Talk:Human

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)

Good idea. But, why 1994? Can we get a new one? Chrisrus (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:07, 23 May 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)

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

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)

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)

It is a fact that science classifies Homo sapiens as a primate, and your personal opinions as to the merits of this are of no consequence here. This is not a forum - if you wish to speculate, do it somewhere else. Off-topic material is liable to be deleted from Wikipedia talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

ISTM that you are trying to drag extraneous issues into this topic. Does this article say that humans are nothing but primates? If it does, then I would object. It is wrong to say that humans are nothing but primates, nothing but mammals, nothing but vertebrates, nothing but animals, or nothing but eukaryotes. It is also wrong to say that chimps are nothing but primates, that eagles are nothing but birds, or that E. coli are nothing but bacteria. Who is there that says that all that it takes to be a human is to have a primate body? That would mean that all primates are human, wouldn't it? And please don't try to inflame the issue by mentioning abortion, which has nothing to do with the topic. (Contemplate, for a moment, how it would be to apply your "logic" to your position. With great effort, I am resisting the temptation to take the bait. This is not the place to argue about such things.) TomS TDotO (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this article say that humans are nothing but primates?

The first sentence of the article does define humanity in purely biological terms, something which I objected to several years ago when it was written. — goethean 14:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Good god, this article really draws out the nutbags doesn't it? (yes I said this twice, it's worth saying twice!) Anonywiki (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonywiki, I hope you will bear with me. Don't get upset, please. I do have to say, please don't call people names. Calling people names can be seen as an attempt to dehumanize someone, and take away their rights. I believe you deserve the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think you meant all that.

Andy, I've seen your posts before and I have respect for you. However, please don't put words in my mouth. I understand about personal opinions and that is not my purpose.

Tom, I didn't mean to debate abortion. I can understand how it might seem that way. I agree with Goethean. The point is -- and I believe some people got it -- the first sentence is inadequate. I will explain what I mean, but I feel I have to go slow here, so as not to upset anyone. Please give me a chance. Elementalwarrior (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Terms such as "primate", "Homo sapiens", and "Genus Homo" are scientific technical terms of categorization, in which the scope is well defined. Established science is not considered a point of view here on Wikipedia, since it is, by itself, essentially, a "neutral credible source". Whatever percentage of people who have spiritual beliefs in conflict with this or disagree with ordinary scientific characterizations for whatever other reasons, doesn't change this, and has no relevance. If you want to incorporate this, you would have to add an addenda, such as: "Many people object to the scientific characterization of humans as a kind of animal." just to make it through the Wikipedia rules. But you still couldn't add such a sentence, because, it's not about humans; such a sentence would be about an introspection that some people have about humans, which is not on topic.

And BTW, the terms genus, primate, and homo sapiens have only all been around since the 18th century when Linnaeus coined them. So no, this has not been a 500,000 year debate. Qed (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Scope of the article

The above argument is caused, to some degree, by the article not adequately defining its scope. Although we have a section on religion and spirituality, the article treats humans primarily from a scientific perspective. Maybe it would help avoid the above kind of argument if, near the start, the article gave some indication of its scope .Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe links to Humanity (virtue),Human nature, and Human condition would help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Science is not a perspective. The essential content of science remains the same no matter what your perspective. Qed (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There are whole sections of widely held human beliefs that are outside the scope of science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they include anything that is non-falsifiable. You're going to find that the overlap between that and things that you are not allowed to include except by meta-reference in Wikipedia is basically 100% Qed (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Martin. Thank you. I think Goethean pointed out that one problem is, it's primarily a biological viewpoint, which is just one science. So it's limited ("inadequate") even from a scientific perspective. It's not "general knowledge" so if you're not one of the 3.1 million biologists on Earth, you'll probably have to look up at least three words in that first sentence. Which illustrates the fact that Wikipedia is being re-written by academics, who forget that they use technical terms so often it is off-putting to 99% of humanity. That's one of the problems with this article, and the first sentence is a lightning-rod. As you've also written -- and as I've indicated before, but you're the first one to mention it -- this lead sentence ignores art, ethics, will, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elementalwarrior (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, my computer started shutting itself down, and I had to Save, Save, Save. Elementalwarrior (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, I meant to say, this lead sentence also ignores intellect. Elementalwarrior (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The following incorporates some of what I'm thinking. How about... "a primate (romeo sapiens) featuring the strongest and richest inner life of any known life-form, including intellect, will, emotion, and self-talk, plus the senses of morality, imagination, consciousness, spirituality, and aesthetics." And yes, yes, "romeo sapiens" is to keep it light-hearted. Smile, you. Elementalwarrior (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say fairly unobtrusively that this article deals principally with the animal aspect of humans and provide links to the articles that I have mentioned. Maybe just 'see also' for the links would do the trick. The subjects you mention are discussed in those articles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The species is Homo sapiens, and we don't put jokes in articles. As for the rest, the lede is supposed to summarise the body of the article, which is based on published reliable sources, not on impossible-to-verify assertions regarding the 'inner life' of different species. I suggest that in future you confine your comments to material actually of relevance to the article, as our patience has been tried quite enough already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You are overdramatizing the issue if you say we are biased to a "scientific perspective". These are just knowable facts about a topic presented in a way that works, not some alternate POV. The article has to spend lots of time talking about how we are different from all others, but first, we are also like many others mundane ways such as having elbows and such. So the practical way to do that is to do things such as call us primates, because in one word we eliminate the need to mention a mountain of things such as the fact that people breathe air and have backbones and urinate and so on, we just have to get all that out of the way with subject complements such as "primate". It's a way to get work done. Try writing this article without saying such things, you'll see. Even if we were to go on to say that we have a ghost inside us or whatver, that still doesn't negate to need to do the work that saying such things such as us being primates does. It just saves time and is obviouly true, and says so much at a mouthful. Chrisrus (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it. That's my fault. I will fix it. Before that, some housekeeping:

First, I don't mention ghosts. That must have been someone else.

Second, the "subject complement" of my sentence is that we are primates. To me, that is but 1/3 of who and what we are, but I'm trying to work with you.

Third, I was agreeing with Goethean that the lead is biased towards one science: biology.

Fourth, Andy says the lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article; yet, Chrisrus says the article has to spend lots of time talking about how we are different from all others. So if us being different is so key... might the lead summarize/mention these differences?

I've been editing Wikipedia articles for 10 years now. I've never been so rudely treated.

I thought Wikipedia was for everyone.

And that's the problem. For over 22 years, in my free time I tutor. I've tutored in prison; I've tutored to keep teenagers out of prison. I've tutored seniors to get GED's. I've tutored ESL, even as far as getting Master's degrees. I don't make money at it; except once when the mother of a deaf kid who jumped 20 levels in reading and made the Dean's list, pressed $45 into my coat. I use Wikipedia to help my students. Believe me, Wikipedia is getting harder to use. Some people believe that "writing for an encyclopedia" means "make it hard to understand" and "this will help me sound erudite."

So help us. I'm working with a teenager who started out only knowing 18 letters of the alphabet. He was going to prison with his gang for a drive-by. The judge asked me to help. So I'm trying to give him something he can understand. One problem with the first sentence is, he has to look up at least seven words. Just in that first sentence. And that sentence -- with six of those seven words useless to him -- will turn him off to biology. However, if we have him look up words relating to the humanities in that first sentence, that will give him worthwhile clues to understanding himself. .Elementalwarrior (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told that this isn't a forum? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I know it's not a forum. I'm following the talk page guidelines. They tell me to explain myself. "Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it." Elementalwarrior (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. How are we going to fix it? Elementalwarrior (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, before determining how to fix something, it's generally a good idea to agree that something needs to be fixed. Rivertorch (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Elementalwarrior, maybe the Simple English Wikipedia is what you are looking for. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch, there are three or more contributors in the current exchange that have expressed dissatisfaction with the first sentence. Looking over the archives, many, many more have stated it is inadequate. Don't get upset, but some of my students say it's lame. I have other students who use more choice language, lol.

Martin, thank you. I've been doing that more. However, who is that sentence written for? No one is answering that question.

More, that's why I was differentiating between my more basic students, who would have to look up at least seven (7) words in this one sentence; and my college-grad students, who would still have to look up three words. And many, after 10 minutes of puzzling over all this, still come away thinking that we should behave like a chimp.

So, I can go over a few other reasons why it needs to be fixed.

What if I re-write my opening sentence... which by the way states we be primates, lol. Elementalwarrior (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately for Wikipedia readers who need to look up an unfamiliar word, we have wikilinks. This feature obviates the need for dumbing down our sentences. Still, if you'd like to propose a "fix" to the alleged problem, please go right ahead. Rivertorch (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch is right; what edit are you suggesting we make? This conversation is too abstract! Unless you have some specific idea what to do to the article, this conversation is pointless. Either describe an edit you would like to make or we have nothing to discuss. Chrisrus (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Humans are primates (homo sapiens) and of known life-forms, exercise the most powerful intellect, will, emotion, and self-talk." Same sentence length (18 words) as what's there. Elementalwarrior (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Assuming we revised it to make it grammatical, removed the bit about "self-talk" (whatever that is when it's at home), and somehow found sources for the rest (surely an impossibility, but let's just say it could be done), how exactly would that wording constitute an improvement over the current wording? Rivertorch (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced waffle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

OMG, what the hell is that? No, that's not in any way an improvement over what is currently there. If you're trying to do that Sapolsky Humans-are-unique thing, then perhaps we could go with "Humans (Homo sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, notable for tool making, global habitation, clustering in large macro-scale societies, and engaging in environmental manipulation resulting from their advanced cognitive abilities." I don't know what you mean by things like "self-talk" -- we are the only species to talk period. If your intention is to include other forms of communication, then you have the worse problem that you cannot provide evidence that other organisms don't engage in "self-communication". Other animals have an intellect, and most certainly have emotion. (In fact, I think it can be fairly argued that chimpanzees have almost the identical emotional range as humans).Qed (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As has been said in more than one way -- not just by me -- the current wording is misleading. People come away thinking they're some kind of chimpanzee.

Some anthropologists have argued we *are* some kind of chimpanzee. Qed (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is inadequate. It makes it seem that the most important aspect to being human, is just the superficial. Sure, the primate body is the most obvious thing about us. But that's just the surface. Once someone has observed their own thoughts for more than thirty seconds, the most powerful aspects to being human reveal themselves.

So what we need are sources. I agree. How about Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Carl Jung, Frederick Neitzche, Carl Sagan, Mohandas Ghandi, etc.? Elementalwarrior (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Elementalwarrior, that is why I added the links to Humanity (virtue), Human nature, and Human condition. These cover the non-biological aspects of humanness that you refer to.

These non-biological, non-scientific aspects are undoubtedly considered very important by the majority of the world's population and are covered in very many reliable sources but it would seem that the consensus regarding this article is to write it from a principally scientific viewpoint. You are unlikely to be able to change that consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you would stop talking about "non-biological" aspects of this referent, it would help you. If this were the only ape with two tails, we would mention it in the lead's primary subject complement. The most distinctive things of any creature is what makes it deserve an article in the first place. In this case those include the intellect, social structure, and so on.

We still must say we are a primate or hominid, as doing so covers most of the basic "...has elbows..." -type stuff efficiently. The physical, mental, societal facts about the species that most prominently distinguish it, if found to be under-emphasized, can be made more prominent.

That'd be a perfectly reasonable type of edit having nothing to do with adding claims that aren't solid facts somehow but the domain of theologians, not anthropologists, or whatever you keep saying that blocks progress. Chrisrus (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether you or I like it or not theologians and philosophers have many strongly held beliefs that humans are more than just animals. There seems to be a consensus here not to deal with that aspect of humanness, which is why I have added the links to the articles that do deal with these theological/philosophical issues. The scientific aspects of humans are covered here and other aspects are covered elsewhere. Everyone should now be happy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not proposing or supporting any changes to this article regarding non-scientific/spiritual aspects of humans other than the links that I have already added. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Martin, thank you. Elementalwarrior (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC) There's a Wikipedia article on "Intrapersonal Communication" redirect from "Self-Talk". Elementalwarrior (talk) 21:45, 22 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)

My god this article really draws the nutbags doesn't it. Anonywiki (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop being rude to people that you disagree with. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article does not ignore the fact that many humans engage in the practice of religion. It is a major part of the article. The fact that some humans think we are "spiritual beings animating bodies" is specific to religious/mythical content, and not central to what makes us human. Many human societies don't include these specific beliefs. Humans *ARE* animals with cool attributes. Disagreeing with this puts you on very shaky ground. What part of humans makes us non-animals? And any animal that get into a tin-can of their own making and visit other planets has pretty cool attributes. The fact that we have education itself is also very interesting, but we also have global communications and engage in memetic rituals like dance. This article has to end somewhere. Qed (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This article treats the non-scientific aspects of humanness essentially as human behaviour. There is nothing wrong with that in a scientific article but the majority of humans believe in some other aspects to humans and many would consider these to be more important than the scientific ones. This is all very well covered in reliable sources.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Human behavior is of scientific interest as well, so I have no idea what you are talking about with the first statement. What you might think the majority of people beliefs about what humans are is unlikely pass the Wikipedia tests for content. The onus is on you (or anyone else who thinks this article should have more "spiritual" content) to show otherwise. The suggestions I've seen so far, kind of speak to the weakness of the line of pursuit. Qed (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh and I'll also point out that NASA felt it was sufficient to not depict pubic, facial, or chest hair on the on the drawings of humans (without any regard to explain it's missing), and their subjects actually were aliens. Dancindazed (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture under biology

The female is wearing a ring and nail polish on her toenails. While this is not unusual, being naked and posing like that is a little unusual for humans. (I.e., you can't have it both ways.) This is a minor issue, but if the intent is to show humans as they are as a matter of biology, then the ring and nail polish are superfluous. Qed (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the best picture we have. Please do take a better one and use it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added a note to the caption. This was how we dealt with body modifications in the picture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? I hope we don't have to apologize for the belt marks on his waist as well. It's a long enough caption as is. Let those who find fault with that picture line up their own models against a white background and click. Chrisrus (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree a better picture would be good but until we have one we have to make do with one the in the article.

The caption is not intended as an apology but as an explanation. Presumable the picture is intended to be informative to people who do not know what a human looks like. It is conceivable that such a person may take the picture to indicate that women have naturally redder toes than men. I do not think a long caption does any harm but mentioning the belt mark may be going a bit too far. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sadly this article does sometimes give the impression that it is written for non-human lifeforms, and the caption certainly seems written that way. Since I think that we can safely assume that non-humans reading Wikipedia are few and far between, trimming the caption seems a sensible option. If any non-human objects, we can of course revert... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's just a manner of speaking. All our articles are supposed to be written for someone with no knowledge of the subject. We only assume they know English, that is all. The effect is that this article is written for a non-human, but everyone should always just be reasonable and in this case it might seem too strange to point out that humans don't naturally have colorful fingernails, a mark around the waist, nor haircuts. Chrisrus (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I disagree for two reasons. The first is a practical one. Before I added the comments about the hair there were endless arguments on this page about whether we should show our subjects in what some considered to be a 'natural' state, with no hair trimming etc. This was resolved to the satisfaction of all by the use of what the consensus decided was the best available picture but with a caption explaining the body modifications. There has be no argument since. Changing the picture because of the nail polish seems unnecessary but nevertheless some people seem to object to it. Adding an explanation to the caption resolves this issue. To sum up adding an explanatory caption avoids endless arguments about which picture we should use.

Regarding aliens and our intended audience for the picture, the article and the picture are, of course, intended for humans. The picture is there, presumably, for people who, for whatever reason, do not know what humans look like, at least in some respects. I see no reason for not being as informative as we can and avoiding any possible misconceptions, for example that men do not generally have beards or that women have redder toenails than men. The argument, 'everybody knows that' essentially defeats the purpose of the article and WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any logical argument to support this statement?

What do you think is the purpose of the picture? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the purpose of the picture, it cannot possibly be intended for people who don't know what a human being looks like, and to suggest otherwise is utterly ludicrous. Any more stupid questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could just answer the first one. What do you think is the purpose of the picture? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps you should ask the person who added it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should leave decisions on the wording of the caption to those who do know the purpose of the picture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should leave the writing of articles about human beings to people who don't think they are writing for aliens. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you guys have all gone off the rails. Look, the picture is trying to present something. Humans, of course. But why are they naked? Being naked is *not* the natural state of a human. Even Masai warriors, Papua New Guineans and Guarani wear some sort of clothes. You can defend the picture as is, if you claim it is meant to depict biological manifestation solely from normal genetic and developmental progressing through to a little under average age. So then they are analogous to a "type specimen" or something like that. But then comes my comment about the ring and nail polish. It's a small issue -- if there are no better photographs, then so be it. The exterior alien point of view discussion is even more minor. A young person who has never thought of humans as its own distinct species of animal just needs to be presented with something that basically helps them describe in a clinical way, the difference between a human and a chimpanzee. Qed (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you, it is important to separate the pure biological aspects of the picture from the cultural ones. The picture is intended to show the basic anatomical features of humans, many of which are usually obscured by cultural artefacts. As the picture still contains some cultural features, hair removal, rings, nail polish, it is important to point these out. Many other pictures in the article show humans as they are actually found in different cultures.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just visiting the article; I have some opinions on the topic. Pointing out the ring and shaved hair is a bit off-putting. It distracts rather than adds to the article. I'm a human capable of reading the article, therefor I have some knowledge basis that humans don't naturally grow rings around their toes. The hair, okay, maybe it's worth pointing out, but isn't it our already assumed knowledge of humans that even causes us to point something like that out? Use some perspective. I mean if you go look at the hermit crab article (the closest thing I know of to another animal wearing clothing in its most natural state) and the picture of it without its shell, maybe that particular hermit crab has one of its antennae plucked off; I mean who cares? The purpose of the picture is to give the reader a general understanding of what it looks like without its shell, as is the nude picture of a human. Another example would be to go look at the American Bison article. Is every picture of the bison (with its various stages of shedding and growing fur) going to thoroughly explain what the Bison has done to its hair in the caption? (This bison has rubbed the fur off of its hind quarters but still has clumps of fur hanging from its front right leg.) Perhaps that may better explain why it seems ridiculous to some of us. Dancindazed (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the male model circumcised ? (I cannot make out) If so -should this minority mutilation feature in the representative photo ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)