Talk:Human

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)

I was just trying to ask for a citation, but because the article is protected, I can't add the [citation needed]. I am questioning the claim that most governments in the world are republics. Without a source, it comes off as Eurocentric. JSpoons (talk) 17:22, 1 December 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)

It is reasonable to accept the nation state as the standard political entity today. I understand that most nation states in the UN are republics, and I have no objection to the statement in the article. There is an undercurrent: most of the poorest and most incompetent states are republics, and many of the richest and most stable states are constitutional monarchies, but there is no need to include such an observation in the article. --David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But the nation state is such a brief blip on humanity (within 1.5 centuries and mere decades in many if not most cases); it is plain wrong to suggest that is is a norm.

Since the statement as it reads now (I'm assuming you're still referencing the original statement I brought up) is regarding the present state of governments throughout the world, the history isn't being addressed. If you aren't referencing the original statement, then it might be reasonable to add, or ask for, a subsection about the history of government throughout human history. JSpoons (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Richest states constitutional monarchies??? You surely aren't implying that the monarchical dictatorships of the Emirates pass as democracies? Are you also implying that there are only two models of government (republic & monarchy)?

I think he was referencing Western European nations when talking about constitutional monarchies, based on the stability comment. JSpoons (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to constitutional monarchies, not absolute monarchies. I should add that many of the poorest & most incompetent republics are only nominally democratic & should be regarded as dictatorships. The rule seems to be that any country which actually uses the word democratic in its name is really a dictatorship. ---David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is near-sightedly misleading and painfully Eurocentric. The nation state itself is a new development let alone speaking of republics. 88.109.98.246 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How many angels can stand on the head of a pin, or split a hair? Nation states go back to ancient Assyria, 5,500 years, and thousands of years in China and India. --David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Habitat

This section reads very Eurocentric. Agriculture/civilisation is very new to humanity. They way this section is written implies it is the norm... when clearly it can't be so easily regarded. Hunter-gatherer communities were far more prevalent for the larger part of human history. 212.139.85.134 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The hunter-gatherer communities were addressed in the section "Transition to Civilization", immediately before the section titled "Habitat". This section is not meant to describe the history of human habitats, but rather to describe the relationship between modern humans and their habitats, which is far more complex than the relationship before the advent of civilization. JSpoons (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Race

"although the validity of the gene expression is not completely understood because human races as distinct like other biological categories such as gender or intelligence quotient is still questionable." This reads like a sop to ever-decreasing minority scientific opinions regarding the viability of "race". 212.139.85.134 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The way it is written now is unclear and it does need to be revised, but I think the point it is trying to make is that the grouping of humans based on race is similar to grouping humans based on hair color; it has no real impact on the human, it is merely appearance. When it contrasts race to gender, it is trying to make the contrast of classifying humans based on appearance and based on significant genetic differences that go beyond appearance. I will concede that the argument regarding IQ is weak and unfounded, seeing as how there is no scientific evidence that genetics affect intelligence. JSpoons (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving to /dev/null ?!

I recently added the auto-archiving to Talk:Human. However, this recent archive seems to be a problem:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHuman&diff=254711994&oldid=254614258 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to /dev/null.)

Obviously, we want the archive somewhere other than /dev/null. Looking through the actual archive pages, the latest seem not to contain recent threads. Actually, looking a bit earlier:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHuman&diff=252905873&oldid=252874544 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to /dev/null.)

This seems to be same problem. How do we fix this? If we can automatically move the erased material to actual archive pages, so much the better. But if manual action to get things going right in the future is needed, let's do that. LotLE×talk 07:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)