Talk:Human/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

People are biased. Everything we ever read or write or say is based on paradigms we can concieve of. The intro will never be perfect, or anything like an alien, or diety, or whoever non-human would describe us. My guess is they'd describe us much like our dog, or a fish might. Perhaps "mostly harmless"... perhaps not ;)

In any case the answer for the intro is

Theology is a science? No. It might, barely, be a social science -- but sociology and economics are as well and most people do not call either "science". Jim62sch 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Religious studies is a social science. Theology is not any sort of science; it's, if anything, a religious philosophy (not to be confused with a related field, philosophy of religion). No articles on Wikipedia (except, probably, a handful of obscure ones I've never seen that suffer from a specific user's POV) currently state any theological claims as though they were facts (or close enough to it to split the difference), rather than often intelligent, but unsubstantiated, claims; tens of thousands do so for scientific theories. Human, despite being an FA, is currently the exception to the established and useful standard which all encyclopedias follow of not dismissing science or the entire fields biology, sociology, etc. as "just one POV"; as an FA, it should not be the exception to the rule, but an upholder of the rule. It should serve as a model to other articles, not as a breeding ground for anti-secular POV-pushing. Someday, I have faith that that will happen. Until then, Wikipedia will just have to wait for this article to catch up with the rest of the world. -Silence 01:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We give perspectives from throught the sciences (which includes theology, btw). - I hadn't realized that someone had demonstrated the existence of a god or gods. EvilOverlordX 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Christ, who hasn't? Go read some aquinas and get back to me. Sam Spade 01:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In the original Latin? Seriously, Aquinas proved nothing other than that logic cannot prove the supernatural. There's a reason Aquinas gave up. Jim62sch 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you have not read Aquinas. Sam Spade 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have a habit of making unmerited assumptions. Jim62sch 23:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Aquinas scientifically proved that the Catholic God exists? If, so why didn't everyone tell the non Catholics? You referred to his work on my talk page as the "truth". Is this the starting point or the end point for your compromise on this article? By the way, scientists never talk about truths, they do not exist in science.

David D. (Talk)

22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are your words, not mine. I was using the word "truth" in ageneral sense, not specific to Aquinas (a man who possess's a verifiable POV which should be considered in writing the article, mind you). You seem to have what is sometimes called an "SPOV". Scientific POV, Secular POV, Subjective POV... Call it what you will, its not a NPOV ;) Sam Spade 23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Spirituality and religion already have their owm, rather significant, places in the article. In describing humans as biomes (which is how we treat all other life forms) however, spirituality does not enter into the description. Inclusion of a supposition that spiriruality equals or even supplants the biological definition shows a clear POV, whereas exclusion of a supposition truly is NPOV, not SPOV. Jim62sch 23:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, is it not POV to introduce spirituality into the 'human' article, but not the 'cat' article, for instance? If a cat could read Wikipedia, it might object to being described as a purely biological creature. Maybe every animal has a spiritual component. But encyclopedias are limited to the information that can be verified. Strong opinions that are documented, such as religious beliefs, are verifiable but should be described as opinion. If other animals could tell us what they think, and had some kind of documentation for it, we could include that too, but should equally identify it as POV. oneismany 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Spirituiality and Religion each have their own places in the article. This should be sufficient. Jim62sch 00:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Given you call describing a physical object (the human body) a secular POV I can certainly attest to having that POV. I just want to know how can you have a spirit without a body? Even Christ took the physical form of man. His body was flesh and blood. The existance of the spirit does not preclude the description of the body. That description does not deny the spirit and in my view is not POV.

David D. (Talk)

23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I just went back to see what you wrote on my talk page. You said quote:

"As per Aquinas, the comment didn't merit response. Aggressive ignorance is best ignored, not confronted. Those who refuse the truth are apt to learn more from osmosis than from debate."

You claim that I misinterpreted your statement. Did I? How is the word truth above being used in a general sense? It appears to be referring directly to Aquinas. You equate aggressive ignorance (of Aquinas) to those that refuse the truth. I have read this several times and I do not see how this can be taken as general sense. However, since you wrote it i have to assume that is what your were trying to convey but please don't suggest i am twisting your words as they were not clear.

David D. (Talk)

23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

David, you twisted nothing; resist the temptation to offer explanations needlessly. The concept of "aggressive ignorance" is really more a propos to one who see only what one wants to see, who takes from a book only that which he wishes to take and who looks only for those viewpoints that confirm his own. Don't sweat the small stuff, dude, your understanding of what Sam wrote is accurate. Jim62sch 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not have neither the inclination nor the stamina to sustain yet-another-edit war on this article. I, and others, worked really hard to get this article in shape for FAC status and to accommodate conflicting POVs. I leave this "second round" in the hands of other capable editors, with the hope that they will not just rehash previous discussions, and that they don't throw away all that hard work. There are hundred of articles that need out attention, I just feel I have done more than enough to contribute to this one. I may check this article from time to time, but will no longer engage actively in editing it. If you need a fresh pair of eyes to look it over when you have arrived at a version that is stable, drop me a line in my user_talk page and I will be happy to comment on your work. Good luck, and happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the NPOV tag because the psychology subsection as it stands now (after i removed Jung who is totally insignificant in psychology) is more about psychoanalysis than it is about psychology. I have edited the article a few times but any time I mention Wilhelm Wundt (who is credited as opening the first experimental psychology lab and being the first person to call himself a psychologist in the main psychology article as well as that about him the subsection is reverted/rewritten by SS and its back to psychoanalysis, Freud and Jung. I really think that the subsection should be rewritten, but I cannot be stuffed doing it just to have it reverted.

dr.alf 09:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO you are correct Freud should not be there; however, I question the need for Wundt. What about rewriting so it is a summary of what Psychology is (rather than A Brief History of Psychoanalysis, which si what it is right now), with of course a link to the main article, and leaving out details better covered in the main article? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion (comment below or feel free to edit like heck between the lines):

Psychology is an extremely broad field, encompassing many different approaches to the study of mental processes and behavior.

Psychology does not necessarily refer to the brain or nervous system and can be framed purely in terms of phenomenological or information processing theories of the mind. Increasingly, though, an understanding of brain function is being included in psychological theory and practice, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, neuropsychology, and cognitive neuroscience.

The nature of

Largely focusing on the development of the human mind through the life span, developmental psychology seeks to understand how people come to perceive, understand, and act within the world and how these processes change as they age. This may focus on intellectual, cognitive, neural, social, or moral development.

Social psychology is the study of the nature and causes of human social behavior, with an emphasis on how people think towards each other and how they relate to each other. Social Psychology aims to understand how we make sense of social situations.

Suggested starting place: This is basically a series of statements taken from the main Psychology article. The idea being to 1) compare with the Psychoanalytic history which is in that section now, and 2) edit the above to a point where it can be moved out to the main article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That, in my opinion, is a lot more appropriate because its not about some dead austrians (or germans or americans) but rather about the disciplines and what is actually studied in psychology. Might be a bit too wordy so i'll see if I can trim it down a bit later on. dr.alf 10:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, watch the stuff about dead Germans and Austrians -- my forebears might roll over.  :) I'll give the pararaphs a shot later. Jim62sch 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely with KillerChihuahua that change is necessary. The subsection is called "Psychology and human ethology" not "Psychoanalysis". I'm going to bed now but will check in later & help where I can. Mikker ^... 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a site for this, especially in light of "concluded"?

Geneticists Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending of the University of Utah have concluded that the variation in the total stock of human DNA is minute compared to that of other species; and that around 74,000 years ago, human population was reduced to a small number of breeding pairs, possibly as small as 1000, resulting in a very small residual gene pool. Various reasons for this bottleneck have been postulated, the most popular, called the Toba catastrophe theory, being the eruption of a volcano at Lake Toba. The Black plague and inquisition caused a similar, but far lesser devastation in europe during the middle ages. Jim62sch 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Most numerous?

Humans, with a population of over six billion, are one of the most numerous mammals on Earth. Jim62sch 02:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Take it out pending verification and sourcing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cleanup, put back, and use one of these:

• bbc transcript
• lab of compartive genetics
• Mars Hill this looks good at first glance

KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The 1st cite was OK, as it's from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The second was so-so and the third was utter rubbish.

However, I do not know that this is a prevalent view in athropology, and if it is not, it needs to either be significantly trimmed, or excised altogether. Jim62sch 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this reference is more appropriate. Lynn B. Jorde, Michael Bamshad, and Alan R. Rogers. (1998) Using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers to reconstruct human evolution BioEssays 20:126-136 There is a free pdf available at the following web site. Pubmed source

This reviews discusses the bottleneck hypothesis and quotes a number of 10,000 individuals. It does not mention the 74,000 year date. Instead they discuss that an expansion date of 99,000 years for africa, 52,000 years for asian and 23,000 years for europe fits the genetic polymorphic data. This review does not mention it going to as low as 1000, this seems like speculation on behalf of whom ever wrote that section. This review does not mention possible causes for this bottleneck.

The Toba catastrophy theory is discussed in the following paper

Ambrose SH. Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans. J Hum Evol. 1998 Jun;34(6):623-51. Pubmed source

The papers abstract starts:

"The "Weak Garden of Eden" model for the origin and dispersal of modern humans (Harpending et al., 1993) posits that modern humans spread into separate regions from a restricted source, around 100 ka (thousand years ago), then passed through population bottlenecks. Around 50 ka, dramatic growth occurred within dispersed populations that were genetically isolated from each other." as well as "If Toba caused the bottlenecks, then modern human races may have differentiated abruptly, only 70 thousand years ago."

It was also published earlier by:

Rampino MR, Self S. Bottleneck in human evolution and the Toba eruption. Science. 1993 Dec 24;262(5142):1955. Pubmed source

I prefer the academic sources since the pubmed cites should be stable and these papers cite many publications in the primary literature to make their arguments.

Excellent, I'm glad someone who wasn't falling asleep went digging up sources. I was really tired and just grabbed the first 3 that looked useful, and as I stated, I only glanced at the last one. thanks Daycd - and I concur, PubMed is best, almost always. (Overwhelmingly? Virtually always? Am I being POV? :P) KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Origins Main articles: Human evolution, Origin belief and Creationism

Essentially every culture has its characteristic origin beliefs. Creationism or creation theology is the belief that humans, the Earth, the universe and the multiverse were created by a supreme being or deity. The event itself may be seen either as an act of creation (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from preexisting chaos (demiurge). Many who hold "creation" beliefs consider such belief to be a part of religious faith, and hence compatible with, or otherwise unaffected by scientific views while others maintain the scientific data is compatible with creationism. Proponents of evolutionary creationism may claim that understood scientific mechanisms are simply aspects of supreme creation. Otherwise, science-oriented believers may consider the scriptural account of creation as simply a metaphor.

There is nary a word on human evolution in this mess. Jim62sch 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This used to be in the evolution section evolution section. It seemed inappropriate so i moved it to the culture section. I don't think theory of evolution should be discussed here.

David D. (Talk)

03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does it belong in culture? Jim62sch 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of mythology. Is that culture or religion? If the latter you think it should go in religion?

David D. (Talk)

21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll hate this answer: both. Jim62sch 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Both, but belongs in religion, as every myth either is now, or was once, believed as part of a religious paradigm. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with what Jim is trying to do. We need a fresh start on this article as indicated by the tepid reviews it got at

Thanks. I'm glad someone sees what I'm trying to do. As with any article I've either written or worked on, I want it to be the best it can be, written from an NPOV perspective, factual, and short enough to capture all the facts without putting the reader to sleep. There are still a lot of things that can be rewritten, some that can be shortened (and a few that could be removed or combined), but I hope we're off to a good start. Jim62sch 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Now might be a good time to discuss organization, as well. Currently we have:

1. Terminology
2. Biology
   1. Anatomy and physiology
   2. Life cycle
   3. Genetics
   4. Race and ethnicity
   5. Habitat
   6. Food and drink
   7. Population
   8. Evolution
   9. Intelligence
3. Culture
   1. Origin Beliefs
   2. Emotion and sexuality
   3. Language
   4. Music
   5. Government, politics and the state
   6. Trade and economics
   7. War
   8. Artifacts, science, and technology
   9. Body image
4. Mind
   1. Psychology and human ethology
   2. Philosophy
   3. Motivation
   4. Self-reflection and humanism
5. Spirit
6. See also
7. References
8. Further reading

Now, this is not logical or sensible. The only thing under Culture is Origin beliefs? Emotionality and Sexuality is level 1, with Language, Music, Govt. etc under it? Body image deserves its own section? I am absolutely certain we can devise a better structure. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that is the correct indenting? I adjusted indenting and added spirt back. I think this is correct although i note the order in culture has changed a bit recently.

David D. (Talk)

19:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Body image needs to go, and spirit should be in culure...beyond that, I need to set and ponder on this a spell. Jim62sch 21:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea -- bash away...

1. Terminology
2. Biology
   1. Anatomy and physiology
   2. Genetics
   3. Evolution
   4. Intelligence
   5. Life cycle
   6. Habitat
   7. Population Demographics
      1. (sub topic Race and ethnicity )
   8. Food and drink
3. Culture
   1. Language
   2. Emotion and sexuality
   3. Music , Art, Literature
   4. Artifacts, science, and technology
4. Mind
   1. Philosophy
   2. Psychology, human ethology and Motivation
   3. Self-reflection and humanism
   4. Religion and Origin Beliefs
5. Political and Economic structure
   1. Government, politics and the state
      1. War
      2. Colonization and Slavery
   2. Trade and economics
6. See also
7. References
   1. Further reading

Jim62sch 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has gone to hell in a handbasket in the last week, and the editers who helped to achieve FA status have largely left. With FA removal now a certainty, this article is beginning to look like the best argument for permanant page protection yet. We've been able to maintain FA status at wikipedia despite our obvious bias... is Human simply too much for us to handle as a collaborative project? Sam Spade 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It has not gone anywhere but up. That certain POV's have been limited to those sections in which they belong is a sign of accuracy and growth, not of decay and decline. A collaborative effort is not necessarily one in which the technical is subverted for the placation of the few. Jim62sch 00:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

why are these seperate? or at least, why is there no mention of evolution in the section "origin beliefs"? Surely, as this article was written by humans (I assume), evolution is an origin belief that is held by humans. The fact that it happens to be right doesn't mean it's not a belief. --Krsont 03:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Evolution does not address the issue of origins. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

obviously not on a cosmological scale, but it does address the origin of humanity. --Krsont 12:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, evolution is about evolution. Origins are about origins. Two different things. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, evolution discovers all biomes, not just humans. Jim62sch 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This article need not discuss about origin of life, and should focus on origin of humans. Life thrived before humans and will continue to do so after the extinction of humans. Of course, certain religious theories combine the two hopelessly, in which case they have to be mentioned together. deeptrivia (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you all seem a bit confused. Evolution is a theory that explains the origin, through natural selection, of species; including humans. I.E it is an origin belief. Unless you're saying that the section "origin beliefs" should only be focused on beliefs about the origin of the entire universe, in which case putting it in the human article is pointless; it should have it's own article. --Krsont 17:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what. Focus on "origin"/evolution of humans on this article. deeptrivia (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point in time I'm unclear where either of you are going with this. Suffice it to say that as evolution is science it will not be combined with "origin beliefs" with is mythology. Jim62sch 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as I am concerned, I give two opposable thumbs up to evolution, but that doesn't matter. To represent all viewpoints, we must mention these "alternative" beliefs somewhere. deeptrivia (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I presume this discussion is about origins of humans...well, I would say that other than evolution no other theory or belief must be mentioned in this particular article simply because the article deals with humans viewed from a scientific POV. Origin theories such as ID or any other non-scientific beliefs are best kept in articles that cover theories of the origin of the universe or species. Rohitbd 18:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Deep, See my proposed format for the article above...they would be discussed (whether or not they need to be is a separate issue). Jim62sch 18:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I feel that everyone is confused here; my point was: Evolution is one of many beliefs that are held by humans dealing with their own origin. The facts "humans evolved" and "many humans believe their origin as a species can be explained by the theory of evolution" are not the same. Hence my proposal that there be an "evolution" section for the actual facts of humanity's evolution, and a seperate one labelled "origin beliefs", presumably under culture/religion, that mentions the idea of evolution as one of many that are held by humans. --Krsont 22:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is NOT a belief. Why do people insist on this representation so often? Evolution is a theory that has been developed to explain the observed facts. It can and will change as new data is discovered. A belief on the other hand is static and defined. Origin beliefs and evolution are not similar at all.

The fact that evolution has been developed to explain observations, and that it changes as new data comes to light, does not make it any different from a belief. It's a very well thought out, scientific belief, but that's still belief. That's not to say evolution is only as good as any other origin belief, because that's obviously not true. This article infact already shows that, by portraying the evolution POV as the only definitive POV regarding the actual biological origins of the human species. But if you think "belief" is a dirty word, fine. However if we're going to write about what humans themselves think about their own origins, whatever the terminology be, I think it's extremely bizarre to leave out evolution. --Krsont 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Look up, people, up. Look at the proposed structure of the article. Both items are in there. Origin beliefs with Religion, evolution with the science aspect. Let's stop wasting bytes on this. (And, no, evolution is not a belief as it is based in fact.) Jim62sch 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you even been listening to what I've been saying? my entire point was that saying "the human species came about via a process known as evolution" is not the same as saying "many humans believe/know that the human species came about via a process known as evolution". They are two totally different facts; one biological, the other cultural. I was proposing that the science aspect continues to explain the actual truth of human evolution, wheras the "origin belief" (or whatever else you want to call it if you think "belief" is a dirty word) section deals with the sociological aspects of humanity's understanding of it's own origin; including it's understanding of evolution. Do you not see the distinction there? --Krsont 01:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I don't recall diagreeing with you re your first point. However, muddying the water by placing evolution (even in the sense of human comprehension of the theory) in with origin beliefs helps nothing (unless one is an IDist); in fact it unwittingly tends to create a false dichotomy that evolution and other beliefs (especially religious) are incompatable (see Intelligent design. So yes, I see the distinction (and did a number of posts ago) -- in fact I see it all to well. Jim62sch 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm confused. Its beginning to sound like we're all actually talking about the same thing, almost. Krsont, what do you think of Jim's proposed article structure, above? with evolution as 2.3, and Religion and Origin beliefs at 4.4? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me try: evolution is what happens. A belief is what people think is true about why something is. Evolution is observable. Beliefs are not. I do not have to believe in a rock being heavier than air; gravity is observable. When I let go of a rock, it falls, whether I believe in gravity or not. Talking about "belief" for observable phenomena is absurd. I do not have to believe in evolution for it to happen; evolution is observable. Belief is not even germane to a discussion on evolution. Origin beliefs are something very different.

Yes, gravity is a force. An observable force. However our ability to understand that force is also observable. This could be an observation made in the context of a history of scientific thought, or an explanation of human understanding of the environment. The same is true of evolution. It is a process, but it is also a theory that formulates a definition of that process. I believe this article needs a representative discussion on human "ideas about origins" that includes a description and history of humanity's understanding of evolution, along side any other ideas they've formulated (including religious beliefs). It's not about making evolution look the same as those beliefs; it's about showing the human understanding of evolution in the context of the long history of human curiosity about their origins. As for the origin of life/the universe, I personally think that should be a secondary concern - human's understanding of specifically themselves is, imo, far more relevent to an article on humans than human's understanding of the universe in general is. --Krsont 02:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that evolution should not be in the section on biology? Does that make sense?

David D. (Talk)

03:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

er, no. I'm suggesting that a discussion of the evolution of humans STAYS in the biology section; but that another section in "culture", or perhaps "religion", deals with the history of human thought on their own origins, including evolution. Like I said, there are two different facts here: one is "humans evolved" (biological) the other is "humans know they evolved" (sociological). Both facts should be mentioned. --Krsont 14:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

O.K. i was making an assumption on your position based on previous discussions on this page. I should read more carefully next time. Do you care to rewrite the origin beliefs section with the inclusion of evolution to see how it looks? I don't find belief such a dirty word but fundamentalist have a tendancy to label anyone who accepts evolution to be a member of the "atheist religion that believes in evolution". I find that usage to be a dirty word in the sense that it is false.

David D. (Talk)

22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

something like that, anyway. --Krsont 23:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Big Bang has nothing to do with the origin of humans. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

yeh i know, but the beginning of the universe is clearly related to the general concept of "origin" expressed in human culture. I therefore thought it was relevent. You can remove it if you want. --Krsont 02:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I kindly ask editors engaged in the re-write of this article to request a demotion of this article from Feature Article status. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought we already went through that? Jim62sch 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

remove

reasons:

1. This article is too long and diverges from the subject. It is trying to include all human activity. The subject is: the things that make humans different to other life forms esp. primates e.g: bi-pedalism, consciousness etc. At present it is a POV article.
2. The picture of the male and female at the top shows what the writer or writers think all humans are. Can all humans be represented as: a white muscular clean-shaven male figure with his arm raised in salutation accompanied by a white passive female?
   

paula clare16:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. So far as I know, we are all in agreement on this. Please see archives.
2. Please see archives. We have had the image argument numerous times. This is the image sent in voyager to represent the human race. It is arguably racist. This point has been made many times. Please feel free to suggest a replacement. Complaining that it is biased without suggesting a suitable replacement is not helping. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

1. It is very hard to find an image which represents all humans. It's probably better to have no image at all than a racist/sexist one. But what about replacing it with a picture of a baby of no certain gender or ethnic group signifying a fresh begining with no prejudice , creed or assumptions?

I'm not sure you could use a baby photo but an embryo would work. In the previous discussion a crowd photo was considered a possible option.

David D. (Talk)

22:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No embryos -- that opens up a whole other argument. Jim62sch 01:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A reason for not using a picture of a human noenate to represent the subject Human has not been made. A crowd photo would suggest only 'humans who lived in cities'. paula clare 14:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

2. What date does one set for are Modern Humans? 40,000 BP? Are the people living in the middle of the Amazon Jungle Modern Humans? Yes they are. paula clare 22:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm being a bit dense here. What is the point you're trying to make here? It does not seem to stem from previous discussions.

David D. (Talk)

22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not being dense. Jim62sch 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Paula, first, your comments need to go below those of others, not above; second, we don't have "judges" here so you might want to rephrase your statements to something a bit less officious. Jim62sch 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Crowds are only in cities? That is news to me. Even in the amazon jungle I'm sure there are community gatherings where a crowd congregates. The advantage of a crowd is that with the right picture diversity with regard to 'race', gender and age can be represented with one photo.

David D. (Talk)

17:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim,If you re-read my contributions to the discussion you might find they are reasonable points offered in a spirit of helpful and constructive critisism. They still have not been seriously considered. Your comment about "no "judges" here" seems to me very officious, whearas my points have been put forward to question some of the biases which slightly spoil what could be a good article. I will repeat my previous points: an image to represent all humans is very hard to find for the reason that humans always have a particular culture and each human is a specific human. The Voyager image is very culturally loaded. I am proposing that an image of a human baby would have fewer of these cultural specifics. David, I agree a crowd photo could work. I was not saying that you only get people crowding together in cities but a picture representing more than one culture would have to be in a city. paula clare 17:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about more than one culture would require cities. Isn't the baby idea going to have the same problems as the voyager image?

David D. (Talk)

17:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would.. Jim62sch 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless we can find a circle of naked babies of differing ethnicities (did I spell that right?) and even then it would be age-discriminatory, yes? So... a group image of very old, old, middle aged, adult, child, baby, of differing genders and ethnic backgrounds. Preferably smiling. Until then, I suggest the Voyager image at least has historical weight in its favor. I prefer it to a crowd image anyway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As someone mentioned earlier we just need to get Coca Cola on the job for us. Another possability is a cartoon hand print or a color paint hand print?

David D. (Talk)

03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is the first meaning the article would be a useful description of the specific characteristics of all humans . The second meaning is so vaste that it is in fact another encyclopedia within WIKIPEDIA.
Like the Voyager image, it would only cover a 'western' or 'modern-industrial' view. paula clare

1. The major defect of this article is that it is written from the point of view of humans, and is therefore very biased. An objective (biocentric) point of view is urgently needed, before humans turn the entire Earth into an exclusively human playground populated only by species tolerant of humans. See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4.

Get a life. Jim62sch 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If the major defect of the article is that it is written by humans, doesn't that apply to the entire Wikipedia project itself? Istvan 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much...let's just trash the whole project until either, a) aliens invade and take it over, or b) we develop robots with AI who will write about us. Jim62sch 13:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please watch the civility. "Get a life" is not an acceptable comment to another editor. Sam Spade 13:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Jim62sch 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the FARC, this article deserves a full chance to be refeatured, so I am unprotecting this for now. Folks, please read previous talk discussions before adding substantive stuff or anything remotely controvertial, and like always, just plain avoid POV. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice thought, but fuggedaboutit. It's already been trashed. Jim62sch

This article as it currently has been reformulated is pathetic, new-age-feel-good slop. The odds of this thing ever regaining FA status are about the same as the odds of a specific person winning the Powerball, or of the Sun suddenly imploding. At this point, a nom for deletion mightn't be a bad idea. Jim62sch 23:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the version I helped get featured:

Sam Spade 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, seen it before. But, there's an older edit, no? I think KC provided it. Yep, she did [1] No spirit transcending the body stuff here, except as a side note. Nope, NPOV, to the point, clinical -- exactly what I expect out of an encyclopedic entry. In fact, Sam, it was your changes that helped the article lose the fifth star point.

Tell ya what, I'll revert the article to its featured status until you can manage to reach a consensus on your version. Fair deal? Jim62sch 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember what I said about arrogance and ignorance being a bad combo? This article was promoted to featured status at exactly 09:29, 5 November 2005. Your mention of older edits is what some call a red herring. Notice the difference between these two versions? One is the Featured article, the other is what you put in the intro... Strange, that... Sam Spade 01:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I don't recall you saying that, but I'll take your expert advice on the subject. BTW, the featured article version that you noted has little in common with your recently proposed version (and a lot more in common with mine). To wit:

The human

feelings

.However, these views of human aspect are exclusively under European context. Within different context of culture, "Being human" could be addressed in very different ways.

Strange that... Jim62sch 01:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing strange about articles changing, this is a wiki after all... What is strange is when you claim to restore the FA intro, and place something else there instead, or when you refer to versions "earlier" than the FA version as having some special signifigance. I really don't know why your playing these games, but its not helping the article, thats for sure. Sam Spade 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes are to be expected, indeed -- but the real questions become, "what do the changes bring to the party?", "Are they NPOV, or POV?", "Do they help the article or hurt the article?"

Now then, I point you to the version as it originally stood when it was featured, "Revision as of 19:40, 4 November 2005;". That version just so happens to reflect the verbiage I put back in the article. If you wish to argue that that intro was changed while the article still had featured status, feel free to, but that is a misrepresentation of the version that received featured article status. In fact, it was the revisions that introduced a strong POV toward spiritualism, substantially and substantively changing the intro, that led to the article's removal from featured status. Additionally, religious perspectives are covered twice in the article (Origin beliefs and Spirituality)

Finally, it is not I who have been playing games and disrupting the article. If this is to regain featured status, the POV edits that wander so far away from what an encyclopedic article, and that resulted in the removal of featured article status need to stop. Jim62sch 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion. Sam Spade 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What will it take to get this article back to FA status. Let's make a list below, and address each point. IMO, if we cannot get this article (about us, humans!) to be fully compliant with WP content policies and a featured article, something must be wrong in Gotham city... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. The very rationale for the existence of this article is, to me, somewhat tenuous. From a certain perspective, much of the encyclopedia is about humans, so what can possibly be added by an article Human that is anything more than a disambiguation page? This article is far from the most fundamental of articles. It may be naturally the most troublesome. Tom Haws 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree w Tom about the unusual aspect of this article (and our fruitless attempts at impartiality regarding it), but I certainly think a full article is waranted, rather than just a disambig ;) Sam Spade 22:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Humans, in a strictly biological sense are animals. Most other animals have articles that define them in biological, social, etc., terms, why shouldn't humans? That finding a consensus on how to deal with the article is difficult merely points to the complexities of the human mind. Jim62sch 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Defining non-human animals as animals is usually noncontroversial. Defining Humans as animals is highly controversial, something that a great many (perhaps most) people disagree with. Please examine your bias and return to this effort with that perspective. Sam Spade 12:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No bias, scientific reality. That you reject this fact merely indicates your own bias that we are somehow above and apart from the other animals by Divine fiat.

You see, I do not fear knowledge, I welcome it. That we are animals causes me no grief, if anything, it makes me more appreciative of life itself, and the wonders of our existence as one of the few sentient animals on the planet. Jim62sch 00:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting and informative explanation of your point of view. Thank you. Tom Haws 18:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Defining humans as animals is controversial? Since when? and to who? Humans may indeed be defined by their attributes which other animals may or may not share, but that is in addition to not instead of their basic existence as animals. I know of no one ignorant or mentally challenged enough not to recognize that humans are mammals; we eat, we excrete waste, we reproduce via sexual means, we breathe air, we have hearts and stomachs and intestines and every other part and function of mammals. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post, Sam Spade - please explain what you mean? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Using Jim's outline as a starting point - the only change I made was to move Religion from Mind to Culture. Feel free to move and rearrange, rather than post new - just describe what you did in edit summary.

1. Terminology
2. Biology
   1. Anatomy and physiology
   2. Genetics
   3. Evolution
   4. Intelligence
   5. Life cycle
   6. Habitat
   7. Population Demographics
      1. (sub topic Race and ethnicity )
   8. Food and drink
3. Mind
   1. Philosophy
   2. Psychology, human ethology and Motivation
   3. Self-reflection and humanism
4. Culture
   1. Language
   2. Religion
   3. Emotion and sexuality
   4. Music, Art, Literature
   5. Science and technology
   6. Political and Economic structure
      1. Government, politics and the state
         1. War
         2. Colonization and Slavery
      2. Trade and economics
5. See also
6. References
   1. Further reading

Reorder: Mind after Biology, followed by Culture. Politics under culture.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jim62sch 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

One point, I'd make language first in Culture, for without that we'd have no religion. Jim62sch 00:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

agree. Done. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Concur. My only remaining concern is Terminology - do we need a separate section for that? I have no strong feelings either way, but it appears to me that we can define as needed, rather than having Terminology - and at the top of the article, too, it seems a little counter-intuitive to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What does "GE 10,000" mean, as a date (I assume)? Skittle 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

GE is a Boolean operator that means "greater than or equal to". 10,000 refers to the proposed number of breeding pairs. However, the correct operator would be LE, "less than or equal to". Jim62sch 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The War secion presents the viewpoint of war as it pertains to government and organizations. As such. I would prefer that this section is summarized under "Government, politics and the state". An alternative is to re-write that section with an emphasis on "human beings and war". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The human cost of war, physical, psychological, religious, cultural is not even touched upon. The section is also too full of military jargon. Jim62sch 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A large number of "spelling" corrections were made recently. Be aware that British spelling is not incorrect, it is different. Diff: [[2]]. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to suggest that we pick one or the other, for the sake of consistency (personally, although I'm American I prefer the Brit spelling). So, what say you all? Jim62sch 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm British, and i'd go with the spelling that the FA had at the time it was elected. I'm not sure which it is.

David D. (Talk)

03:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It was British. If we want it that way again, I'll do it. Jim62sch 13:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes it look like i am endorsing the Brit, i'm not especially bothered and often write in American on wikipedia. But, there does seem to be a wikipedia policy of first come first served.

David D. (Talk)

14:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Jim that we need to decide, so spelling is consistent across the article. Like Jim, I am American, like Daycd I have no strong preference. I suggest we go with Brit spelling as the original spelling in the article, and the spelling in the FA version. So far we have no arguments for American spelling. Let's just do it, yes? and move on to fixing more pertinent issues, such as where War goes. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I’m American too, but I don’t care which spelling we use either, as long as we’re consistent. If British spelling is the original one, then let’s stick with that. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

not some species that was found in the jungle. (this is the way I feel about this article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inanthropomorphism (talk • contribs)

I think it’s important that we at least attempt to write about subjects from a disinterested point of view. The nature, political affiliations, religious backgrounds, and so on of individual authors should not be obvious from reading an article (at least ideally). For most articles, it is easier to do so since both those part of the group and those outside will edit the article. For articles like Human, Earth, and so on, I think it's important we at least try to write the article from an observer's point of view, even if we have difficulty in seeing it that way. Also, only in this manner can we see how we fit in with and differ from other animals (and how Earth relates to other planets, and so on). — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of observer: ant, dolphin, angel, buck rogers, yoda, rock, or other? Tom Haws 19:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a dolphin, although I'm keeping it a secret now. Bottlenose dolphin. My best friend's a spinner, and I'm good buddies with a few Pacific white-sideds. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A likely story. "Some of my best friends are spinners" indeed. I bet they're just colleagues. I'd like to point out that Buck Rogers is human, and so incapable of an outsider's perspective. However, put your cat on the keyboard and the problem is solved. Skittle 18:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Am i the only one who thinks that this article is covered by images? why can't we just have less pictures more text. Robwi 17:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)