Talk:Human

Archives 15 March 2005 — 18 March 2005 19 March 2005 — 31 March 2005 31 March 2005 — 19 April 2005 23 April 2005 — 3 May 2005 26 April 2005 — 28 May 2005 May 2005 — June 2005 June 2005 June 2005 — September 2005 September 2005 September 2005 — October 2005 October 2005 — December 2005 January 2006 — February 2006 February 2006 — March 2006 March 2006 March 2006 — May 2006 May 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – early January 2007 January 2007 – late April 2007 April 2007 – May 2008

Er...

Why does "non-human" redirect here? And what if a child sees this article? I think the article should have a more appropriate picture. Elasmosaurus (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. There are many things that are Non-human e.g. Aliens or machines, so I think that by knowing what human is someone could work out the set of what was not human. Which picture is a problem ?. They all look OK. The taxobox(picture is excellent as it's the Pioneer plaque depiction which was designed to be as neutral but representative of the majority of the human species.Ttiotsw (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

God forbid a child should know humans have reproductive organs. Deltabeignet (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid i do not understand your complaint... Do you find any pornographic content or any other unethical information in this article? Or do you think that a child should not have any idea of his/her own anatomy? 82.208.174.72 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that image qualifies as pornography. However due to the extreme social liberalism on wikipedia, negotiation is near virtually impossible. I think that a good option right now is to just having children avoid this article. --AirLiner (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's pornography? Do you people wank off to human anatomy illustrations too? Grow up God fearing idiots. C6541 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is worrying, however, is that the female depiction in the plaque has been censored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A child would already know the basic anatomy of a human body, they've seen themselves naked. It would be different had the picture depicted sexual acts, but a rather simplistic depiction of the human body hardly qualifies as pornography. JSpoons (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-human redirect

I'd propose that non-human be set up as a disambiguation page, including the video game article, Non Human, a link to the Wiktionary definition and links to the articles on non-human apes and non-human intelligences. Mind you, it only has two incoming links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Non-human . --Cedders^tk 08:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We are Humans

So write the article intended to be read by us, not some aliens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.34.152 (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not policy to write "us" and "our". The article is written from the third person perspective, as is appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And, if we were to establish contact with alien civilizations tomorrow, we won't need to rewrite the article. Zazaban (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Let us not exaggerate. All articles on Wikipedia must be written in an objective manner, and from a 3rd person point of view. No article must contain personal opinions what so ever... 82.208.174.72 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually came here to praise the fact that the page managed to maintain a third-person perspective. --Omicron91 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omicron91 (talk • contribs)

If you think about it, humans are sort of extinct in the wild. Zappo123456789 (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I DISAGREE, theres still some nomads and people in africa.--Jakezing (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually find the third person perspective somewhat annoying. Its so cold, (ironically) dehumanizing and degrading. I feel like were being treated like animals. However this is an encyclopedia article so i suppose its reasonable to keep it in third person. --AirLiner (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Airliner stop with your bullshit, we are apes which are classified as far as I know as animals. C6541 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so rude now and besides, while taxonomically we may be classified as animals, humans are still distinct enough. Enough so that it feels uncomfortable for me hearing us described as common animals in the article. --AirLiner (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the rude person: we are indeed animals. We have a common ancestry with all animals, all living things ultimately, and we are part of teh same biosphere. We are animals, more specifically apes, and any pretence of separation is just delusional... and a bit silly! 212.139.85.134 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lords of Creation

During the Pleistocene, homo sapiens lived in a magnificent and dangerous world, and may have regarded mammoths, aurochs and sabre toothed cats as lords of creation. Sapiens might have regarded themselves as just successful survivors, relying on fire and spears. Sapiens cave art suggests that sapiens painted animals that they admired, as well as animals that they ate.

David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Political Section

{{editsemiprotected}} The "Society, government, and politics" section makes the claim that most governments in the world are republics. To make such a claim, it needs to cite a source. Text: "The most common form of government worldwide is a republic, however other examples include..." JSpoons (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But could you be more specific about the edit you want made? MSGJ 11:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it all depends on HOW you classify "government". If you mean the social organisation and decision making of a a large group of people. then historically most governments have been up until very recently tribal. The very recent trend toward 'nation states' cannot be regarded as a norm, as it is new, plus we have no idea how long it will prevail.

How do qualify/quantify "most" anyway??? Per capita, per year, per unit of government??? I have no idea HOW this should be rewritten (a job for an anthropologist I reckon) but as it stands itis lacking. 212.139.85.134 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)