Talk:Human

Conservation status

Shouldn't it be under "domesticated"? [My squiggle key is broken.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.170.35 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because humans are, currently, quite far from being extinct or even endangered. Therefore we are placed at the other end of the spectrum from extinct: Least Concern (LC). There is no "Domesticated" category in the IUCN Red List. JSpoons (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Funnily, this is arguable; are there actualy humans living in wildlife? I belive not. This should be clarified elsewhere. HuGo_87 (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are officially designated as least concern, why shouldnt we list humans as such?

Wouldn't be calling humans animals be an opinion based on a theory, though? Oh that's right, we are "reformed" animals.

No we are animals, great apes are animals correct? We are no more special than our primate ancestors and relatives, no theory, scientific fact. Religion is theory/faith Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 (T↔C) at 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't scientific fact, it's based on evolution, which isn't 100%. Like it or not, it is still a theory, and has many holes in it. My concern is with this article not being 100% correct. Science gives us these things as the best evidence we have, yet they aren't anywhere near fact yet. I'm not suggesting we fill this article with religious stuff, but I am concerned that this article is using something that isn't proven yet as fact. Evolution at best is a theory that has holes that have yet to be filled. Don't tell me it hasn't, I've been researching it for the past year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk • contribs)

We are animals. You're not going to get far trying to argue otherwise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific taxonomy, a method for catagorizing life, defines us as "animalia" because our cells, unlike those of a plant, lack cell walls. Since humans are just like animals at the cellular level, that is how biology defines them, separating humans from plants and bacteria. But that distinction is only the second broadest. As more characteristics are considered, humans become their own species, at which point they stand alone. Unless you consider cellular structure the core of your individuality, then science is not dealing anyone any insult, because taxonomy recognizes the many differences between humans and other forms of life. --Yano (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I ever say we weren't? Actually, nevermind. I've raised this question in the past and there doesn't seem to be an answer other than to leave the article as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk • contribs)

If you indented your responses and signed your comments, it would be much easier to tell just what you are saying. But I think you did question whether humans can be considered animals when you (presumably) wrote: "Wouldn't be calling humans animals be an opinion based on a theory, though? Oh that's right, we are "reformed" animals."

Also, the scientific community, like Wikipedia, relies on consensus. A theory embraced by scientists across the board, of many different faiths and backgrounds, is no longer just a theory. --Yano (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also denied by many scientists across the board. Scientists are not 100% on the issue, they are more around 50%. Also the reason I don't have a signature is because I haven't registered.

Just because a lot of scientists agree on something doesn't mean it's necessarily true. It does help, but there is still a lot of doubt in the community. And no, not just by religious folk. Kind of like Global Warming. It's a mixed agree disagree issue that I've observed at least.

I was actually joking in that sentence, I suppose it wasn't clear enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk • contribs)

Please register if at all possible and indent your sentences! In any event, I tire of having to explain this over and over again, but here it goes. A scientific theory does not mean the same thing as hypothesis - which is how it is used in everyday parlance. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is just a "theory" in the same way that the Atomic Theory of matter is "just a theory" or the Theory of Gravity is "just a theory." There is virtually no debate in the scientific community over the existence of evolution - only on its exact molecular mechanism. Please cite a peer-reviewed journal article to the contrary. shultzc (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see your evidence that there aren't a larger number of people in the scientific community who don't agree with the theory past just one part of it.

How about [1]. This is geographically limited, but I would suggest the burden would be on you to demonstrate that a poll of Ohioan scientists is not a representative sample. The first paragraph in the section entitled "Views of Ohio Science Professors" is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't relate Evolution to Gravity. I've already seen that page.

I didn't even know that such a page on Wikipedia existed until right now - that was my own explanation. Regardless, why should I not relate Evolution to Gravity, Relativity, or Cell Theory? The word meaning is the same in every case! shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I just find it disturbing that on an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia which prides itself in fact (mostly) that there would not be a section on this article that perhaps shows the scientific disagreement and skepticism as well as holes of the theory of evolution. Or a redirect to such a page if it exists. And perhaps more than just the Scientific explanation. If Wikipedia only uses the Scientific explanation then that doesn't really make much sense. My point is, there are many different theories on how we came to be and how we have changed, including non scientific views. But on this article, those seem to be compressed to "Culture" only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk • contribs)

You're 100% correct in your objection. This page is one of MANY that reveal (quite obviously, I might add) Wikipedia's laughable bias. And then the one below me cites a Wikipedia article to try and implicitly prove its apparent lack of bias. Pathetic.

You seem to be labouring under a misconception. Try reading evolution as theory and fact. -- Avenue (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I also read that page, that really isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't understand why only the theory of evolution is presented as fact on this page. If it wasn't presented as fact, the first sentence wouldn't read "humans are bipedal primates" and continue to use the theory to explain how we have came to be and changed.

I would repeat Rivertorch's question from below. shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think more than one theory or explanation should be added to explain this. Surely there is no bias here so that only the scientific explanation deserves recognition?

I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that non-scientific explanations should be included here? If so, do you suggest that every article that makes mention of evolution be retrofitted to include non-science? shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I really wish my concerns would stop being treated as if I am just stupid and am not reading the fine print.

No one is calling you "stupid," but at least I am very concerned about your apparent desire to import non-scientific ideas into what is an inherently scientific topic. shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

68.51.41.46 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you all please refrain from having discussions that is not about improving this article about humans. bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article Wikipedia is not a forum thank you. Pro66 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is about including and excluding specific information from this article. More than appropriate. --Yano (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to get this straight - it's very hard to discuss crafting an article on humans if we can't get consensus that humans evolved, or even that they are animals. shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what I am suggesting. I didn't say "remove the evolutionary explanation" I said "add other explanations".

Are you suggesting that we're not bipedal primates? Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yano you lot are moving away from discussing about improving the article to the point of whether something is or is not i.e like rivertorch's comment above, if you guys wanna make such comment about your theories or thoughts about evolution and scientists or what not then go to each others user talk pages (its what it is for). Shultzc it seems that it is accepted across wikipedia that humans evolved and we are animals so its least likely to have ceonsensus. if you have any questions about evolution or if we are animals then go to wikipedia reference desk and then discuss it there thank you. Now going back to the point of this section, the orignal person has said "Shouldn't it be under domesticated?", no it is listed as least concern. End of topic. Pro66 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe not quite. My comment was by way of a good-faith attempt to discover whether I totally misconstrued something valid and meaningful that the anonymous editor was trying to say. If I misconstrued it, then it potentially could prove important to improving the article. If not, then I second your motion to close the discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be giving my reply to you on your talk page as this discussion page is for improving the article not about a general discussion about our feelings or what not about the topic of the article. Pro66 (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted my responses because this isn't the right place for this kind of talk.

I don't have a talk page to continue this discussion so I guess I'll register, assuming you still have one even if you don't register.

There is a lot of people outside Wikipedia who do not believe in evolution only, or don't believe in it period. And I have heard of Scientists who also aren't in agreement on this issue. But if we can't add other explanations perhaps of a Philosophical and Religious standpoint, due to the fact that I believe this to be more than just a scientific issue, that is fine.

Just seemed kind of bias to me.

I want to make something clear, I was never suggesting we remove the scientific explanation, however, I do feel that this issue is more than scientific in nature and as such deserves more than one explanation from more than one particular source. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it may sound a bit off the subject but evolution is a scientific fact. According to current understanding, we don't need to get to 100% certainty to express something as scientific fact. Same applies to all other things that critics of science refer to as "fact". We are living in the age after Popper and Heisenberg and in this general lack of certainty, evolution is fact enough to be relied on. The article is a scientific article made easy for people of non-scientific background. Our respect of critics of science and its current philosophy shouldn't make us let non-scientific ideas like separating humans from rest of the biosphere leak into a scientific article. Bornbyforce (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC) And I may also add that because of the things others have already discussed, there can be other ideas added with an explanation that humans are considered by some non-scientific classes of thought to be of different origin or not animal or... I think this can be considered a possible solution. Bornbyforce (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, but whatever floats your boat.

That is all I was wondering about, so if non scientific origins can be added that would seem best. Especially considering there is a large number of people who consider human origin more than just a scientific issue. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs and religion are discussed in Human#Spirituality_and_religion. We obviously can't treat any one of these beliefs with more favor than any other, so noting that many such Creation myths exist and discussing them as an important and interesting part of our culture is the best approach. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

Because the Pioneer image was censored, it should be un-censored for accuracy. The line for the vulva should be re-added. 128.146.46.2 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with 128.146.46.2 that the censorship of the Pioneer image makes it unsuitable for use here, I do not thing that we should edit it; we must use a different image. I am also against the use any of merged or averaged images. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Much more importantly, I fear it gives a misleading impression that of the two photographs (as opposed to unclear line drawings or paintings) of individual humans in this article, one depicts the species off their home planet with the subject totally obscured by a rarely worn full-body suit, and the other depicts a microscopic embryo still within its mother. The other reasonably close-up photograph depicts two juveniles who are obscured by being intertwined and the lower half of their bodies being outside of the frame.

I'm sure a wide range of separate, full length, good quality, free-content images of adult individuals of the species in their natural habitat are readily available, and, indeed, I seem to remember their used to be a number of these on the article in the past (including a collage thereof).

It suspected the lack of relevant images results from a series of edit wars, particularly in 2006, over which images to use (based on such irrelevant, arbitrary criteria as the individual depicted, where they live, their ethnicity, their job and their clothing or lack thereof). I don't particularly care if the images change as long as there are some that give a reasonable depiction of the species. However, if stability is necessary lots could be drawn on some of the disputed factors by editors of this article. Or, maybe, someone has produced some kind of pseudo-photograph depicting an average human by merging a number of other images.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 01:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I count four photographs of (groups of) non-fetal humans in natural, terrestrial environments. I think joeblakesley has some unstated (and strange) critera in mind that rules out all those photographs from "counting" in his enumeration. I think I take the prior comment as mostly facetious, or certainly at least spurious.

However, I think one indirect point in the comment is noteworthy. There seem to be too many images that portray artistic representations of humans, rather than simply photographs of humans directly (sculpture, paintings, etc; I guess also the lead image etching counts here too). None of them are bad in themselves, but the number seems skewed to me. LotLE×talk 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether I sound facetious to you, my point was about the lack of a close-up photograph of a single individual (also emphasised in my post above) as would be expected on the article of any other animal species. I think I was quite direct in making my point (probably too so for your liking). I wholeheartedly agree that there a noticeable bias towards artistic depictions on this article. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 13:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed several artistic images that seemed duplicative. So I'm not really concerned about that imbalance anymore. I wouldn't mind the "single individual" photo that joblakesley mentions, if a suitable one can be found. Humans are fairly social animals, so seeing them in groups doesn't seem unreasonable, but an isolated individual would be fine. Actually, the picture of an ancestor hominoid (individual, full body) seems slightly gratuitous to me in the article; replacing that with an an otherwise similar image of a fully modern human would feel like an improvement to me. LotLE×talk 21:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Pioneer image is unsuitable as a representation of the entire species, but not so much for the lack of genital detail as because it is racist (given its intended function). It assumes that white people are the prototype of homo sapiens. It also conveys gender stereotypes. The male is the one who greets, the one to address. It could perhaps serve as an example of self-representation of humans, but not in that prominent place in the infobox.--87.162.35.117 (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, the Pioneer image is the only concrete representation of humanity (i.e., other than TV broadcast signals) to be sent out of our solar system. While the image is problematic in its original usage, that usage is highly notable. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to use it here. Because WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an original reference work, it's not up to us to determine how to depict humanity; our role is to show a sampling of the various notable ways it has been depicted to date. If someone were to suggest an equally notable but less problematic image to take its place, I'd support moving the Pioneer image further down on the page, but I'm doubtful that such an alternative exists. (For the record, I find the image problematic because it is highly stylized rather than anatomically accurate and because of the Eurocentric thing. Certain comments in the archives of this talk page, in which various editors rail against the figures' nudity, are more entertaining than Onion articles, but I can't say I agree with them.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sending a poor quality and deliberately inaccurate image out of the solar system does not turn it into a good one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. For our purposes here, though, isn't "good image" sort of analogous to "obviously true statement" rather than "verifiable, citable fact"? In other words, I suspect that this article and its illustrations should reflect humanity's poor choices as well as its excellent ones (and everything in between). Rivertorch (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting point but I do not think that it is good enough reason to use the Pioneer plaque as the lead image, cetainly without comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the Pioneer image is ever found, it may become the most widely known and recognized representation of humanity. When aliens subsequently google us to learn more, we should use the same image to confirm that they are on the right page. --Yano (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course ;-) Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The image we have, though we have a black/white version of the original, isn't censored AFAIKS when comparing what we have with the original in the Pioneer plaque article. For the quality of the original, it is engraved on good all-round Aluminium stock and it's gold plated. We're not here to criticise what it is but its relevance i.e. we're not art critics, and the technology implicit in that image says more about modern humans than say how accurately depicted the vulva is in, for example, the Venus of Willendorf. In the end the intent of the pioneer plaque is to represent humans: whereas any photo we choose is us trying to identify a photo that represents humans; reliable sources always trump personal Wikipedian views. I choose the pioneer plaque because it matches the criteria of representing humans without any WP:OR. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The image has not been censored by editors here but it was censored when it was first produced, as is made clear the article that you referred to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am replying to the original claim that the image we have is censored. It is not censored by anyone as the image we have is (colour and size aside) an accurate representation of what is currently floating around in space. Your claim that it is censored when it was first produced is not only dubious (Sagan - who's idea it was anyway says why it was designed as it was) it is also irrelevant. What we have is what is right now on the space craft and it is designed to represent "Humans". Show us another image that is that widely recognisable and is designated (by a reliable source) for the purposes of representing humanity. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article, it is quite clear? It says, 'The decision to omit a very short line in this diagram was made...'? That makes quite clear that a decision was made to censor the drawing. All that is not clear is whether that decision was made by Sagan or a NASA official. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In the end we are not art critics; Artists, sculptures and painters have many reasons as to why they have created what they have created. Wikipedia (we) have not censored the image and just display that without criticising the work. That is neutral. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of art but of respect for the human body. You cannot just delete parts and pretend that they do not exist. If showing certain parts is a problem then cover them up. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see this argument is still ongoing. What is the better alternative? It's one thing to criticise the image but another thing to find a substitute that will not generate even more flak. David D. (Talk) 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agglomeration

What is the basis for the list of cities in the Human society statistics table? Wouldn't it make much more sense to list them according to this?~ thinking-ape ~ (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, if you maintain the look the article have had on the subject (very objective, like humans didn't write it) you'll agree that it doesn't matter what the city center boundries are. Any area where the population remains dense is more acceptable. The list is on the cities with highest populations in "greater" area rather than city center. I don't agree with the list anyway (there are several cities whose boundries are not distinguishable from nearby cities and you can consider them all part of the same population colony (called agglomeration here).Bornbyforce (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Human impacts on nature

This article never shows the impact humans made on the environment, how much pollution they released into the air, the countless species' extinction caused by humans,how other animals are tortured and negelected by humans. etc. this article is very biased.--Guppy22 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's there:

Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. It has been hypothesized that human predation has contributed to the extinction of numerous species. As humans are rarely preyed upon, they have been described as superpredators.[30] Currently, through land development and pollution, humans are thought to be the main contributor to global climate change.[31] This is believed to be a major contributor to the ongoing Holocene extinction event, a mass extinction which, if it continues at its current rate, is predicted to wipe out half of all species over the next century.[32][33]

Might deserve its own section, though. --Yano (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should show the scientific evidence against some of these, as well. If you go to far with one side you are being biased in my book. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)