Talk:Human

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q: Why does the Human article use the third person? Aren't we humans?
A: 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 culture 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.

Q: 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.
A: 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.
Former featured article 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.

Re-evaluation[edit]

It has been nearly 10 years since this level one vital article has been evaluated for quality. Its contents have naturally been through extensive modification since that evaluation and it should be reassessed.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Hominina tribe" v. "Homo genus"[edit]

Why does the lede mention the "tribe" level of taxonomy? It is barely mentioned in Taxonomic rank. It would be more relevant to say "only extant species in the genus Homo", in my opinion. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Humans much older than we thought[edit]

"Oldest Homo sapiens bones ever found shake foundations of the human story. Idea that modern humans evolved in East Africa 200,000 years ago challenged by extraordinary discovery of 300,000-year-old remains in Moroccan mine."[1][2][3][4][5] NOTE: posted by => Rævhuld (talk | contribs) 13:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As has been mentioned on other pages ...still great debate on dates and even if its Homo sapiens remains.....still very early stage. We should wait for the peer revivews that will be forth coming soon. Sounds promising...but as the sources below mention....still ongoing and debatable. --Moxy (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - related comments/refs[6][7] at the following => "Talk:Homo sapiens#News 300,000 years ago" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

BRIEF Followup - following posts seem particularly relevant to the present discussion (see copy below) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Homo sapiens#News 300,000 years ago

"News 300,000 years ago"

"Homo sapiens much older than thought"

New academic research shows: Homo sapiens much older than thought.[1]--Rævhuld (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Online, Spiegel (2017-06-07). "Spektakulärer Fund: Homo sapiens ist viel älter als gedacht - Wissenschaft". SPIEGEL ONLINE (in German). Retrieved 2017-06-07. 


I have removed "... and may have originated about 300,000 years ago, based on fossil remain evidence found in West Africa[1][2] ..." as there is a big debate on dates let alone if they are Homo sapien remains. Lets not jump on this 2 fast......wait for peer views--Moxy (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thank you for your comments - and noting text/refs[1][2] - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Before I logged in, I was musing about this. On the one hand, it probably would be better to wait. On the other, I wonder if it would be feasible to add a very brief, tentative mention, if only to ward off attempts to prematurely add longer, less tentative mentions. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
If it is good enough for Nature, it should be good enough for us. I agree though that we should have no more than a couple of sentences emphasising that these are early results that have yet to receive scientific consensus. Are they really H. Sapiens Sapiens or another precursor?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

First instance of 'Tribe' links to incorrect page.[edit]

In the opening sentence, 'Hominina tribe' links to 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe', when it refers to 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(biology)'. Possibly it should say 'Hominina subtribe', which is what the page on Hominini calls Hominina, but I'm not certain whether that is actually a more accurate phrasing. 65.60.215.235 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you – good catch!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Human. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)