chase. Points have been made for inclusion and for not. Is there a verifiable source which classifies humans as an invasive species? If not, this is all OR. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The source from TimVickers above seems clear that the answer to this question is 'yes'. Perhaps we should be debating the issue of undue weight, not the issue of verifiability? MikeHobday 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The souce TimVickers provided describes invasive species as being transported by humans - I do not see humans listed as an invastive species themselves (am I missing it?) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am being pedantic. But TimVickers says above "humans have been described as an invasive species, and they fit the official definitions" (of which he cites some). I agree with that. I think such sources are verifiable. If that is so, of course, it leaves open the issue of undue weight. MikeHobday 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting question. Are humans an invasive species? One might argue that they are in some environments, like the deep ocean, Antarctica, the Galapagos and maybe eventually other planets, moons, etc. I guess I could be convinced either way. It is amusing to consider, however.--Filll 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We are an invasive species! Our behaviour, means of survival, and modern-day existence are all characteristic of the definitions.Kaemera 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Invasive species applies to non-human species by definition. Whether rightly or not, that's just the way the word is used. And even if it wasn't, most authorities don't list humans as an invasive species; please review WP:NOR. -Silence 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Is there any good reason why 'homo sapiens' isn't the title?

If homo sapiens is one of a group of 'humans', the title 'human' is misleading, as there are other entries for different types of 'homo'.

Also - aren't differing species defined by interbreeding, the lack of ability to do so? What is the evidence we homo sapiens could not interbreed with our fellow homos? So shouldn't the taxonomy here be different 'race'?

Admittedly, I'm no biologist, and I may have misunderstood the science I've been reading lately. Please enlighten me! --TresRoque 09:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Homo sapiens is a redirect to Human, using the Wikipedia practice of titling the article with the Most common term. Generally, people speak of "Humans" not of "Homo sapiens" - but as they both mean the same thing, Homo sapiens is a redirect here in case someone searches for Homo sapiens. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's my perspective. If a reader see "Homo sapiens" in an article, what will the reader think is on the other end of the link? They won't suspect that the Human article is there. They're likely to click on the link if they're curious about the term Homo sapiens and human taxonomy in general. Wikipedia could use a page on human taxonomy: our species, genus, family, etc. This page includes that information, but it's too general a page to serve as the destination for a wikilink like "human taxonomy." I changed the "Homo sapiens" page to a page about human taxonomy, but someone changed it back. Maybe "Human taxonomy" would be a better place for the information about the term "Homo sapiens." Jonathan Tweet 15:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
TR, species isn't defined just by ability to interbreed but actual interbreeding. If we didn't interbreed with H. habilis, etc., then we're a different species even if we could interbreed with them (like say at a party, when we'd been drinking). Jonathan Tweet 15:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Technically, Homo sapiens should be a disambiguation page linking to Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens (this article). However, due to the relative obscurity of the former, this will likely never happen. Technically, Homo sapiens should be a separate article discussing the two subspecies: Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens (this article). Mgiganteus1 15:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see that a separate article on Homo sapiens has been created... Mgiganteus1 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And I've reverted it to a redirect to this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Care to share your feelings on this topic, Uther? If human taxonomy isn't covered on "Homo sapiens," where is it (or should it be) covered? Jonathan Tweet 16:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
On Human. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The standard for species articles is to have the article located at the common name for the species. The taxobox gives the relevant details on the major taxa. Information on intermediary taxa is located on the higher ranking articles. This article has tons more information than any other species article, because of the broad information we have on it, and because of the wide variety of opinion on what "human" is. (Is it just a biological species, is it a divine blessing, etc.) If you are just interested in the taxonomy, you look at the relevant portion of the article. If you are looking or spirituality, you look at te relevant portion of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this solution: human taxonomy, per se, is discussed on the page entitled (wait for it) "Human taxonomy." Then, Uther, you can have "Homo sapiens" redirect to "Human" and MG and I can have a page that covers human taxonomy in one place. Currently, "Human taxonomy" redicts to Human, but clearly a reader looking for "human taxonomy" isn't looking for the general Human article. Jonathan Tweet 16:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why something that is different than other species articles? This article has a "scientific" section. That's where the relevant information about taxonomy should be. If that section gets to be too big, then it can become a separate article, with a summary left in its place on this article. That's how all of the other sections of this article are handled. you haven't given any justification of why a taxonomy section/article should be treated any differently than the other sections of this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"If that section gets to be too big, then it can become a separate article, with a summary left in its place on this article." That's a fine solution. The spinoff article will be "Human taxonomy." "you haven't given any justification of why a taxonomy section/article should be treated any differently than the other sections of this article." Because a reader looking for "human taxonomy" deserves and article about human taxonomy, not an article about humans in general. Also, as MG has suggested, this article is about the subspecies H> sapiens sapiens, not about the species H. sapiens. Jonathan Tweet 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
All other articles about the only extant subspecies are at the species. I can not see an article about human taxonomy being long enough to ever be more that a brief article. If it ever gets to be longer than a stub, I'd be very surprised if its "final" length would be more than one or two paragraphs. That's article section length. And again - any significant discussion of something above the species level would be better dealt with on that taxa's article, not here. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Homo sapiens should redirect to Human. Homo sapiens does redirect to Human. There is no problem. Why are we trying to fix something that isn't broken? Taxonomical names redirect to the group of organisms which they are most commonly applied to; Homo sapiens is most commonly applied (at least in general parlance) as a taxonomical name to modern humans, and most people who search for Homo sapiens will be looking for an academic, scientific article on humans, so I fail to see how making such a change would do anything but inconvenience our readers. -Silence 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Please note that, for example, Anura redirects to Frog. Same thing, different animal. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Human taxonomy

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

There's a proposal to merge the new human taxonomy page into Human. I think that human taxonomy is a subject of interest in its own right. Jonathan Tweet 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. At least let's give this article a few more weeks and see if it can develop beyond stub-length; I imagine this would not be difficult to do if discussion is added over the history and nuances of human taxonomy, including the different definitions of what constitutes being "human". It's a significant topic, and more importantly, it doesn't fit into Human because this article is already too large; if that article is going to be merged anywhere, it should be merged into Human biology.
For the same reason, of course, "Human taxonomy" does not deserve its own section in this article. It might be a complex and significant enough topic for its own article, but it is not major or central enough to merit an entire section in the top-level Human article. At best, a one-sentence explanation somewhere in the article is warranted, which can link to the "Human taxonomy" page concisely. Besides, such a section would be almost entirely redundant to the taxobox at the top of this article. -Silence 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Silence, OK, as you say, let's give it a few more weeks. That means editors shouldn't be deleting items just because they're incomplete. Let's give it time to reach completeness. I've added some material recently. Jonathan Tweet 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I want to list direct human ancestors (e.g., H. erectus but not H. neanderthalensis). These could fit into the extended taxonomy or be their own list (with taxon information included). Jonathan Tweet 02:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Human Taxonomy page is close to where I think it ought to be. We talked about seeing how it shapes up over a few weeks. If folks want to see where it's at, now's a good time to do so. Jonathan Tweet 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

Someone is removing the image plaque on the pretext that it is inappropriate. It is appropriate, as it is encyclopedic, and per WP:CENSOR. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Has nothing to do with that. Has to do with it being representative of humanity, which it does not. 64.236.245.243 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you expand on your reasons please? Also if you revert again, you will be blocked from editing under the three-revert rule. TimVickers 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact, it was created solely to represent humanity, to be sent on one of the Voyager spacecraft to another solar system. It was purposly made to be representitive (even to alien species, if there are any), and is probably the best suited image for the human article. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 20:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a heated discussion in progress on the IP's talk page, if anyone wants to take part. -- Steel 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a reasonable compromise would be to have the equivalent image showing Asian people, the most common appearance of humans, rather than just the appearance of Caucasians, who are a racial minority. TimVickers 22:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that this Pioneer image was a caricature blending features from all races? David D. (Talk) 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It was. -Silence 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Got a reference for that? This would solve the problem completely. TimVickers 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, except that it was drawn by Linda Sagan. I did find the following article about the plaques and from the quoted text you'll note that some things never change.
"As the old saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words," which is what the editor of the Los Angeles Times received from an irate reader when the newspaper ran a photograph of the plaque. "I must say I was shocked," protested the angry reader, "by the blatant display of both male and female sex organs on the front page of the Times." Continuing, the reader asserted "Isn't it enough that we must tolerate the bombardment of pornography through the media of film and smut magazines without our own space agency officials having found it necessary to spread this filth even beyond our own solar system?" Other public reaction complained that the man's upheld arm could be misconstrued as a form of Hitlerism, while religious organizations felt the message conveyed everything but God. From all the reaction stirred by the message, it would seem a follow-on Pioneer should be built to contain all the protests, providing a true picture of planet Earth's varying degrees of intellect!"
From an article titled Putting Our Best Signal Forward by Leonard David in Cosmic Search: Issue 7 (Volume 2 Number 3; Summer (July, Aug., Sept.) 1980). David D. (Talk) 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, since older discussion about possible future replacements for this article have been scrolled away, I've posted a short page for discussing the possible criteria for an ideal top-of-Human image, and for organizing efforts to obtain one that meets ar easonable number of those criteria: Talk:Human/Image. For now, the current image is certainly adequate, but hopefully someday we will be able to replace it with a better one. -Silence 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish we had a better image. This one has historical cachet, but the people are Caucasian and lack body hair. The woman is sexless (an apparent concession to ET sensibilities?). Jonathan Tweet 14:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't Caucasian, they're a blend of many different races/ethnicities. However, I agree that the image could be much better. I welcome discussion of the sorts of images we should be aiming for as a replacement on the aforementioned page, Talk:Human/Image. -Silence 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
"In the original sketches from which the engravings were made, we made a conscious attempt to have the man and woman panracial. The woman was given epicanthian folds and in other ways a partially Asian appearance. The man was given a broad nose, thick lips, and a short "Afro" haircut. Caucasian features were also present in both. We had hoped to represent at least three of the major races of mankind. The epicanthian folds, the lips, and the nose have survived into the final engraving. But because the woman's hair is drawn only in outline, it appears to many viewers as blonde, thereby destroying the possibility of a significant contribution from the Asian gene pool. Also, somewhere in the transcription from the original sketch drawing to the final engraving the Afro was transmuted into a very non-African Mediterranean-curly haircut. Nevertheless, the man and woman on the plaque are, to a significant degree, representative of the sexes and races of mankind." -- Carl Sagan's Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective by Carl Sagan and Jerome Agel, p. 26. ISBN 0521783038. 74.134.234.31 06:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Goal for 2007

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What do y'all say? Is this the year to make Human into a truly worthy Featured Article? It's about time Wikipedia got crackin' on making this article one of its cornerstones. It may take dozens of references, months of copyediting and trimming and expanding, and a lot of tiresome debates of what does or doesn't merit inclusion, but I say it's worth it for a Human article we can be proud of. For such an important topic, this article has become surprisingly stagnant over the months; we seem to have forgotten that the article isn't acceptable just because its lead section has finally reached an adequate compromise. There's still the rest of the article to account for. -Silence 07:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Superpredator

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This claim was recently added to the lead section of Human by User:Wiki fanatic, without any explanation, discussion, or references:

"Humans are an extreme example of superpredators having directly and indirectly caused the extinction of some plant and animal species. In addition, mutualistic collaborations between humans and other animals (like dogs) in shared hunting make them even more deadly than they would be singly."

When a reference for this claim was requested, the request was dismissed out-of-hand by User:Dionyseus on the grounds that "the fact that humans have caused the extinction of many species is common knowledge". But while this is certainly true, that's not what the addition in question says: it says that humans have primarily caused extinctions only through predation, when in reality pollution, climate change, and development/migration in general are much more important factors in rising anthropogenic extinction rates. In particular, the claim that humans are superpredators could very well be original research, just as much as the claim that they are an invasive species (which was removed not long ago) was. "Superpredator" may also be a neologism; the term is a redirect on Wikipedia to apex predator (which is itself an unreferenced, source-lacking, low-quality stubby page). Linking to such a rarely-used term in the lead section, and possibly in this article at all, may constitute undue weight in that it popularizes an obscure term to push a specific view. To ensure that this is not the case, reliable and mainstream references are vitally necessary.

On the other hand, it is clearly true that humans have caused massive environmental damage, climate change, and extinctions through their activities, though to what extent and in what ways may be controversial. I can't find discussion of this on the article currently, so my recommendation is that we discuss the best place to add this information to the main body of the article; it is not needed in the lead section, which should be primarily concerned with providing a basic understanding of humans themselves, not of their historical and present effect on non-human species. (We may end up adding the information to the lead later, in shortened form and following discussion regarding whether it is necessary, but for now we should be focusing on providing somewhat more in-depth information on this topic in the article body, since lead sections should largely serve to summarize what's already in the article text, not present much unique information.)

So, should we make a new section to accomodate the topic of human effects on the environment? Although that's one possibility, ideally, we should find a way to incorporate it into another section, because we need to keep this article as concise as possible, and because we can probably cover this topic as much as is needed in about 2 paragraphs. So, can this topic fit into any of the existing sections adequately? For example, under "Habitat and population"? Once we've decided on a good place to insert it, we can work on removing non-noteworthy, dubious, or unreferenced aspects of the added paragraph of information, and replace it with more substantive and academically-supported data. -Silence 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It definitely comes across as a neologism, and shouldn't be included without references. --Yath 21:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Dionyseus has re-added the paragraph in question a second time without commenting on this problem or providing a source. I'll assume he didn't notice this section and add a link to it in the edit description. -Silence 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not notice this section. I think it's quite obvious that humans are superpredators, I don't understand how there can be any objections to this. Dionyseus 02:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
An article in the American Science in 1998 says "The foraging hypothesis is supported by data indicating that humans evolved as superpredators and manufacturers of highly complex tools by around 50,000 years ago, resulting in a wave of mass extinctions of large animals." Dionyseus 02:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have an inclusion criterion that says "what is obvious to Dionyseus can be included". It has an inclusion criterion that says "what is noteworthy and verified can be included". References are the fuel that makes that Wikipedia machine work; find some before instituting or advocating a major change to the lead section of one of Wikipedia's most prominent and central articles. So, (1) provide references to demonstrate that superpredator is an accepted, established, commonly-used zoological term, rather than a neologism; (2) provide references to demonstrate it is widely accepted that humans are superpredators; (3) provide references to demonstrate that human predation, rather than environmental destruction, is the primary cause of anthropogenic extinctions, and that this is the accepted scientific view; (4) justify the inclusion of both this fact (including the amazingly trivial sentence about human-dog hunting groups, as though this has central relevance to modern human life when we don't even take the time to mention agriculture in the lead section!!) and this uncommon term in the lead section of Human; (5) justify giving it an entire paragraph in the lead section of Human; (6) stop disregarding the rest of the article in favor of the lead section, and join the discussion regarding where we can spend a couple of paragraphs in the body of the article discussing the environmental damage and extinctions and climate change that humans have caused. That should be our first priority, before we start arguing about what does or doesn't merit further mentioning int he lead section. -Silence 02:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

History?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is a history section merited? I have been thinking about the possibility of starting a section for a very brief overview of human history (and prehistory), beginning with "Evolution", followed by an "Early tribes"-type section dealing with hunter-gatherer societies and the rise of agriculture and writing, and lastly with a "Rise of civilization"-type section giving an overview of all of human history. This seems like a significant gap in the current article; it is largely covered by the "Evolution" and "Habitat and population" subsections of "Biology", which has been sufficient reason to sidestep the issue for years now, but, reconsidering that decision, it seems like it's a bit misleading or potentially confusing for us to devote the sub-Biology "Evolution" section (which one would expect to deal primarily with the biology and genetics, rather than history, of human evolution) and the "Habitat and population" section (which one would expect to deal primarily with human population, migration, and environments, not with human history) to that topic, even though it's been an adequate compromise thus far. When you really think about it, it seems unavoidable: we need at least a little, very brief information on the span of human history (post-agriculture, which is all that's covered up to right now), else we can't rightly be considered "comprehensive". -Silence 05:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Length is an important consideration, at the moment we are at 65kb, that's quite large. Dionyseus 06:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That might be large compared to the average article, but it isn't really that large, for the topic. Consider the length of these featured articles: South Africa (70kb), Baseball (72kb), Duke University (72kb), DNA (75kb), Transhumanism (75kb), Star (76kb), People's Republic of China (82kb), Bacteria (86kb), Microsoft (94kb), Charles Darwin (98kb), AIDS (108kb), and B movie (127kb), only the last of which has raised any serious concerns about length (and it's twice as large as this one, and a tiny fraction as noteworthy and expansive!). Comprehensiveness is a more important factor than mere length. It's unnecessary length, not length, that we should be careful about.
In any case, the new "History" section will mostly just be reorganizing already-present information; the only genuinely new section will be the Written History one. Besides, I expect to make a lot of removals in the coming months, in addition to a lot of additions; it is difficult to predict how things will even out in the end, so for now it's best if we don't worry about the number of kb in the article and just try to make the highest-quality page on Humankind we can! Then, afterwards, we'll worry more directly about making sure that it's at an appropriate size overall; trimming is a lot easier and faster than making a high-quality, comprehensive page.
So, I don't see discussing length as productive at this stage: I want either objections to, or endorsements of, my above proposal based on whether people think that (a) this article needs, or would greatly benefit from, the information in question; (b) whether a "history" section is the best way to provide the information in question, or whether there are better alternatives; and (c) if a "History" section is the best option, what is the best way to implement such a section (e.g., how many subsections, should it come before or after "Biology", etc.). -Silence 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

New proposed layout

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

After rethinking the current setup a lot, I'm coming to the conclusion that it would be more useful to have a multisectional article, rather than a bisectional one; although the "Biology/Society and culture" dichotomy served us well for a long time, it seems time to cut things up a bit more specifically. It's always been tough to fit certain topics into one overcat or the other (e.g., "Love and sexuality" isn't really societal or cultural, per se...), and now that "History" has been added (though that can still be discussed in the above section), there seems more reason to consider other possible splits, in the interest of clarity and consistency. My new proposed layout is as follows:

  1. Biology
    1. Physiology and genetics
    2. Life cycle
    3. Habitat and population
    4. Diet
  2. Psychology
    1. Consciousness and thought
    2. Motivation and emotion
      1. Love and sexuality
  3. History
    1. Evolution
    2. Rise of civilization
  4. Culture
    1. Language
    2. Art, music and literature
    3. Spirituality and religion
    4. Philosophy and self-reflection
    5. Science and technology
    6. Race and ethnicity
  5. Society
    1. Government and politics
      1. War
    2. Trade and economics

(Note that although "Mind" isn't categorized under "Biology" under the above scheme, this is more a matter of convention than of POV: all three of the subcategories of mind can be viewed in terms of their physical dimensions as well, e.g., thought is neural, emotion and sexuality are hormonal, etc. What matters for the purposes of this section won't be whether something is or isn't biological, but whether it is extensively psychological, emotional, etc. I'm also currently debating the possibility of either renaming "Mind" to "Psychology" or "Biology" to "Body", because there's currently a bit of a disjunct between how the two are named (the main reason I avoided each is because they might be construed as too limiting); if anyone has any opinions or suggestions on this matter, that would be very helpful.

Also, concerning the basic order of the layout I outlined above, it may seem a bit arbitrary at first glance, but my reasoning was as follows: I started with "Biology", "History", and "Society/Culture". I reasoned that one cannot properly understand human society or culture unless one already understands human history and human biology. I then reasoned that one cannot properly understand human history unless one already understands human biology (though human society/culture is not a prerequisite). And I reasoned that it is possible to understand human biology without understanding human history or society/culture. So I placed these three sections, which are currently on Human, into the order which seems best to introduce someone to each topic with a proper grounding. I then split up "Biology" into "Biology" and "Mind" sections (the latter after the former because one can't understand the functioning of the mind without the brain, but the reverse isn't really the case), and split "Society and culture" into "Culture" and "Society" (I don't see any compelling reason to put one before the other, so I just chose the order that the article was more-or-less already in; feel free to make a case for either being first).

So, what do y'all think? -Silence 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

These look like sensible categories to me. Jonathan Tweet 14:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • After further deliberation, I've replaced "Mind" with "Psychology" for the sake of consistency and NPOV (I don't want wars to be fought in the future over whether the mind is biological in nature, so it's simplest to just rely on field-division conventions rather than make it seem like Wikipedia itself is drawing such distinctions). If anyone disagrees with this, feel free to speak up. -Silence 15:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Science and technology picture should be changed

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

The photo of the astronaut using the MMU is overdone because people think it looks neat. In reality the MMU was used a grand total of 3 times, and hasn't been used since the Challenger disaster. It was deemed to be too risky to use when other alternatives can be used that accomplish the same goals with less risk involved. So why are we using a failure as representing science and technology? I suggest we change the picture to something else. 67.76.182.140 18:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, although in fairness the image is not meant to literally represent an important technology, but rather to generally and figuratively represent the exploration of space. Any suggestions for good alternatives? -Silence 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
A magnified view of a microchip, would be nice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Such as this Image:InternalIntegratedCircuit2.JPG. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'll change it to that right now. 65.40.239.99 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The microchip is absolutely and unequivocally one of the worst possible choices for Human's example of human technology. It provides no useful information whatsoever to anyone who is not already moderately familiar with microchips; for anyone else, it's just a pretty arrangement of colors. The previous image at least provided some actual use, even though (albeit on a somewhat quibbling point) it isn't ideal. The fact that an image is imperfect is reason to find a better image, not to replace it with a terrible one. The reason the image is poor is that it provides no information value to our reader base (i.e., people who know little or nothing about humans): it emphasizes none of the important aspects of technology with respect to humans, by not providing an example of humans using a technology, by not providing a technology that non-specialists will routinely see humans interacting with (for example, clothing, or a cell phone), etc.; it instead tries to provide an essential, "reduced" form of one of the most important modern technologies, in the process sacrificing any utility or value for readers, because the image effectively says nothing whatsoever about microchips except "microchips are in some way relevant and important to a consideration of human technology"; it does not show humans creating or thinking up technologies, using technologies, etc. -Silence 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Next time change it to something that IS appropriate instead of whining and reverting when we already discussed that the original picture was NOT appropriate. Anyway I changed it to another space related photo, but this one is more appropriate than the MMU photo. 65.40.239.99 05:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The original picture is appropriate, it's just not ideal. There wasn't really and major or immediate concern with the first space image; we really only removed it on a technicality. -Silence 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't what I asked. Re-read what I said. 65.40.239.99 16:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The only reason no one else chimed in was that it seemed pretty obvious that the space technology, while not perfect was better than the chip. Jossi and an anon IP does not make a consensus, although, it is a good starting point for discussion. For the record, i hate the chip. Someone using a computer or cell phone would be more appropirate if a chip needs to be used. At the end of the day the space theme seems appropirate since many equate NASA and space exploration with new technology. Just the fact the person is IN space is enough for me. David D. (Talk) 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Who cares about the chip? It has been changed to something more appropriate already so why is this discussion continuing? 64.236.245.243 18:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It is continuing? Where? David D. (Talk) 18:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion to manipulate natural phenomena?

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

If we are going to assert that as a fact, we need to attribute it to someone notable. Otherwise it is an unattributed (and wrong, IMO) opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Read Religion, and find a source that describes that religion is used to "manipulate natural phenomena". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Read Religion yourself. "Religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals". Beliefs can be explanatory (though in very many cases beliefs are also attempts to manipulate the world, as when the religious believe that they will go to Heaven if they just have "faith"), but rituals are never explanations. They are always attempts or manipulate, not to explain. It would be fair to say that mythology is entirely explanatory, but it is not fair to characterize religion in the same way—particularly if we include ancient religions, many of which had very few attempted explanations, and a plethora of magic-like attempts to influence the world. Likewise, you describe "science and technology" as being attempts to manipulate, rather than explain, phenomena, but clearly this is only true for technology, and is patently untrue for science. "Science" and "mythology" seek to explain, not to influence; in contrast, "religion" seeks both to explain and to influence, and "technology" seeks primarily to influence, but can also be argued to have explanatory aspects as well, depending on how broadly "technology" is defined. -Silence 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
manipulate is a loaded word, and is the context has a bias. by the above explanation everything "manipulates"--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Science attempts to manipulate and explain phenomena; Technology does not attempt, but actuallty manipulates the environment in its broader sense; Religion does not do any of that, by all definitions of the term. The lead somehow avoids to address the fact that since humans have been able to express themselves, they have always searched for answers about self and world, and that in that aspect belief and religion has played a central point. Why is that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Science, in itself, does not attempt to manipulate phenomena. Scientific knowledge can be used to try to do so, but science itself is just "knowledge". "Searching for answers about self and world" is exactly what the intro is describing when it talks about "understanding". However, I agree that "natural phenomena" is too narrow. I believe all these issues can be entirely resolved by replacing "natural phenomena" with "the world around them", or perhaps just "the world". I would also consider it acceptable, perhaps, to replace "manipulate" with "influence", if there are NPOV concerns about the current word choice. -Silence 05:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
That works pretty well, Silence. Care to make the edit? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Prayer is an attempt to change the world by enlisting the help of a god or gods. Sometimes payment for these services are offered as sacrifice. Using gods in this way is no different from using a shovel to dig a ditch. TimVickers 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps if we replaced "religion" with "religious rites" and listed it under ways to manipulate or influence the world along with "technology" (and perhaps "magic" as well, the other famous human activity to try to manipulate the world), we could then list "science" and "mythology" under ways to explain the world, and have organized them in that way. What do you think? Though I still haven't found a satisfying way to make the other sentences "flow" into the last sentence under the new structure... -Silence 19:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a reductio ad absurdum of religion, most probably based on the POVs of both editors above as it pertains to belief. I would object to such an assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think prayer is an attempt to influence the world through an appeal to gods, then what do you think is the intent of this activity? TimVickers 23:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You are misusing the logical term reductio ad absurdum. A reductio ad absurdum takes an argument's premise and shows that it can lead to absurd conclusions. "Religious rites have been used to try to influence phenomena" is not an argument; it is simply a statement of fact. If you disagree with this fact, then explain how this is not so; if you believe this fact is being used in some unstated, implicit argument against religion, then tell us why you think this, what this argument is, and how it is relevant to this discussion or article. As-is, your claim is meaningless, as well as offensive to all practitioners of religion, as it seems to claim that belief in the efficacy of religious ritual is "absurd". Clearly this POVed assumption of yours is not acceptable for Wikipedia itself to make. I would also remind you to assume good faith rather than immediately leaping to the conclusion that every editor who disagrees with you must have an agenda. -Silence 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record I think it is correct to say that "Prayer is an attempt to manipulate". Since religious people are quite adament that it works (miracles) one might even say "prayer is used to manipulate", but this would be stretching the POV too much. David D. (Talk) 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I will point out that although almost every statistical test of the efficacy of prayer to manipulate many events in the world does not show any evidence that supports it, this is not universally true. There is growing evidence that prayer does influence the biochemical makeup of human brains and even potentially rewires the human brain, as many other experiences do. For example, acquiring language, learning music, studying and meditation also can change human brains. So in a strange way, prayer might influence the world in some demonstrable ways.--Filll 16:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You (TimVickers) have a very primitive view of prayer. Prayer is many things becides asking god to do something, it's thanking god, it's praising god, it's acknowledging that god exists, it's creating a connection between the worshiper and god. In some religions (Jainism for example), they don't even belive in god, yet pray anyway. It's clear you're just trying to rile people up, this is not the place for that. Ariel. 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
But prayer is not mentioned in the article, just the broad usage of religion. I don't see anyone is trying to minimise the role of prayer. But can anyone really deny that some forms of prayer do not have the goal to manipulate the world? Many people pray for critically ill patients to be healed, possibly whole congregations. What about laying of hands? This is not uncommon. Whether these are successful or not (see Fill above), tey do represent attempts to manipulate the physical world. At the other end of the spectrum, what of sacrifices? Was that not an attempt to please the Gods to bring good crops? And fertility rites? David D. (Talk) 18:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a very primitive view, as I know only a little about religion "Give us this day our daily bread" is a phrase that has stuck in my mind. TimVickers 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yuri Gagarin

Possible Classification

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The listing of so many modern human forms as descendants of Cro-Magnons is wrong. "Cro-Magnon" is not properly term in this tree. Cro-Magnon is simply a name applied to the earliest modern humans in Europe. Note that the Cro-Magnon article states that Cro-Magnons were descended from populations in the Middle East. In addition, the 'racial' history of Europe is far more complicated than would be implied by saying Europeans are descended from Cro-Magnons. Btw, "Hispanic" is a cultural category, not a 'racial' one, and "Semitic" is a language family. -- Donald Albury 14:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Technically all racial categories are based on culture because genetic divergence in racial groups isn't significant enough to categorize those racial groups into authentic sub species categories. Btw, "Semitic" is also an ethnic group, which is different from a "racial" group. 64.236.245.243 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Diet section

Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

The "diet" section of this article starts off decent, but the ending is is pretty weak and lacks credibility. There are no sources present at all in the last three paragraphs, and the writing is vague. I don't profess to have answers to a lot of it, but perhaps collectively can we find out more information about some of these topics to give this section more substance. The last paragraph is speculation with no support and doesn't even seem to make sense from a logical standpoint. I would suggest deleting it entirely.


Some specifics:

"At least ten thousand years ago, humans developed agriculture, which has substantially altered the kind of food people eat."

The "at least ten thousand years ago" part seems vague and it seems that we could get some more substantial figures. I don't know figures myself, but I'm sure someone out there does! Maybe something about the earliest evidence of agriculture and major advancements in technology that made agriculture more widespread.


"This has led to increased populations, the development of cities, and because of increased population density, the wider spread of infectious diseases. The types of food consumed, and the way in which they are prepared, has varied widely by time, location, and culture."

The mention of infectious disease is irrelevant and doesn't belong in a section about diet. It doesn't have anything to do with the previous part of the sentence, nor the sentence following.


While the previous paragraphs can be revamped with some additional research and addition of supporting citations, the last paragraph should probably just be deleted.


"Some scientists have speculated that the reason humans are so successful is due to a dietary change. Somewhere along the historical line humans started cooking their food. While cooking meats has benefits such as killing bacteria, for early man it was a great tenderizer. By cooking meat humans were able to cut down on the time it took to consume said meat. This advantage allowed humans to have free time, or time where they were not focused on survival. With free time early humans had time to think and create. It seems as if cooking meats was the catalyst for humans becoming the dominant species on Earth."

This paragraph doesn't make any sense. "Some scientists have speculated..." Who are these people? The argument here is as follows:


Humans started cooking their meat.

Because meat was cooked (which takes time to do so!) they could eat it faster.

Because they could eat more quickly, they had more time that was "not focused on survival."

This free time allowed for "thinking and creating."

Thinking and creating allowed humans to become "the dominant species on Earth"

Therefore, cooking meat = success of humans.


So people couldn't think and create because they had to spend all their time chewing their food, but when they could eat faster they could sit around and think?

This logic would be suspect even if it had a reliable source credited instead of being the "speculation" of "some scientists." Without more specifics and facts, it comes across as just silly. I've never heard of any evidence to support this, nor could I find anyone else who had this theory.


I am new to editing wikipedia, which is why I posted this as a topic instead of trying to edit anything. Do others agree? Montypy16 23:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as the 'at least 10,000 years ago' thing, scientists haven't been able to be more precise. For one thing, scientists keep discovering evidence that pushes the beginnings of agriculture back. See here for a report that agriculture started about 10,000 years ago in the Americas, some 5,000 years earlier than previously thought. Here is a report that barley was domesticated in the Near East by 10,500 years ago. Here is a very recent report that figs were domesticated in the Near East by 11,200 to 11,400 years ago. For another thing, dating of agricultural remains depends on Carbon-14 dating, which always has a range of uncertainty, and that uncertainty grows larger the earlier the date measured. Finally, finding evidence that crops were being cultivated at a certain date does not tell us when the crops were domesticated, only that they had been domesticated by that date (which leads us back to my first point). As for the rest of your points, everything should be cited from reliable sources. You can mark statements you think need to be sourced by adding {{fact}} after the statement (once at the end of a paragraph is generally sufficient). You can also try to find sources yourself to add to the article, and edit the contents to conform to any reliable sources you cite. I'll go ahead and add the sources I to the first paragraph. -- Donald Albury 02:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the last section. I couldn't find a good article supporting it. Will continue to edit, but right now a lot of the information is weak and rather out of left field. --Kaemera 23:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

———

== Musing about what makes a human (Possible OR) ==

I have recently wondered about what it is that separates humans from other (and some claim "lesser") animals. I would propose that it is clothing and clothing production. Textile creation (and its related activity, cord manufacture) might very well be the one main thing that is associated with a jump between animals and humans.

  • Many people used to say it was using and making tools, but obviously various primates and even elephants have been observed making tools. So it isnt tools that separate us from animals.
  • Other people have said it is language, but dogs have been shown to have literally hundreds of vocalizations recognizable by other dogs they never met, whales communicate over thousands of miles of ocean, creatures on the Galapagos islands have been shown to pass on the memories of human atrocities committed against their own kind over a century ago, and chimps and other primates have been trained to not only use sign language, but now to type on computer keyboards and type out words and recognize words on a screen and respond. So it is isnt language that separates us from animals.
  • At one time, it was said that only humans could laugh and show emotion, and animals could not. However, this has been shown to be incorrect.
  • Animals have been shown to engage in farming, so it is not farming.
  • Crows are very good at counting and arithmetic, so it is not mathematics
  • It is not the use of the wheel, since many indigenous peoples did not use the wheel.
  • Some human tribes like Pygmies of the Ituri Forest and the Andaman Islanders never learned to make fire, so it is not that.
  • Animals have been shown to engage in warfare, and killing for pleasure and sport, so it isn't any of those.
  • No animal, as far as I know, makes textiles. Animals might take advantage of some shelter in their environment, but no animal makes cloth or textiles. Were there any primitive people who did not make cord or rope or textiles or ar least partially clothe themselves? I wonder.

So the manufacture of textiles is a candidate for an activity that separates humans from their animal breathern. Another candidate I have is the keeping of records on bone carvings or cave paintings. Granted, elephants and chimpanzees can be trained to paint, but is it the same as cave painting? Do all human societies keep some sort of written or painted or drawn or carved record? I do not know. But as far as I know, the production of textiles and cord etc might have been more common. Textiles and cord manufacturing has a long and interesting history, and might have interesting implications for the creation of human culture and society.--Filll 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Weaverbird, Spider. Just to think about. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hermit crabs could be seen as wearing "clothing" TimVickers 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Those are all definitely similar, I will admit. Not to split hairs, but of course the hermit crab did not manufacture that "clothing" in the same way that humans make clothing and/or textiles. The spider as well is using body secretions to create an environment, and of course "clothes" their prey in their secretions in a sort of clothing. It is not using outside materials that it is modifying to make clothing for itself however. The weaverbird is doing something that is more like what humans do, although the protection that it affords is not portable like clothing is. One might claim that the weaverbird is doing something like a beaver, which is not really clothing itself. A simple example of what humans do is to take fibres from the natural environment, and then twist them in an algorithm (a mathematics professor friend of mine calls this the world's first algorithm) to produce a cord that is stronger than the constituent fibres. This cord is then used as a rope, or as part of a textile for protection from the elements or clothing. Are there any groups of humans that do not have this kind of technology? I think it is even more widespread than the wheel or fire. I am just wondering. --Filll 17:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What makes us human is that we combine all aspects that make us human, but that other animals also have. Very few apes build large buildings and prize art as very expensive and play music and actively seek out all of these things Tar7arus 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Note also that some tribes in the Amazon did not use clothing prior to missionary and other European contact, although they do use woven hammocks. -- Donald Albury 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I might have this incorrect, so do not trust this statement. However, I was under the impression that all South American authochthonous tribes wore loincloths, codpieces and other very minimal clothing, even before contact with Europeans. --Filll 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seen a documentary of one tribe that did not wear any clothing at all. It was a bit disconcerting to see the men, barefoot and completely naked, running through the forest hunting monkeys. I was most concerned about how their feet hold up. Although I'm pretty sure there are no rocks on the rain forest floor, there must be roots and such that could bruise soles and stub toes. Anyway, I'm sorry that I don't remember the name of the film. I have found this about a tribe that still commonly goes without any clothing. -- Donald Albury 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Defining humans by any particular technology of theirs, however, seems pretty inadequate to me regardless of how universal that technology is. For example, if humans are defined by their clothing, then does someone stop being human if he takes his clothes off? Is someone who knows how to manufacture clothes more human than someone who doesn't? If a new culture arose that didn't know how to make clothing, or just didn't bother, would that culture be considered a different species from human beings? Clothing may be a part of what makes humans unique, but it seems pretty inadequate as a defining, essential aspect of humanity. -Silence 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I am left with the hypothesis that there is nothing that really differentiates us from animals. Perhaps it is only a matter of degree:

  • Not just language capability, but more language capability.
  • Not just tool use, but more tool use
  • Not the use of fire, but more likely to use fire
  • Not the production of clothing, but more likely to produce clothing

and so on.--Filll 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Nothing differentiates us from animals, period. Humans are animals. We're just a specific kind of animal. What differentiates us from other kinds of animals is our specific combination of biological characteristics, including anatomical and genetic ones. Our technologies aren't what makes us human (though they may help make us more different from non-humans, but this is purely optional), because there once lived humans who didn't had limited to no tool use, language capability, etc. And babies lack all of these abilities; are babies non-human? Our use of certain technologies is an important characteristic of most humans, yes, but it is not a defining characteristic. -Silence 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Great to read this as I've been musing about this recently (again). As noted many of the formerly human only activities are now known to exist among non-human animals. This includes the ability to talk and laugh and enjoy sex.

Here is one for you: Are there any examples of non-human animals exhibiting religious beliefs or practices? I can't think of a single case. It might actually be religion which seperates us from other animals. Note I'm talking merely about the observance of religious practice. I'm not making a comment either way about its legitimacy. Perhaps religious belief comes about as a result of the ability to think in an abstract manner but I believe the evidence is that Chimps can think abstractly but afaik religion has not been observed in their societies. Robert Brockway 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

that's probably because religion is illogical. maybe chimps are so awesome that they've moved past that. but really, religion is simply one idea of many other ideas though up by man which could be used to prove our differences with non-humans. i.e. manufacturing drugs/chemicals/fire/food or even stargazing. Kaemera 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"It might actually be religion which seperates us from other animals." - Again, this is a useless, unsatisfying attempt at creating a defining characteristic of humans because (1) there are many humans who are not religious, yet we don't consider any less human; and (2) if we discovered that other animals did have religions, that wouldn't suddenly make them human. Besides, religion is far from being one of the most important characteristics of uniquely human culture or psychology; you might as well pick any other arbitrary aspect of mankind as being what separates us from other animals, like "humans are the only animals that produce television shows", or "humans are the only animals that blow their nose with handkerchiefs".
"Perhaps religious belief comes about as a result of the ability to think in an abstract manner but I believe the evidence is that Chimps can think abstractly" - Sure, but they can't think abstractly to nearly the same degree as humans. It is thus fallacious to dismiss the abstraction argument on those weak grounds; if I said "humans are free to use their hands to hold tools because they're bipedal" and you responded "but species X is almost bipedal and it can't use tools!", that wouldn't be any better of an argument. What is possible with one degree of something (especially in terms of psychological characteristics) is not necessarily possible with any other degree of the same thing. Besides, if chimps do have rudimentary religious views, we wouldn't necessarily know it, since they aren't remotely as effective at communicating those abstractions as humans are.
"that's probably because religion is illogical." - An absolutely absurd argument. Religion is indeed illogical, but that's hardly a reason for non-human animals (who are infinitely less well-versed in logic than humans are) to not be religious! You might as well say that crocodiles don't get cosmetic surgery because cosmetic surgery is stupid; there's a much simpler explanation available for such occurrences. Non-human animals lack religion because they have poorer language skills and conceptual reasoning skills than humans do. -Silence 05:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"that's probably because religion is illogical. maybe chimps are so awesome that they've moved past that." -simply sarcasm. i mean to point out that it is too specific a branch of philosophy or even too specific an idea to narrow things down to. perhaps one could just point out that philosophy is a valid argument alone. even so, that is highly subjective.
"Non-human animals lack religion because they have poorer language skills and conceptual reasoning skills..." That is an over-generalization and implies religion is an inevitable behavior that all species would sooner or later grasp once they've advanced to a level comparable to humans. I agree with you, however, that it is mainly our physical characteristics and genetic make-up that makes us human, as all the arguments posted here are based on specific acts and developments of man which are all debatable, which is exactly what I posted (minus the first sentences of sarcasm!) Kaemera 04:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Extent of humanity

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The article says: "Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species, Homo sapiens...".

This is indeed the definition I've always used - ie, to equate humanity with homo sapiens but this may not be right. The livescience.com graphic here [2] list a number of species including Homo erectus as human. It seems their definition equates humanity with any member of the genus Homo.

I looked at the Homo erectus article on WP and it indeed lists them as human:

"Homo erectus (along with Homo ergaster) were probably the first early human to fit squarely into the category of a hunter gatherer society and not as prey for larger animals."

What lay people would call a human scientists would call a modern human.

I'm making an edit to make this distinction clearer. Robert Brockway 15:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There we go - Human (disambiguation) explicitely mentions the two definitions for human:
"A human is a member of the species Homo sapiens, including Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) and Homo : sapiens idaltu. It may also refer to any member of the genus Homo."
I've listed an Anthropological definition of human as meaning a member of the genus Homo, with a reference. Robert Brockway 15:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Change the Picture!

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I dont care how! but please change the picture! I dont care that its a drawing! I dont care its encyclopedic! Children go to wikipedia! I'm a children! Please delete the picture, blur the parts out, or change the picture! I encourage my freinds to go on wikipedia but now im having second thoughts! (65.34.72.52 05:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)) Okay, I know I over reacted but im sleep deprived right now so you can blame me! Please change the picture!

"I'm a children"? Well, if you are offended by human anatomy, don't use Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censored and it may contain objectionable content. Most children won't be seeing anything new in an image like the NASA one at the top of Human, though. -Silence 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah really, Its science and it is for the quality of the article it should stay (plus not most children know whats so bad about this pic anyway they probaly will just say "HAHA naked people *giggle*") --Matterfoot 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You am a children? Good sir, you most certainly am not a children; I refer you to the first noble truth of the Internet: "On the Internet, the men are men, the women are men, and children are the FBI." (My apologies to everyone for my immature posting.) 75.31.90.244 04:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
yeah like its so wrong to have a picture of human anatomy i know Superior1 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


It's the beauty of the human body. The intention wasn't to make the page somehow erotic, and your intention shouldn't be to come here to look at a naked drawing. So relax. Armyrifle 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Location of Humans?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

but now inhabit every continent I think it should be changed either to

but now inhabit every continent, excluding Anartica

or

but now inhabit every continent except Anartica which is not permanatly habited--Matterfoot 00:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Antarctica is permanently inhabited. People have been born just off its coast, too. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Title should be Homo Sapiens not human

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Human refers to any animal in the Homo genus. Homo Sapiens is more precise. This article should use colloquial terms over scientific ones. 64.236.245.243 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So which is it now? You may have to make up your mind, you know. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Err, my mistake. I meant this article should use scientific terms over colloquial ones. Title should be Homo Sapiens, not human. 64.236.245.243 14:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Our guideline of naming articles says, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Human fits that criterion bettern than Homo spaiens. -- Donald Albury 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have control over this planet?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Re: I agree, Human DOES refer to any animal in the Homo Genus, and yes, I also agree with the Human Inhabitance on Earth. It should be changed to be more accurate rather than saying we live on every continent. Our species would have had to adapt to the increasingly cold weather in order to live in Antarctica, or at least have the intelligence and ability to build certain structures in the dangerously cold lands.

My Question: As you all have known, Homo Sapiens (Humans/Human-Beings) have had control over this world for Thousands of years. But how have we taken control of this planet? Is it because we have opposable thumbs? Is it because we are able to stand up straight or maybe because we invented hunting tools? Is it because the early humans tamed wolves/dogs to help hunt, to help us find our food? Is it because we discovered fire or invented the wheel? This question has been running through my mind for as long as I could possibly remember. Is it because we built ships, or is could it be because the early Homos (Homo Sapiens) built ships? It might seem as though my question will never be answered.

Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, and possibly The Third Chimpanzee by the same author. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
^Answer his/her question instead of asking someone to go out of their way to read some books. It's easier just to answer a question than to tell someone to spend several hours to read a book. The answer is, basically everything you said, and more. Intelligence combined with our physiology (standing upright, hands free to manipulate objects, thumbs, etc). 64.236.245.243 14:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is intended for discussions of the form and contents of the article. It is not a reference desk. -- Donald Albury 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservation Status

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Homo sapiens is not listed in the Red List and therefore should be marked in this article as either Not Evaluated (technically) or Secure (realistically) instead of Least Concern. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CLove3 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree --Theymos 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. On the other hand, this could be also NT, for the species could be wiped out by the action of man. 91.153.54.19 06:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This article very much belongs to category of least concern species. [[Category:Least Concern species]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.221.13.23 (talk)


Well, IMO it should be NE until an official body has changed it. ffm ✎talk 23:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias, reverting vandalism

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Isn't there an inherent bias in this article, seeing as it was written by humans? ffm yes? 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of an unavoidable problem. As long as we're not saying that humans are inherently better than other animal species, we're probably ok. 75.31.90.244 18:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could put a photo of George Bush in it somewhere, to add more of a critical balance? TimVickers 18:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about bias, theres lots of self hateing humans that beleive people are a force of evil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.99.188 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Grammar

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article has incorrect usage of grammar and punctuation. I don't know who wrote it, but they were evidently so sure of themselves that they wouldn't allow anyone else to edit the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.118.165 (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Why don't you test the water? You can't be sure they are "so sure of themselves that they wouldn't allow anyone else to edit the article" unless you try. David D. (Talk) 04:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

They'll need to log and edit some unprotected articles first, this article is currently semi-protected. TimVickers 04:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Picture

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I know this has been brought up before, but the exchange ended a month ago, so I'm starting a new section to make sure it gets noticed.

As a member of the human species, I have to say that I find the picture used to be quite offensive. The female is missing her reproductive organs, which my biology teacher tells me are quite important. To display the image as it currently is is to sacrifice an accurate depiction of the human race to pander to the whims of the consevative agenda. (I take even greater offence at the cretin who complained about the image in the first place, but whats done is done; wikipedia can be improved). Either an accurate generic diagram of both sexes, or actual photographs of humans, should replace the current picture. Quantum Burrito 21:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from my experience, and I suggest you confirm this through your own research, female genitalia are not visible from the front. TimVickers 21:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[3] there is definitely a line visible from the front, which was in fact censored out from the original due to objections about it being 'pornographic'.
First, this current picture is for its historical perspective not necessarily its anatomical perspective. Second who censored the picture? NASA or wikipedia? Why is it so important to be anatomically correct and your link does not seem to prove your point. David D. (Talk) 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
NASA Censored it, and if you're not aiming for an anatomical perspective, surely a picture of humans in situ would be better? And what do you mean the picture does not prove my point?
The point is that the picture is used for its historical significance not for its anatomical correctness. The photo in your link does not appear to have an obvious line (a smudge?) for genitalia, i assume we are supposed to be looking at the last picture? David D. (Talk) 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This just isn't true. Female genitalia do not show from the front. I know this is WP:OR, but I am a married man so I speak from direct experience! TimVickers 22:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at the link! There is a definite line between her legs.
I'm at work, I do not want to access photos of naked women over the network. TimVickers 22:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Most of the "line" is attributable to how the lady in question has shaved her pubes. The part that's actually attributable to the ansatz of the labia is negligible. In addition, when you cross your legs like that, the fold gets longer. Note that the female in the illustration on the article does not have her legs crossed in this way, so we probably wouldn't expect to see much of a fold. If anything, we'd expect to see pubes. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[4] This one's legs are in the same positions as te one in the pioneer plaque, and a line is definitely vsisble. Quantum Burrito 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me restate your argument clearly, though. What you are saying is that in *some* women, and only when the pubic hair is shaved off, a fold that is continuous with the labia maiora can be seen when standing frontally, with legs slightly apart. Now, that in itself is not a strong argument by any means, because what matters is what's true of the majority of women. Now, I've actually gone and counted pixels on that image, and the fold extends only a quarter of the way up the pubic area, which would not be sufficient for inclusion in a schematic illustration in any case. On the scale of the image, it would be a very minor feature, and you'll notice that, for instance, there is no detail on the lips and ears either, nor should there be. Finally, the labia are not reproductive organs. They are external sexual characters. The reproductive organs are definitely not visible. Your biology teacher will tell you that they are entirely internal in the human female. Finally, I'll just say it again, in case you didn't read it first time: the average human female in her natural state has a considerable amount of pubic hair, which will definitely cover the area you are referring to and conceal it from view. The image was chosen for two principal reasons: (a) it is the first, and to my knowledge, only attempt of illustrating mankind's image in a racially neutral way; (b) it is historically significant and relevant because it was conceived as a representation of mankind for the benefit of possible extraterrestrial intelligent forms of life. It was therefore created assuming no prior knowledge, which is exactly the kind of audience Wikipedia should be written for - those with no prior knowledge. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, on the strength of those arguments, I concede. I would say that it would be good if a wikipedian, or group of wikipedians, attempted to make a better representation of humanity (perhaps through blending together pictures of people of different races by computer). But until then, I now agree that the picture is alright. (Oh, and my biology teacher has stated many times that the labia are part of the female reproductive organs, so I may have to take that up with her.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quantum Burrito (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Humans don't need labia to reproduce. The female reproductive system consists of the uterus and vagina. Labia are part of the vulva, which is external genitalia. pschemp | talk 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
A girlfriend would not help much with a scientific understanding of the specific catagorisation of the parts. Biological diagrams/ articles do. Guess what I've been looking at after posting that comment? Quantum Burrito 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Males, USELESS? Gasp worthy

Here's something, in the future, women will be able to use their own bone-marrow to create sperm and have babies. To me, the first thing I thought of was "Will males become useless!?" it kind of scared me because, as a member of the Male group of Homo Sapiens, I thought that (Maybe) for the remainder of Human existence, Males would be somewhat useless... What do you Wikipedians think about this? I also want to know something, as we Homos evolve, what will we look like in the next few million years? Will our heads be even larger because of our brains?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human/Archive_25&oldid=1134392417"