Talk:Human
| 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. |
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, 35Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
 | 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Template:WP1.0
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
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. The consensus is that showing more groupings (such as along ethnic lines) is contentious due to the risk of unverifiable species-wide generalizations. As a middle ground, we currently just show examples of a male and a female human to represent sexual dimorphism in humans.
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). 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. |
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, 35Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
Bad example
Given the bodymods, the current 'adult man' image (pataxo001.jpg) doesn't seem like the best choice to me. 92.15.59.131 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? Body modification is natural and common human behavior, just like kempt beards, dreadlocks, baseball caps, eyeglasses and earrings.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Since the purpose of the section is to show the human lifecycle, it might be more appropriate to make this selection of images less diverese (in terms of race and dress) to better focus on the differences associated with aging. 94.6.15.243 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ideally, to show aging, we'd have images taken over many decades of the same person (or persons). Unfortunately, that's a tall order. (Although if we start now . . .) As long as we can't do that, I don't see that the diversity really renders the concept less clear. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree only on the grounds that his face is significantly less clear than the faces of the children, woman, or elderly people, as in you cannot tell his age group as easily as the others by looking at just his face. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to improve upon it if you can, but it's the best we have at the moment. Chrisrus (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Further to Chrisrus's comment, it is actually more difficult than it seems to find an image of a "typical" human male. Most images available are of people who are famous for some reason (sports people, politicians etc) which isn't ideal. Unnachamois (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the example should be of a less modified adult male. Alistoriv (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Alistoriv
Grammar Issue
Correct me if I'm wrong, but under Culture-Language where it says 'Humans are the only animal species who is able to ask questions' shouldn't it be 'Humans are the only animal species who are able to ask questions' as neither 'Humans' nor 'Species' is in its singular form therefore the verb 'to be' shouldn't take a singular form of 'is' and instead 'are'. Alternatively the sentence could read 'Humans are the only animal species able to ask questions' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googolplexity (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Better still, "Humans are the only species able to ask questions". I've changed it to that. If anyone knows of plants or fungi or whatever that justify inclusion of the word "animal", feel free to correct me! Rivertorch (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
- (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)
- 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)
Done. Rivertorch (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
I apologize for starting a p*ssing contest. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class Primate articles
- Top-importance Primate articles
- WikiProject Primates articles
- B-Class taxonomic articles
- High-importance taxonomic articles
- WikiProject Tree of Life articles
- B-Class mammal articles
- High-importance mammal articles
- WikiProject Mammals articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- Top-importance Anthropology articles
- B-Class Transhumanism articles
- High-importance Transhumanism articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia controversial topics