Talk:Human

Replacement of anatomy image

Previous image

New image

I suggest that the anatomy image shown in the biology-section should be replaced with a new one. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Replacement of human anatomy image. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: This image is clearer. In particular, it gets rid of the camera angle distortion on the female human. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They're all awfully white! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.41.121 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Having an entire article on humans with almost nothing but whites would be unacceptable; having a few pictures of white people among many others is acceptable. --152.65.39.146 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you give any legitimate reason why we should go out of our way to find pictures of different races? Or are you just trying to purposelessly be politically correct? Not done because there is no reason.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can. That's what we would do for any plant or animal with several main varieties. Think of it as a report from Dr. Phlox to the Denobulans or some such. They're going to want to know about the basic types of this animal and want to see an example of each. It's not all that different from this picture: It has nothing to do with political correctness.

• 

Chrisrus (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No. If he wanted to show us all varieties, he woud just do it. Choosing one white female and one Asian male helps nothing, it only confuses people. It looks like the 2 belonged together. --Kmaga (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the picture of the different races, here:

• File:RaceMugshots.jpg

. I don't know why the artist chose a white and an Asian were chosen for that picture, but maybe it's because those are the two most common varieties of this animal. What would you prefer, that they both be Asian? We have an Asian couple in the infobox. Maybe it was just the two models he had available and didn't think it mattered. You can't show "all varieties" when the picture has to be of two individuals. Chrisrus (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

But the prupose of the image isn't to show all varieties and races, its purpose is to describe the human anatomy. Both sexes must be of the same race in order not to create confusion. --Kmaga (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd thought you were talking about the composite picture of all the different races. About the anatomy picture, what "confusion" does having them be two different races cause? Chrisrus (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"...except Antarctica..."

Is this strictly true? Please read Antarctica#Population. A tweek to the wording at least is in order to clarify what we mean when we call it unpopulated. Chrisrus (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no permanent human population in Antarctica. There are scientists at research bases there, but each individual is there on a temporary tour of duty. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that it should clarify the idea something like "...on every continent except Antartica, even on Antarctica, where, even though no one lives there all their lives, there are at least a few people living there at any given moment and many hundreds in the summer". Like it might say "...and even maintain perminently manned stations on Antarctica". Chrisrus (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External Anatomy specimen Picture discussion revisited

Well I don't know about you, but I don't think the female in the current picture is showing any female signs at all except for a vagina. And why have have they SHAVED all their hair? I can definitely accept trimmed hair as that makes it easier to see how man and women are different, in the current picture I might add.

Also, what the hell is this about showing boy, man, elderly man and female counterparts from different culture/race anyway? I mean yes, this article is supposed to cover all humans and be politically correct etc, but in it's current state it's just not very outlined what the differences are. I mean why mix race and gender into a picture that is supposed to differentiate between the differences of age, just confusing everything and make it harder to compare? It makes no sense at all. This comparison is more appropriate in a teachers presentation about diversity. And the previous poster can argue all he wants that the camera angle was somehow making comparison more clear but the camera angle helped clarifying two things; that fact females (who are not obese) have hips and thies (can't recall the correct spelling and the dictionary in my web browser ain't helping either) wider than their abdomen and two; have breast.

What do you think should be done to improve the article? Chrisrus (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Homo erectus soloensis

Currently, most relevant articles (such as Homo, Homo erectus, Human evolution, etc., and also, for example, History of Indonesia and Prehistoric Indonesia) seem to basically ignore H. erectus soloensis, being written as if H. erectus (and stating that directly at certain, usually prominent places, or at least implying it, by not mentioning recent survivals, or only as an afterthought buried deep down the article) went extinct long before H. sapiens sapiens embarked on the voyage out of Africa and went on to populate other continents. (In fact, the article on H. erectus is completely unclear, or even contradictory, on the subject of the species' temporal range.) However, unless I'm under the effect of a gross misunderstanding, that is a flat-out contradiction with the article Homo erectus soloensis, which describes a population of H. erectus living on Java as recently as about 50,000 BP, i. e., after the hypothetical Toba catastrophe and after the spread of H. sapiens sapiens into Australia, and by implication, Southeast Asia! While H. sapiens sapiens did not necessarily encounter this population, and in any case could probably not have interbred with it, anyway, I can't think of a single reason to act as if this subspecies didn't exist. I can't find any evidence of controversy or uncertainty about the Ngandong finds and their interpretation (or more specifically, their re-dating), either; unlike H. floresiensis and the Denisovans, there is not a single hint in this direction. Instead, it seems that most people contributing to the subject in Wikipedia at least aren't even aware of it, as are, it appears, journalists and even, perhaps, many paleoanthropologists. (Presumably due to the lack of sensationism surrounding the finds, or actually their re-dating, as the finds themselves were already made in the 1930s; but then, they are quite surprising, given how strongly they contradict the conventional understanding.) Of course, H. floresiensis, if really a separate species, would presumably also descend from a local population of H. erectus; but it is not necessary to mention him in this respect, as the Ngandong finds seem to suffice to disprove the idea that H. erectus went extinct more than 300,000 years ago, and to establish the significant conclusion that at least two human species existed as recently as about 50,000 BP, and even in the same area. Or is it me who is missing something important here? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor typo.

Near the end of the page, under the title "Science and mathematics", there is a typo in the following line:

"Mathematics is connected to language, and it is argued that special genetic trait of humans, linked to language and abstract tought is responsible for the mathematical ability."

Cheers.

There were three typos, actually. I think that section would be better off gone, since it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, but I'll leave it in for now. —Soap— 02:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Found two other matters of interest in the sentence that followed. Fixed the grammatical problem and substituted a slightly less vague word (use for do). I still don't much like it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please change the human population fromm "6 billion" to "7 billion" in the fourth paragraph of the section "Habitat and population". The United Nations demographers recently said that the human population reached the milestone. Thank you.74.214.42.110 (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Only species able to create art?

What exactly are we defining art as? A visual or auditory representation of some kind of thought I would think? If that's the case, there have been other animals known to create artistic representations of their sensory perceptions, such as the gorillas Koko and Michael. Should the statement at the start of the article saying humans are the "only species known to create art" be changed because of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavanova (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. Art may be defined variously, but I think we can stick with the basic dictionary definition here, and four of five dictionaries I checked unequivocally define art as a human endeavor. (The fifth arguably implies the same.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Er, I'm not sure that's the right basis for keeping the claim. If we define "art" such that no matter how many other species engage in it, it's a "humans-only" affair, then the claim "only humans do art" becomes completely trivial. It either needs to be possible (in principle) for non-humans to do art, or it needs to be a tautology lacking in any special significance. I think for now the question is whether any reliable sources actually call the activities of Koko or Michael "art". If they don't, we shouldn't synthesize that conclusion. -Silence (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree about not synthesizing, but I've been looking at the article more carefully, and the plot thickens. The statement in the lede really isn't supported in the body of the article, and it's too important a claim for that to be acceptable. So if the statement is to remain, it needs to be repeated (and preferably expanded upon) in Section 6.11, and of course it should be reliably sourced. If there are reliable sources stating claims to the contrary, that should be noted as well, with care taken not to give it undue weight. I'm fairly confident that the preponderance of relevant reliable sources will say that creation of art is the exclusive province of humans. Tautology, then? Possibly, but I rather think it's a significant enough detail to deserve mention. Rivertorch (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ellen Dissanayake seems to have had a major influence on the field of the evolution of art (see, e.g., The Arts After Darwin), and she suggests in Homo Aestheticus that various species "perform behaviors that are remarkably 'artistic'" or make "'aesthetic' products" (using scare quotes), but seems to think that only humans make "art", because human art is uniquely characterized by the attempt to 'make special'. That's a start. (But, again, we shouldn't prejudge whether there are more recent ethology findings that suggest that non-humans have made 'art'. It's an empirical question.) -Silence (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Throughout history humans have proposed simple abilities that distinguish humans from other animals, such as the use of tools, the ability of self-recognition; these have have generally been shown not to valid. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Desmond Morris says that apes like to paint, but don't want to look at or show the paintings to others once they are finished. That's pretty different. The bower bird's bower, however, seems more like human art: it has no purpose other than to impress others with one's ability to create an object of beauty that has no other purpose. Chrisrus (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't imagine how we can know whether a bower bird has any concept of "beauty", let alone that creating beauty is the object of its elaborate construction. Beauty, like art, would appear to be a human construct. Might other species share anything of our concept of beauty? Sure. Can we know that they do? Not really.

@Martin: I don't think those examples are quite comparable. The existence of tool use and self-recognition can be determined definitively without relying on any subjective impression. Rivertorch (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you might find it hard to believe about the Bower Bird, but it's true. It's simply a work of art intended to appeal to a female's sense of aesthetic, and has no other purpose. Here, talk a look, amazing but true: http://videos.howstuffworks.com/animal-planet/28366-fooled-by-nature-bowerbirds-seduction-video.htm and watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgHwdLiKIpQ and listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgHwdLiKIpQ. Chrisrus (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm quite familiar with the bower bird and the purpose of the bowers it builds. Amazing, yes, but I disagree that it's "simply a work of art". In any event, this shouldn't be about what you or I believe to be "true". Rivertorch (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is practically impossible to claim or answer. Art becomes art when somebody says it is. So you'd have to ask Koko or Michael whether they think their creations are art. Any evaluation by humans is based on human perception. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I should have said "..., but it's verifiable." The article could be ammended to say "Other than the Bower bird, humans..." Chrisrus (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it could, but not without violating WP:NOR or ignoring WP:RS, anyway. The birds' creations may be artistic (in one or more senses of the word), but to declare them art is a huge leap. The most the article could say is that some people consider them to be art, and that would only be worth saying if reliable sources state it unequivocally. I'd further say that "some people" isn't really a high enough threshold; it ought to be noted artists or people with expertise or notability in a related field, such as art theory or art history. Otherwise, it's WP editors cherry-picking sources to fit the text, rather than writing the text based on the prevalent sources. Seb_az86556 makes a good point: we cannot know with any certainty what non-human species think about their own creative output. Even if we could know that, if the generally accepted definition of art specifies human involvement, then it would be a leap to call the work of another species art. Defining and delineating the boundaries of art is a highly subjective endeavor—and, as far as we know, an entirely human one. Rivertorch (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing I know of inherent in any definition of the word "art" that implies it couldn't be engaged in by an alien species or some such, that it has to be "Homo sapiens" or another of our genus or it isn't art. And you might try entering "Bowerbird" and "art" into "Google Scholar" or some such. Experts agree: what the Bowerbird does is impress it's mate not with the aethetics of it's feathers, as is accepted case with other birds, but with the aesthetics of it's bower, a one-of a kind personal creation with no other purpose than to aesthetically please a female. For example: http://www.pnas.org/content/83/9/3042.short. Chrisrus (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So one-of-a-kind personal creations intended to impress one's mate are automatically art? I'm afraid I don't see that. The abstract you link to is a good start for sourcing a statement along the lines of the "some people" one I suggested above, but I'd point out that the author's field is physiology, which hardly recommends him as an expert on what constitutes art. Clearly, the word "art" is used in various ways by various people. My original point in this thread was that the basic dictionary definition of the word strongly suggests that it is a uniquely human endeavor. While dictionary definitions shouldn't be strict delimiters of the scope of WP article content, I've found they do provide a good starting point. If nearly all major dictionaries define art as a human pursuit, then suggesting in this article that the definition goes beyond that requires impeccable sourcing and great care to avoid original research, particularly synthesis. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210010365

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bmNB7R1yH2sC&oi=fnd&pg=PT38&dq=Bowerbird+art&ots=iBKaPk9tcM&sig=QlRXkzTvQ93GddQ87A-YfCpozEc#v=onepage&q=Bowerbird%20art&f=false

• http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,11,11;journal,9,12;linkingpublicationresults,1:121164,1 “... One outstanding example of what some scholars consider to be art in nature is that created by the bowerbird (Miller, 2000). It is an exception in the animal world”
• ... The differences between the constructions of each bowerbird species can be compared

to the distinct styles of individual human artists or schools of art. ... In the end, bowerbird art is just another way for boys to show off their acumen and strength. ..." http://www.akademiai.com/content/66w5h223887j370u/

• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bowerbirds/art.html

Is that not enough to cite something like "...with the possible exception of the bowerbird" or some such? Listen to the BBC radio piece by David Attenborough, please, he calls it a work of art. What category of thing does a bower fall into? It's not a shelter, what kind of thing is it?

Did you listen to the BBC radio piece by David Attenborough I posted before? Experts call a bower a work of art because there's nothing else to call it. If it's not a work of art, what is it? It has no other purpose but to attract females with it's beauty.

And about the "human only" definition, it's irrational. Thought experiment: Could a Tralfamadorian create art? Why not?

Also: Given an infinate number of Goldilocks zone planets and all possible time, reason dictates that there could be, nay must be somewhere sometime, some non-human art in the vastness of the universe. How can you delare that art must by definition be Homo sapiens, that no species anywhere ever could by definition create art? It's irrational to delare that art is only Homo sapiens-exclusive given the vastness of time and space. Chrisrus (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of what I have time and energy for right now. I know you're arguing in the best possible faith, but we seem to be talking past each other at this point. Two points, very briefly: I've watched every David Attenborough documentary I can find over the years, including the one on bower birds, which I remember quite well. With all respect to Sir David, whom I admire, I don't think he should define art for the purposes of this or any WP article. Also, I don't believe I "declared" what you seem to think I declared. Rather than hunting up sources to bolster your argument, please seek out some really basic sources which define art and see what they say. Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

::Well, I hope that your feeling those emotions is a sign you're about to concede to evidence and reason.

Next, we at Wikipedia say that "Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses." Just like the bower bird does. I think that's a pretty standard "non-has-to-be-human" definition, and the one David Attenborough seems to be using, and the I observe in context when people use the word, don't you?

And I'm not saying it's you who "declares" it must be human or it's not art, but definition #1 of Wiktionary's definition of art, (which is unreferenced, as opposed to defintion two, which seems to be David A.'s and mine, here http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/art) and other "exclusively human" definitions that you can find that "declare" that, so to speak, "Klingons couldn't do art" or "there is no art outside of this planet" when they say "art is the human...".

Or it is you who so "declare", if use that definition, but not if "declare" means you made the "humans only" definition up; because we know that you didn't: the "humans only" definition is out there in dictionaries and such, you are right, it's part of some common definitions. But I think that part of the definition comes from the observation that no other animal does it, and would change if a non-human could be found, as the bowerbird has, to perform Wikipedia's main definition or Wiktionary's second defition of "Art".

So can we compromise? Can we something like at least say something like "with the possible exception of the bowerbird" maybe with "at least by one common definition of art", or "is arguably art" or "that many or some scholars say it's art", or "there is some doubt that, given what we know about bowers, whether humans are truely the only known species to create art" or however else it would work in smoothly? Chrisrus (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• The way you've defined "art", all mating displays qualify as art. You say that only bower-birds and humans create art; but who are we to say that songs and dances aren't 'art,' or to decree that no other species sing or dance? The profound stickiness of the question is why Wikipedia shouldn't make an assertion one way or the other until we see highly reputably ethology/anthropology sources—stuff like other encyclopedia articles—weighing in on the issue. Otherwise, regardless of which view is truest, it's a WP:OR synthesis. -Silence (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Including mating displays such as that in the bowerbird would be equivalent to saying that bees have language. This is a mating display. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

@User:Silence: First, it's not my definition. I got it from here: Art, and the "humans-only" definition from Wiktionary's definition, which someone tagged as uncited. Wiktionary's second definition is more like ours here at Wikipedia. So if you don't agree with any of those, you might want to edit those. Second, I don't know why bird dances and songs are not considered art by experts. Well, I have my theory, but I'll not share my original research. But the fact is, David Attenburough and these other experts aren't telling us that bird songs and dances are art. They are, however, telling us that bowers are. But you are correct about the profound stickiness of drawing a fine line around the referent art, so that's a good reason why the article shouldn't say as it does that humans are the only ones that do it. Second, with regard to the type of citations you would require, have you looked at the WP:RSes that I posted above? And about WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR; when what your doing is passing along what experts and Wikipedia say, those don't apply. And these two guidelines apply to articles, not talk pages. There is no rule that all points made in how to improve the article discussions must rely on evidence alone. Pure reason may also be used to sway others on article discussion pages. So I don't how OR and SYTHESIS apply. Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Effect on ecosystems section

Former versions included a section about human impact on other species and the enviroment. Was this removed? I couldn't find it carried over to any other article. I think it is a lot more objectively important subject than stuff like literature or religion, which only really seem important or positive traits when looking from a subjective human standpoint. Harg (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.185.82 (talk)

Objection

"Evidence from archaeogenetics accumulating since the 1990s has lent strong support to the "out-of-Africa" scenario, and has marginalized the competing multiregional hypothesis, which proposed that modern humans evolved, at least in part, from independent hominid populations."

That information is 6 years old and it doesn't reflect the present state of knowledge. According to genetic tests 1-4% of genetic information of all non-Africans comes from Neanderthals trough interbreeding. The recent discovery of the Denisova hominin and subsequent genetic testing have also shown that Australian Aborigines and Melanesians interbred with Denisovans, too. This this is a partial confirmation of the multiregional theory and must be included in the article, wile the old information needs to be deleted. --Kmaga (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not "old information" that the multi-regional hypothesis isn't accepted by most scientists. 193.169.145.43 (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly

I will proide a source for this additioion. Pass a Method talk 09:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your "possibly" addition[1] is pretty irresponsible. It's inconsistent with the Human#Evolution section and the Human evolution article. And as shown in that article and in the Anatomically modern humans and Recent African origin of modern humans articles, which have better sources than what you have provided, most scientists agree that anatomically modern humans originated in Africa. That's the general consensus among scientists. Your "possibly" addition is akin to saying that the world is possibly round.

And, no, you should not go messing with those articles, replacing their good sources with your sources just to add "possibly." 193.169.145.43 (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)