Talk:Human: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:42, 15 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35: 15 days

Template:VA

Human is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 13, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
November 1, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 13, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
November 14, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
January 1, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:WP1.0

Primates B‑class Top‑importance

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

Tree of Life B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals B‑class High‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology B‑class Top‑importance

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

Transhumanism B‑class High‑importance

Human' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help click Show:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Quick help:

See changes to:

To Do List:

edit - history - watch - purge

Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold

Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt an article.
Help out with the To-do lists

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for transhumanism related articles (see: The perfect article, and Featured articles)
Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see navigation template)
Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box)
Add [[Category:transhumanism]] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the list of transhumanism articles

Maintenance / Etc

Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources.
Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process)
Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles)
And always write for an encyclopedia.

Create

Notable transhumanist articles

Shorten / merge into others

Expand

a transhumanism stub

Your immediate attention

false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Transhumanism, using footnotes.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why does the Human article use the third person? Aren't we humans?

A1: The third person ("Humans are..." or "They are..." as opposed to "We are...") is simply the conventional mode of writing for Wikipedia and other reference works. We realize this may cause some phrases in Human to sound quite strange — "a majority of humans professes some variety of religious or spiritual belief" sounds almost like it was written by space aliens. However, the occasional strangeness this approach may lead to is still preferable to the alternative of inconsistency.

If we were to use "we" in the Human article, it would mean sometimes switching strangely between persons as we narrow our topic of discussion. For example, even if an editor were female, she would be forced to write things like "We humans, and especially those females...." Whenever a subgroup of humanity became the article's focus, we would need to switch to the third person; a sentence about humans would use "we", but a sentence about adults, Asians, engineers, or heterosexuals would need to use "they". It is far simpler to just consistently use the third person in all contexts, even if this doesn't always seem completely natural.

A related issue is the fact that, as a general rule, Wikipedia prefers to avoid self-references. In addition to being human, all editors on this site happen to be English speakers — yet we treat our article on the English language the same way we treat every other language article, in order to avoid bias and inconsistency. Likewise, we treat Wikipedia the same as other websites and reference tools. Analogously, we ought to aspire to treat Human in much the same way that we treat every other species article. Ideally, we should make exceptions of Human only where objective, verifiable facts demand that we make exceptions (e.g., in employing a lengthy behavior section). This is the simplest and easiest way to avoid bias and to prevent editorial disputes: When in doubt, follow the rest of Wikipedia's lead.

Q2: Aren't humans supposed to be purely herbivorous/frugivorous despite our modern omnivorous habits? Aren't we jungle apes albeit highly intelligent and largely furless jungle apes? Most jungle apes eat no meat or very little.

A2: No, we really are natural omnivores. Contrary to popular belief, we humans did not evolve in jungles. We actually evolved on open grasslands where fruit-bearing trees are nowhere near as plentiful as in the jungle, where most of our surviving close relatives evolved. Evolving in such a place, we would have always (for as long as we've been humans rather than Australopithecines and other even earlier fossilized genera) had to supplement our diet with meat in addition to plant material. We evolved also eating plant-derived foods to be sure; the Savannah (grassland) has some trees with edible fruit although comparatively few and far between, and grain-bearing grasses are far more plentiful there than any tree. (Some evidence suggests that the first bread and beer were made from these tropical grains long before recorded history.) Even so, the grassland being much less fruit-rich than the jungle caused us to evolve as true metabolic omnivores, not pure herbivores/frugivores. See the Archived Debates on this subtopic for source documents.

Q3: How was the lead image chosen?

A3: The current lead image was added on 15 September 2009 following this discussion and given this explanation. In short, an editor looked at commons:Category:Couples and picked one. Due to alphabetical sorting, this one came up early (the filename starts with "A"), so they picked it. They were looking for an adult couple standing side-by-side. The use of this image has been discussed many times over the years, including but not limited to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The current wording of this FAQ entry was decided following this discussion. See also our policy on photo galleries of people.

Q4: Is it possible for an infobox image to perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity?

A4: No.

Q5: Is it possible for the text of this article to perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity?

A5: No.

Q6: If we can't make a perfect representation, should we still try to make the best representation we can?

A6: Yes. Of course. Because Wikipedia is a work in progress.

Q7: How should the infobox image best represent humanity?

A7: The lead image should illustrate important features of the subject — in the case of Human, these include an upright bipedal gait, hands specialized for manipulating tools, and use of cultural products such as clothing.

Lead images can attempt to encapsulate the broad strokes of the diversity and variation in its subject (e.g. Frog, Primate). The current consensus is that attempting to do further like that for humanity is not practical. There is a guideline MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES that exists due to issues on this topic in the past, stating that we may not assemble a gallery of many images into the infobox.

And regardless of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, by picking just one image, we leave space for showing important details of that image which would be obscured if we shrank it in order to fit multiple photos in. Sometimes, what a collage gains in diversity, it loses in detail and clarity. In this case, the current consensus is that the topic covered at Human is best served with a single image — a collage of faces, for example, would fail to illustrate the human body.

Q8: Shouldn't the lead image show more major groups of humans?

A8: There is no good way to decide which groups of humans are the "major" ones. We currently just show an example of male and female, this is a middle ground that represents the current consensus: only show biological sex groups, not others. Showing further groups, such as along ethnic lines, is contentious and does not have consensus.

While many Wikipedia articles on diverse subject matter (e.g. Spider, Bird) do attempt to encapsulate that variety through galleries and selections of images, we are prohibited from doing so on this article per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES even if we wanted to. Other articles on diverse subject matter sometimes similarly have few examples, or even one example, rather than a collage in their infobox (e.g. Whale).

Fortunately, this article is not called "humanity", but simply "human". We are fully justified in just picking some human off the street as an example, rather than getting wrapped up in unverifiable species-wide generalizations and categories. We have only taken one further reasonable step of showing a couple, one male and one female.

Q9: The current image is [blurry] / [low resolution] / [JPG artifacted], shouldn't it be replaced?

A9: The current consensus is that this isn't that big a deal. When viewed as normal at thumbnail size at a glance, you can't really tell.

Q10: The current image shows two people, not one. Doesn't that violate MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to begin with?

A10: The current consensus is that group photos probably do not violate MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. That guideline is based on a RfC, and is to be interpreted narrowly. It specifically only prohibits galleries or photomontages to illustrate ethnic groups or other similarly large human populations. The consensus on this page is that a group photo does not count. Past discussion of this can be found here.

Q11: Could the lead image be a different photo? Perhaps a group photo with more than two people in it? Or a photo of an individual?

A11: There is nothing prohibiting that, it is just not the current consensus to do that on this page. It would likely take a large discussion and very strong arguments for why the alternate image is an improvement.

Q12: Other ethnic groups have lead images such as a flag or map (e.g. of population density). Could that be the lead image (instead of any image(s) of humans)?

A12: There is nothing prohibiting that, it is just not the current consensus to do that on this page. There already is a population density map at the bottom of the infobox.

Q13: Why isn't the lead image more abstract or symbolic?

A13: Because any attempt to symbolically or nonliterally depict humans will subtly express an editorial opinion about what the "essence" or "nature" of humanity is. Even if we pick a famous artist's work to put at the top of Human, the fact that we chose that particular work, and not another, will show that we endorse certain non-encyclopedic points of view about humanity. The only real way to avoid this pitfall is to not pick an image that is even remotely symbolic or nonliteral — a completely literal, straightforward photograph simply depicting a human, with no more "deep meaning" than our lead image for Brown bear has, is the most neutral option available.

It is also worth noting that most abstract depictions of humanity remove a great deal of visual information. Wikipedia's purpose is educational, and our readers include non-native English speakers, young children, neurodivergent people, and other readers who will be best served by a clear, unambiguous, and factually rich depiction of the topic at hand.

Imaginative works also tend to be much more subjective and idiosyncratic than photographs, reflecting the creator's state of mind as much as the subject matter itself. The purpose of an article's lead image is to accurately depict the article's subject matter, which in this case means accurately depicting a human.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35: 15 days

Population density

I think that a map of the human population density could be put along with (or in the place of) the map of human range. It seems to be more informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.136.207.220 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Living or extant?

Regarding this well-intentioned change, while the meaning remains reasonably clear, the words are not quite synonymous (and in fact do not appear in each other's entry in either of my thesauri). Extant, meaning "surviving" or "still in existence" (my emphasis, obviously), carries the implication that other, comparable species have become extinct. It is a word that's frequently used in reference to species, and I don't think it's esoteric in the least. (I'm pretty sure I first encountered it in primary school.) While it's often a good idea to avoid a ten-dollar word when a ten-cent word will do, the downside of simplifying any article's vocabulary too much is that it eliminates opportunities for learning. Carry that to its logical conclusion and we're left not only with dumbed-down articles but dumbed-down readers. If this were the Simple English Wikipedia, I wouldn't object. Since it's not, how about restoring extant along with a nice interwiki link to the precise word in Wiktionary? Rivertorch (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting that another editor has reverted to extant) How about the Wiktionary link? Does anyone else think that might be helpful? Rivertorch (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the change was made in good faith but, as you say, there is a subtle difference in meaning between 'living' and 'extant' which you have explained above. As another example of the difference in meaning we can have extant types of rock for example although these are not living. Another way to describe the word is as the opposite of 'extinct', which is not quite the same as 'dead'. I would have no objection to the wictionary link. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

humans are primates?

I disagree with the first sentence. For over 500,000 years we have struggled to answer this question. Saying that we are primates negates all of that. It's a scientific opinion, true, but very materialistic. We operate primate bodies, but saying we are primates is like saying that since we drive vehicles, we are the vehicles. Forgot to sign it: 71.22.155.114 (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum, we go by sources. Oh and we are primates, whether you like it or not. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a proposed rewording? Wikipedia articles should clearly state the obvious and give appropriate weight to all published viewpoints - it shouldn't play down or gloss over basic, useful facts simply because a small minority of readers might find the information to be "true, but materialistic". --McGeddon (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "a small minority of readers...." Do you mean the 84% who believe in spiritual matters, or the 16% who don't? Our bodies are primate, but the non-neutral POV that has decided we are nothing but animals is... non-neutral. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its nonsense to consider the 84% of religious people as a single group they do not all share any single belief about what humans are or arent. For the vast majority of religious people there is no contradiction between the existence of spirituality and the fact that humans are primates. Also wikipedia is not supposed to reflect what many people believe, but what they know.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly to IP, Wikipedia deals in scientifically-established facts and reliable sources whether you like it or not, regardless of the personal beliefs of anyone of any culture or religion. There are actually some people who believe humans are beings from another planet, but we don't include that opinion here, we include facts that are well-established in empirical science, which has classified humans as primates. Cadiomals (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. In other words, it is the consensus among the primates who edit Wikipedia that verifiable facts and not unverifiable opinions form the foundation of their encyclopedia. Many articles, including this one, acknowledge the existence of spiritual beliefs, but they don't present them as alternative sources of verifiable fact. The IP might pause and consider that the 84% he or she mentions (which is in itself unverifiable without a bevy of qualifiers) is far from monolithic, frequently argues within its ranks over even the most basic of spiritual "truths", and includes lots of primates who take science and verifiable fact very seriously. Rivertorch (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for starting a p*ssing contest. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you see it that way. I think you received some rather measured, thoughtful replies. If you were to glance over the archives of this page (33 pages and counting), you'd see that you were offering a variation on an oft-sung refrain. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've glanced over the archives. I see some people have Hegellian-itis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.162.143 (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia says an encyclopedia "is a type of reference work – a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." It goes on to its derivation, enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education" or "complete knowledge". Are there serious arguments about this? 24.234.105.125 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Okay, we must all be in agreement here. Hope that isn't a kick in the head. Elementalwarrior (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC) You're right; I did get some thoughtful replies. "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute." It is difficult for me, and perhaps others, to retain senses of humor and proportion when so many people are so serious. All right. This bald statement that a human is nothing but a primate seems so... inadequate. I agree, there's this primate body. But it's just a body. I mean, if all it took to be a human was a primate body, then a just-fertilized zygote would be human. So, if you are serious that all it takes is a primate body, then you must be just as serious in opposing abortion. Because that zygote has a primate body, ipso facto, it is human, and is deserving of human rights, such as, the right to life. Which brings up, what happens at death? There's a homo sapiens body right there, on the slab, no pulse, respiration, brain activity, or other bodily functions. But according to "Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo." a zygote as well as a dead body are human. So... that's all it takes, is a homo sapiens body? Elementalwarrior (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

psychology

This section assumes that humans are animals with cool attributes. Not sure that's true, but it is "accepted" by people who write articles. lol. Why are the educated and over-educated as well as nerd's ideas so important? How come this article ignores the fact that 86% of the human race believes there are spiritual aspects to life? It's worse than merely ignoring. It tries to bury the idea, that we are spiritual beings animating bodies. Sorry, that won't go away. Can we at least mention that some scientists believe there is a spiritual aspect to being human? Maybe a mention of Faculty Psychology, which although has "fallen out of favor" has never been disproved or "non-straw man" challenged. Human beings have mental and spiritual faculties or abilities, such as reason, will, free will, self-talk, emotion, love, senses of morality and aesthetics, etc., that just can't be explained by "Humans are animals that can be conditioned." 71.22.155.114 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spiritual aspect of being human is already covered in the article's "Religion and spirituality" section, with links to in-depth articles on these subjects. --McGeddon (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]