Talk:Human

History Section Incomplete?

I bring this up again, knowing that this topic has been discussed and archived many times. While this may never be resolved completely, I feel that the current history section suffers from a lack of bias. Namely - creation of humans as another possible way we came to be. Starting with evolution is fine, but to not make any mention of creationism as a possible history in the human history section is not fully covering this topic. Did I miss seeing something about creationism on this page elsewhere? Gbeeker (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a viable "alternate". Nobody but a small cadre od fundamentalists maintain special creation. Also see Last Tuesdayism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to mention religious beliefs in a scientific history section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Gbeeker, I think you mean "suffers from bias," not a lack thereof. Secondly, NeilN, although I agree with your statement, I disagree with its application here. Due to the quantity of individuals who believe in creationism, I believe it deserves a mention. Perhaps something like "Although there is agreement within the scientific community that humans evolved into present-day homo sapiens, some believe that Homo Sapiens emerged as the product of creationism; that is, some believe that God produced the first Homo Sapiens (directly, and not as the result of evolution)." Perhaps, afterward, a discussion/citation of information regarding the validity (rather, of course, lack thereof) of creationism would be appropriate. Again, (even ignoring my personal belief in and understanding of evolution) this is a "hot topic," it is relevant, and, as the opposition between viewpoints holds such great history, I cannot see how creationism could possibly be omitted from this article. Cheers, "Yes...It's Raining" 03:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Neanderthal gene flow and race

The study of the neanderthal genetic influence in non-African populations does not validate the concept of race, and it does not claim to. It shows that non-African populations have certain gene variants that have arisen after departure from Africa - this is not new, all populations accumulate new variants over time so obviously any population outside of Africa will have some genetic variants that populations in Africa do not have and vice versa. The new aspect is only that a part of this variation is due to gene flow from neanderthals in non-African populations. Furthermore since African and Non-African populations have not been isolated and there has been gene flow from Europe back into Africa for the last many thousand years (if not as long as since OOA) this means that African populations will also have the neanderthal genes, just presumably with lower frequency. There is no basis for reintroducing race because of neanderthal gene flow, especially not until reliable sources actually start suggesting it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Modification of skin color line

Hi, guys. This page used to say " Human skin hues can range from dark brown to pale pink." I did not feel that this appropriately covered the gamut of skin colors, which I hope others will agree, so I was bold and changed it to this: " Human skin hues can range from dark brown to pale pink, or even nearly white or colorless, such as in cases of Albinism." I hope no-one opposes; if you do, you know the drill. As this page is semi-protected, I figured I'd bring up this change on the talk page. Cheers! "Yes...It's Raining" 05:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "Human"

"Human" = Homo sapiens???

The Wikipedia definition of "Human" as synonymous with Homo sapiens is clearly incorrect. The Oxford English dictionary defines "human" as (and I quote):- "A human being, a person; a member of the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo." I would go further and say the term is frequently used in connection with closely related species which demonstrate strongly human features, for instance Australopithecus and Pithecanthropus.

I don't have a problem with the article's content, but to reflect general practice, the article "Human" should embrace the whole genus, while Homo sapiens should have its own article in Wikipedia. (Darorcilmir (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

FWIW - I've Not Been Able (so far) To Find The Oxford English Definition You Mention In Your Post Above - My Findings (with online references) Seem Different -> Oxford Definition of "HUMAN" -> "a human being." Oxford Definition of "HUMAN BEING" -> "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We clearly need a separate article on Homo Sapiens and the most commonly used way of referring to Homo Sapiens in the English language is "Human", and at the same time the most common way to refer to extinct members of the genus Homo is not as Humans but as "Hominins" or "Hominids". There is no force behind this argument.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right. When speaking in certain contexts e.g.: "Primitive humans such as Homo habilis", the referent of expert usage of the word "human" does actually have a much wider scope than that of this article, which might be called "fully modern Homo sapiens sapiens". There are many good reasons for this, not the least of which lies in the fact that this referent is way plenty wide enough a scope for any one article to effectively handle, and so any attempt to widen this scope is probably doomed, so let's not try. What this article needs to do, however, is to address this concern in as blunt, upfront, and as clear a way as possible that, although this article is going to draw the circle around its referent where it does, that doesn't mean that experts don't often use the term to refer to a wider scope. I'm not exactly sure the best way to go about it. Re-reading it just now, such a sentence would seem to fit quite well in the section on Etymology, which I'd then retitle "Etymology and Semantics" or some such. We'd start a new paragraph at the end of that section and frame the sentence along these lines: "Althogh in this context blah blah "Fully Modern H.s.sapiens, .... nevertheless true that some experts ... any of the Homo (genus) "humans"... yadda yadda even Australopithecus..." and whatnot, but to keep it really brief and to the point. Having done this, your concern will have been addressed and acknowleged and at the same time the article to have the referent with the scope it wants. Chrisrus (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Good idea. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - The Recently Added Text Seems Excellent - And Seems To Cover The Issue *Very* Well - Thanks For Related Effort - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. It could be tightened up somewhat, I suppose, like most new passages, but it sure does the trick. Actually, the section's purpose may be to spell out the scope-redirect hatnote to Homo (genus) in full sentences. Chrisrus (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think the introduction of "modern" before "humans" in the definition is necessary or an improvement. The article is about humans as a species and that includes archaic Homo sapiens. I also don't know of any sources that call fossil hominins "humans" - not even Neanderthals or Homo erectus. humans without qualification can very generally be taken to mean Homo sapiens - also in texts about human evolution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We don’t know much about archaic humans. We don’t know how well this article speaks for them. With how much confidence can we say this article speaks equally well for Archaic humans? Reason dictates that they have been different than us to one extent or another in one or more of the ways humans are described by this article. Let’s not burden this article by claiming that it speaks for anyone but fully modern humans, which, despite the treatment of ancestry, evolution, and close relatives, indisputably fully modern humans are the referent of this article as written. Otherwise, we'll have be careful that everything this article says is equally true of archaic humans. Chrisrus (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem, no. The vast majority of humans that have lived are fully modern, and the vast majority of the literature is about and by fully modern humans. The issue of separating out archaics and other early hominins is so small that it doesn't deserve to determine the first word of this article in my opinion. In 99,9999% of the instances in the literature "human" means "modern humans" and if speaking about archaics one will write archaic humans or homo heidelbergensis or something like that. There really is next to no potential for confusion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Great Discussion - Nonetheless, Seems The Word "Human" Is A Part Of The Oxford Definition Of "NEANDERTHAL" -> "an extinct species of human that was widely distributed in ice-age Europe between circa 120,000 and 35,000 years ago, with a receding forehead and prominent brow ridges" - Seems Relevant To The Discussion - But Maybe Not - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The article Homo (genus) covers pretty much all of the animals commonly called "human", albeit often with some kind of modifier such as "primitive", "archaic" or "early". So that article is about "humans" in the broadest sense of the term. The scope is this article is more limited than the scope of that one. Then we have articles about Homo sapiens of other subspecies, but despite the mention of other kinds of humans in this article, it's clear as written that this article is speaking about modern Homo sapiens, not other subspecies. How do we know if other subspecies had religion like us, lived in families like us, or were otherwise the same as the animal described the different subsections of this article? We don't because some we know about only from literally just a fingerbone or a knee or something. Then there must have been others we don't have any proof of at all. Doesn't this article have enough to do in describing indisputably fully modern humans? It's so much easier this way if we're clear from the outset what the scope of this article is and stick to it, which is what the article already does as written, despite the discussion of origins and the wider genus Homo and other subspecies of Homo sapiens aside from H.s.sapiens, the only surviving memeber of the genus and the only surviving subspecies of the species. That's a good idea to add that fact. Modern humans are defined as not only the only living Homo species, we're also the only surviving subspecies of the species Homo sapiens, and acknowledge that there were other things that experts call "humans" but this article is going to have to limit the scope to fully modern Homo sapiens sapiens and that's WAY WAY plenty wide enough a scope for one article, thanks, so that's what the referent of this article is and has been and is going to continue to be, if for practicality reasons alone. Chrisrus (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We agree about the scope, but we disagree about whether the limited scope requires us to put the qualifier "modern" before humans. I think we don't need to do that since it will be abundantly clear to a reader that in the context of this article (and in 99,99% of all other contexts) humans=modern humans. The qualificatioon "modern" is liabel to cause more confusion than clarification - necessary clarifications are in the hatnote and etymology section.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

With this edit, we don't need that hatnote anymore. With that one word "modern" in the subject noun phrase, we summerize the supporting body text you refer to. By saying "Modern humans, it says to the reader "this article is using the normal around 99% common definition, fully modern humans, only, H.s.s., the only existing species. I want to add subspecies, then we'll have it. The only existing subspecies as well. Lead sentences, especially the subjects of lead sentences of articles, should clearly identify referent and scope. This is what the lead is supposed to do. The referent is humans, but also the scope is, we're limiting it to modern humans, only.

By the way, fabulous work today, Manus. Keep up the good work. Chrisrus (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I tried but don't know how to make the following edit to the taxobox:

The taxobox should be changed to specify the received referent of this article, the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, so to be consistent with this article.

This would eliminate all pretence that this article is trying to speak for any and all other subspecies of Homo sapiens there there are known to have existed or must have existed, but about which we know very, very little or nothing about, and therefore we can have no confidence that they were like H.s.s. in all the ways the subspecies is described in the many sections and subsections of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think the argument makes sense. The scope is Homo sapiens - and the article writes as much as necessary about the possible subspecies and the ways in which they might be different from modern humans. We don't need to restrict it to one subspecies - the scope is "humans" and the principle of weight determines that the buk of the article has to be about modern humans and that other humans are treated according to their relevance to the main topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit should be done if for no other reason than that on Wikipedia, taxoboxes follow the lead sentence. We can't have articles saying that their referent is this in their leads and then having a diffent scope in the taxobox. Leads summerize articles and taxoboxes are determined by the lead. Having one taxon in the lead and another in the taxobox is just not done for good reasons. Chrisrus (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead sentence says "Humans", and the species should be "Homo sapiens" not "Homo sapiens sapiens". I don't see where you got consensus for changing that to a specific subspecies. The article should and does include information about other possible subspecies such as the Neanderthal question. Also the sources given does not support Sapiens sapiens - only Homo sapiens.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also try to read the rest of the article - it very clearly treats Homo sapiens in general and not just sapiens sapiens. There is of course more information about the latter so that predominates, but it is related to knowledge of earlier species pretty much throughout the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Another issue is that there is no agreement about subspecies status. Writing Homo sapiens sapiens - presumes the existence of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and/or Homo sapiens idaltu (or even Homo sapiens erectus)- these aren't generally accepted as subspecies and we shouldn't take a stance either way. I think the correct thing is to mention that there is disagreement about the status of these groups and then simply treat Homo sapiens as synonymous with Homo sapiens sapiens.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you've done, you've made taxobox and lead consistent by editing the text, not the taxobox. That works as well. The important thing is that the article be coherent about it's scope. I stand down on my efforts to narrow the scope of the refernt of this article to anything greater than fully modern Homo sapiens sapiens. The only thing left to do with regard to scope is to re-read the article again to ensure that it doesn't seem to be saying that what we say about H.s.s. is necessarily true about H.s.whatever; i.e.: to ensure the text is consistant with taxobox and lead. There may some text tweeking needed to keep the scope of the box, lead, and body the same. There's no need for this "try to ... article" comment. The rest of the article makes all kinds of statement about humans that can only be confidently made about fully modern H.s.s. and not so made about any other subspecies such as there must have been and we don't know much about. You are correct that it does speak about human ancestry and our close and distant cousins, even those which are not human. This the article deals with the gray areas and imperfect overlap between common name and taxon quite well. But dealing with gray areas well and discussing the relationships of animal X and animal Y does not widen that the topic of an article about animal X to to include animal Y. Otherwise, when the article "horse" talks about eohippus and zebras and mules, it would cause the scope of the article Horse to be Equis or something instead of Equus ferus caballus. Chrisrus (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I tried to do. We can certainly look over the article to see if it makes claims that are contradictory - I don't think it is contradictory to say "Humans have X" if they have so now but didn't 150,000 years ago - only if we claim that "HUmans have always had X", which i don't think we do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A few questions

It's been a while since I've started a talk page discussion, so bear with my verbosity. First, should the second paragraph possibly start with something akin to "Based on available evidence..." or " The majority of anthropologists believe...". I ask this only in the sense that it seems presumptuous to assume this information will not change in the future. Understand, I'm not advocating pseudo-scientific alternatives, rather I'm suggesting that this is science's best explanation at the moment, and like most good science this information may be subject to future changes. Or is this just overdoing it?

Second, I'm curious as to the context of articles like this on Wikipedia. Articles are supposed to represent as complete a worldview as possible. However, this assumes that Wikipedia is only to be read by Earthlings (don't worry, I'm not crazy, keep reading). The article asserts such claims as "Humans are uniquely adept at ... language." In the context of Earth or even our solar system, this assertion is true. In the context of the known galaxy or universe, it probably is not. Again, I'm not advocating alien origins or UFO contacts. But I am curious on a broad scope (related specifically to articles such as this) if Wikipedia is designed as a resources exclusively for use in the context of any other Internet media. Or is it a record maintained to both educate current generations and additionally provide an archive of information should humans be wiped out? (I don't think this will happen, but we keep seeds on ice, so why not information?)

Okay, if you're still with me at this point, I'd appreciate any thoughts. Again, I'm not advocating anything crazy, I'm just curious how Wikipedia regards these "issues" in the context of an article as broad as this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DKqwerty (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 July 2012

On your first point, no article like this is set in stone. We merely try to present the facts as understood by the mainstream scientific community. Parts of the article may have to be revised if and when the mainstream scientific understanding of the subject changes, but we cannot predict, and should not anticipate in this article, what in this article might change, or when.

On your second point, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia states, "An encyclopedia is a written compendium which conveys information on human knowledge." It is implicit that our readership is human. (On the voice used in this article, please see Q5 in Talk:Human/FAQdraft, or, as Chrisrus once said on the question of how we can maintain a neutral tone in this article, "We do our Mr. Spock impression.") As we know nothing about any intelligent extraterrestrials, we do not write for them. -- Donald Albury 10:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding your first question, "Based on available evidence" is a given. Obviously it's not based on unavailable evidence, but I think it pretty well goes without saying that that paragraph and others are based on evidence. The sources we cite generally don't include such qualifiers, so why should we? If consensus among scientists changes, we'd change the article. And it's not a question of the majority of anthropologists; it's a broad consensus within the field of anthropology and beyond. I think your second point is quite interesting. The phrase "as far as we (humans) know" is implicit in the article, and I think that's the key. If compelling evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life came to light, assertions about unique adeptness would require some tweaking, I suppose. Rivertorch (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Encyclopedias are written by humans for humans, based on the knowledge that humans currently have. We don't need to take all speculative eventualities into account.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dk, the article already does things such as use the word "known" quite a bit, as in "...the only known animal..." This covers your objection where it is done, because it concedes that there could be others we don't know about. If you find another place where to add such a word or phrase would be helpful without disturbing the flow and too much or something, then be WP:BOLD, but as others have said, "According to current general expert consensus..." and "Based on available evidence,...." and so forth are implied clauses for basically any article and therefore not necessary or helpful to say explicitly most of the time, so keep that in mind when making such edits. I'll probably have a look at it and see what I can do.

Donald and Maunus, you are right that we write for people, not aliens, at the same time that's a pretty good description of what we do. Wikipedia articles like this one assumee ignorance of the referent by the reader, but our readers are human so they can't be ignorant of many of these things. Many readers have commented that the net effect of this is an article written for someone who needs to be told that, for example, humans are bipedial and hold things in their hands, but still for some strange reason knows English. People that know English but don't know anything about this subject don't exist, but this is nevertheless the best way to do it because it imposes a certain objectivity which leads to insight that comes with striving to look at yourselves from the outside. Personally speaking, it's what I enjoy most about this article, but more to the point it's just what happens when you try to write an objective article about yourself. Chrisrus (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I find that style to be phony and stilted and give only the illusion of objectivity. If I were writing this article alone I would write "We humans" instead of using the third person.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny, however...

The "Soldiers" link in the "War" section links to a Jean Claude Van Damme movie. Probably not right. 98.24.199.213 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Guy

Good catch; fixed. It probably wasn't intentional. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Is lanky an offensive word?

In Biology => Biological Variation. There are 2 pictures. It is saying how people from different climates have different physical characteristics. The first picture shows a few people of the Masai from Kenya. Under the picture, it says the following:

"People in warm climates are often relatively slender, lanky, and dark skinned such as these Masai men from Kenya."

definition of lanky: Ungracefully thin and tall. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lanky

Lanky seems a little offensive. Maybe replacing lanky with tall would be ideal, because skinny is already listed in the characteristics. Why list skinny twice, especially when the second skinny(lanky) means ungainly, or not pretty.