Talk:Human/Archive 27

Start manual fix of misconfigured auto-archive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs)

Malformed 29 November 2008. Fixing archive. -Silence (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Menopause
I think this passage needs revising: "Menopause is believed to have arisen due to the Grandmother hypothesis, in which it is in the mother's reproductive interest to forego the risks of death from childbirth at older ages in exchange for investing in the viability of her already living offspring.[53]" it seems to say that Menopause came about because of the grandmother hypothesis. My suggestion: "Menopause is believed to have arisen due to the the risks of death from childbirth at older ages, when it is in the mother's reproductive interest to forego additional children of her own in exchange for investing in the viability of her already living offspring. This is know as the Grandmother hypothesis.[53]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.65.5 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Peso
I think that pesos are an important currency and thus, should be listed in the currency section of the human society statistics box. They should mention "peso in various countries" or something like that. It is more relevant than the Canadian Dollar at least. Xicoav (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Er...
Why does "non-human" redirect here? And what if a child sees this article? I think the article should have a more appropriate picture. Elasmosaurus (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. There are many things that are Non-human e.g. Aliens or machines, so I think that by knowing what human is someone could work out the set of what was not human. Which picture is a problem ?. They all look OK. The taxobox(picture is excellent as it's the Pioneer plaque depiction which was designed to be as neutral but representative of the majority of the human species.Ttiotsw (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * God forbid a child should know humans have reproductive organs. Deltabeignet (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid i do not understand your complaint... Do you find any pornographic content or any other unethical information in this article? Or do you think that a child should not have any idea of his/her own anatomy? 82.208.174.72 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that image qualifies as pornography. However due to the extreme social liberalism on wikipedia, negotiation is near virtually impossible. I think that a good option right now is to just having children avoid this article. --AirLiner (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? That's pornography? Do you people wank off to human anatomy illustrations too? Grow up God fearing idiots. C6541 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is worrying, however, is that the female depiction in the plaque has been censored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A child would already know the basic anatomy of a human body, they've seen themselves naked. It would be different had the picture depicted sexual acts, but a rather simplistic depiction of the human body hardly qualifies as pornography.  JSpoons (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

just shut up im 13 and i dont see that as pornographic!!!!! just leave the man alone airliner!!! :P:P:P:P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.180.216 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-human redirect
I'd propose that non-human be set up as a disambiguation page, including the video game article, Non Human, a link to the Wiktionary definition and links to the articles on non-human apes and non-human intelligences. Mind you, it only has two incoming links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Non-human. --Cedderstk 08:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The translation of Homo sapiens
Latin, like most other languages, distinguishes humans, men, and women. Homo sapiens means a wise human, not a wise man. The former may sound awkward because human comes from homo, but the latter is just incorrect. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Latin word homo means both human and man so Homo sapiens means both wise man and wise human. 88.112.99.229 (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Who agrees this page should be nominated for Featured Content?
It seems like a good idea, after all, this article is a well written, amazing piece of work. And, wouldn't it seem smart to feature the page for the human race, like going back to basics? This is a good article and no piece of it feels out of place currently. It's pictures are good and display the human race effectively, with its wars, technology and religion. And it cites every piece of evidence it has, look at that long citation list.Zombielegoman (talk)


 * I wholeheartedly agree, this is one of the better written articles on wikipedia, and fully deserves to be featured. As the top of this page says, it needs some things added or changed, but altogether it is an excellently written and unbiased article, good job to anyone who has edited it. Omicron91 05:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omicron91 (talk • contribs)

Humans are atleast Seven million years old
In 2001 scientists found a human skull that was seven million years old placing our species Homo Sapien at atleast 7 million years old. Here are some sources of one this important discovery.

http://www.bananasinpyjamas.com/science/articles/2002/07/15/605620.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2118055.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-12032436,00.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Skull+shocker%3A+a+7-million-year-old+skull+has+scientists+asking+%22who+...-a099554847 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maldek, did you actually read the BBC article you linked above? It says nothing about a human skull or homo sapien [sic] skull. This talk page is newly archived; can we please not fill it up with the same old nonsense? Rivertorch (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We are Humans
So write the article intended to be read by us, not some aliens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.34.152 (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not policy to write "us" and "our". The article is written from the third person perspective, as is appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And, if we were to establish contact with alien civilizations tomorrow, we won't need to rewrite the article. Zazaban (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let us not exaggerate. All articles on Wikipedia must be written in an objective manner, and from a 3rd person point of view. No article must contain personal opinions what so ever... 82.208.174.72 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually came here to praise the fact that the page managed to maintain a third-person perspective. --Omicron91 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omicron91 (talk • contribs)


 * If you think about it, humans are sort of extinct in the wild. Zappo123456789 (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I DISAGREE, theres still some nomads and people in africa.--Jakezing (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually find the third person perspective somewhat annoying. Its so cold, (ironically) dehumanizing and degrading. I feel like were being treated like animals. However this is an encyclopedia article so i suppose its reasonable to keep it in third person. --AirLiner (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Airliner stop with your bullshit, we are apes which are classified as far as I know as animals. C6541 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be so rude now and besides, while taxonomically we may be classified as animals, humans are still distinct enough. Enough so that it feels uncomfortable for me hearing us described as common animals in the article. --AirLiner (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the rude person: we are indeed animals. We have a common ancestry with all animals, all living things ultimately, and we are part of teh same biosphere. We are animals, more specifically apes, and any pretence of separation is just delusional... and a bit silly! 212.139.85.134 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Postscriptum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae#Species :-D 212.139.85.134 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Human post incorrect
"Around 2,000–3,000 years ago, some states, such as Persia, India, China and Rome, developed through conquest into the first expansive empires. Influential religions, such as Judaism, originating in the Middle East, and Hinduism, a religious tradition that originated in South Asia, also rose to prominence at this time."

When I add Greece into this, it was denied.. Why is that so?

Considering the Makedonian Empire was before Rome, and Greece was around 6,000 years ago.

Also the belief in the 12 Gods was formed around this time, and then Christianity came into power via the Greeks 2000's years ago (and became the first and only Christian state during the 3rd - 4th centuries). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divius (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

When you talk about Greece I am presuming that you are talking about the Roman Empire, as the Greek city-states had been conquered by the Romans in the early second century. Also the entire Roman Empire had been converted to Christianity (on the surface anyway) by Constantine I in the year 330 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.27.16 (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
The article reads as if written by a human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.228.138 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC) NOTE: +1 FOR HUMOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.139.175 (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice one. 212.183.240.205 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's also conflict of interest for us to write this article. If it's notable enough, someone else will write the article anyway. Flexxx (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have Michael Jackson's email address? Ashmoo (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the conservation indicator was a nice touch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.239.4 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Film/Video Games/Television
I think all these things need to be added to the Art, Music & Literature section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.150.104 (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Government
This article begins as an explanation of the human as a species of primate. However, within the introduction it uses the term "governments" to describe human settlement of Antarctica. That seems inappropriate. While thisargument is absurd because only humans would read this article and would surely know either that fact or the fact their own species was the subject of the article, we could clean up the writing (to the otherwise excellent standards) of the article to meet a more universal standard. 98.169.94.215 (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple pages
there appears to be multiple pages of the article "Human". Please correct as some of the other pages contain useless information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansta (talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What other pages? Ben (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I jumped the gun, but it's certainly not a helpful question. It's so imprecise as to be unanswerable, and it came so shortly after vandalism I just assumed it was meant to harass. So Jansta, what specific information in the article do you have issues with? -- Good Damon 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-homo sapiens art
The following sentence is not entirely true: "Art is one of the most unusual aspects of human behavior and a key distinguishing feature of humans from other species, In fact the only species to do so." Other species have been known to create art. A number of elephants, for example, have been known to create paintings. (See: Elephant_intelligence) Also, I believe hominids other than homo sapiens have created art, in particular Homo neanderthalensis, although I am not entirely sure if that has been definitively established. Voodoo Jobu (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely established for Neanderthals. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

sapience?
This sentence in the article bothers me a bit:


 * Humans are the only known sapient species.

Humans have defined sapience so that only humans are capable of it. I don't think that this round-about way of thinking improves the understanding of the topic, except that humans desire to belong to a unique class or group. My vote would be to remove this sentence from the article, unless there is an explanation or objection. Basically, it just says, 'humans are the only species capable of fitting into this definition of humans' What's that? Tautological thinking? Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that this was a recent edit - thought it had been there for a while - so I reverted it for above reasonsBob98133 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuing evolution
Wobble keeps reverting a section on continued evolition. There has been many papers recently written that refute the belief by social planners and even some scientists that evolution has stopped. I think there should be some commentary before such a vital section, in my view, is reverted again. It seems to conform to the sources section, although some have called it "fringe". The NY times has published the article as fact, and they are certainly not a fringe publication, nor was the sources that the claim was based off of. Verwoerd (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you are probably a sockpuppet of a banned user, I don't see much point is discussing this with you. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's sure a great reason. Please assume good faith. In today's world, everyone is accused of something. I am supported by a plethora of authors. Going back to the issue, here are a few more sources from the largest journals showing that evolution is still occurring.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verwoerd (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Human/Archive_26 for last time we discussed this with you. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you are just angry that many editors support my position. I will not accuse you of being User:Wobble for example even though the two of you have been making similar edits. Like I said, please assume good faith in this important matter. Verwoerd (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see:
 * About two papers report a possible stop to the Flynn Effect. No more.
 * The theory of dysgenics as advanced by Richard Lynn has been mostly criticized or ignored.
 * I don't call that sound scientific bases.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That section on human is not exclusively about dysgenics. There are articles on Science, an journal of considerable repute, that mention this finding, yet you are deleting the entire section. I am not in a mood to fight, but instead of accusing me of being another user to stifle me, why not talk about the validity or lack thereof, of what was changed. In addition, where does it say that dysgenics has been discounted? I think you are overreacting. Verwoerd (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * However, you are putting the two together as if the Science references supported the dysgenics theory. That is OR and forbidden by Wikipedia rules, not to mention misleading in the extreme.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the dysgenic info should not be in the article, but I have no problem with the first part of the Continuing Evolution part - that evolution is continuing should stay in. Bob98133 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a simple matter of two and two is four. If human evolution is not occurring, then obvious dysgenics is moot. But the fact that humans are evolving shows that the theory can be true, that it cant be discounted. And then there is the mountain of research on dysgenics. Verwoerd (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a bit more complicated than that or everyone would agree. I think it can be documented that evolution is continuing, but predicting or even determining what changes or direction that evolution is taking cannot be done with any certainty during the process, which is what I guess dysgenics tries to do. If it were that easy to do, then certainly someone should be able to predict when vestigal organs, such as the appendix, will disappear in humans, or other changes.Bob98133 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Putting two and two together is WP:OR and not permitted. And there is no mountain of evidence on dysgenics; there are a handful, most of them related to Lynn's book and its reviews. Differential fertility studies, before you ask are not about dysgenics.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an overview of Lynn's dysgenics research and a critique by another scientist. The research on dysgenics may not be as large as in other unrelated fields, but in the genetics discipline, it is certainly an important topic. Verwoerd (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny that of several reviews, you would pick the one by Lynn's staunchest supporter (Marian Van Court), which even shows its bias by offering a 20% discount on the book upon order!!! BTW, neither Van Court nor Lynn are geneticists to start with.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bob, but this info is already in the article, the last paragraph of the section entitled "Origins" states: "The forces of selection continue to operate on human populations, with evidence that certain regions of the genome display recent positive selection." The NYTimes article by Nicholas Wade is cited. That selection still acts on the human population should not be particularly surprising, selection acts on all organisms. Whether one would consider this "evolution" is a matter of how one defines "evolution". Generally with human differences we are talking about microevolution rather than macroevolution, microevolutionary adaptation to localised environmental conditions is unlikely to produce speciation, whereas major changes due to large environmental change, that could for example lead to mass extinction, would lead to macroevolutionary pressures and more speciation events (punctuated equilibrium). Selection is a more specific and less misunderstood/misused concept. As for dysgenics, it's massively fringe, is never discussed in serious academic circles, and when the occasional biologist does offer an opinion it's usually to simply state that it's bunk. A few right wing psychologists, who appear to have a very tenuous understanding of biology and genetics spout this nonsense for political reasons, there's no reason to include it here except for pov-pushing by right wing idealogues. Indeed I'd say that a user who chooses a username for the "architect of apartheid" (Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd) lacks credibility. Alun (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary selection pressure only operates if conditions allow. In the history of any species, there will be long periods of stability where there is no clear selection pressure. Continuing evolution implies selection pressure to overcome poor adaptation to the evolutionary niche of the species, and will manifest itself in unequal reproduction rates between individuals.

In modern human society, nearly all individuals, of all social levels, marry and have children, so there is little or no selection pressure. Concern about alleged low intelligence among most people has been expressed for at least a century, but heavy spending on education was meant to compensate for any genetic shortcomings. People appear to breed largely at random, and this situation could continue for a long time, or change suddenly.

David Erskine124.179.1.30 (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sports
Not a sports fan myself until very recently, why sports aren't mentioned, it has to be dug after via culture etcYosef1987 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Under: Art, music, and literature: ''Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon based on the three distinct and interrelated organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody. Listening to music is perhaps the most common and universal form of entertainment for humans''

Sports, games should be included somewhere Yosef1987 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to the sport article. I think the main emphasis of the culture section has been on means of communication distinct from other apes, but orangutans don't have Olympics either. On the subject of which, "Like most (higher) primates, humans are social by nature" - we certainly are, but many primate species like orangutans are largely solitary --Cedderstk 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cannot find it. Yosef1987 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on addition of continuing evolution
A continuing evolution section has been proposed to be added as a section after "Rise of Civilization". Is such a section appropiate, whether or not it is in the current form?
 * Support There are two very strong sources that state human evolution has been progressing at an ever increasing rate, refuting what many social scientists had said before. In addition, dysgenics and the eugenics movements have been important in shaping the world so far. Verwoerd (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose
 * The fact of ongoing evolution is already touched upon in the article, at the end of the "Origin" section.
 * So far, dysgenics remains to be proven as a trend in humans, and eugenics is regarded by many as a pseudoscience.
 * Juxtaposing references on continuing human evolution with comments regarding the fringe hypothesis of human intelligence dysgenics is pure synthesis and forbidden by Wikipedia.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - for reasons already stated, reiterated by Ramdrake. Bob98133 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:COATRACK for dysgenics, not actually about continuing evolution. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article already adequately reports what is known about recent human evolution, and merging this material with the pseudoscientific topic of eugenics/dysgenics is both original research and POV pushing. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - love to see the actual sources; do they mention dysgenics and eugenics, or do they merely discuss allele changes? Saying that 'humans are still evolving' is a bit redundant as all living things are still evolving, though perhaps humans are currently a few Darinws faster than others.  I'd say any section based on two sources is bound to be stubby.  And isn't dysgenics impossible since evolution is about adaptation based on environment without reference to terms like 'progress', 'better' or 'improvement'?  Seems kinda impossible.  WLU (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, I made this point above, it depends what one means by evolution. Are we subject to selective forces? Of course we are. Are those selective forces different today than they were 1000 years ago? Maybe, but there is no way we can possibly know. Do selective forces always lead to "evolution"? Not necessarily, in a stable environment to which a population is already well adapted, selection tends not to change populations a great deal, after all if the population is already well adapted selection should keep it well adapted, therefore it should stay in equilibrium with the environment. Are microevolutionary forces producing localised adaptations within some human populations? Of course they are. A blanket claim about humans "continuing to evolve" is simplistic and is derived from an at best facile understanding of selection. Alun (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The causes of child mortality are probably the major selective forces on humans at present, things like viral diarrhea and malaria. Pseudoscientists always seem to forget that most people in the world live in poverty. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is a point I've made at the dysgenics article and the race and intelligence article, it's absurd to claim that in the past "intelligent" people had a selective advantage and that today they don't. In the past everyone lived in (relatively speaking) disease infested environments, even the wealthy. Diseases like the Black Death (to use an extreme example) were not "intelligence" specific, or at least there's no reason to believe that they were. The discussion about fertility and intelligence is mute in my opinion, fertility is irrelevant, the proportion of children that survive to adulthood is more important, and child mortality has probably always been high and (class/intelligence) indiscriminate, the two or three generations that, in some modern societies, have benefited from antibiotics are the exception rather than the rule. Alun (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Ramdrake, Shoemaker's Hiliday and Tim Vickers. Alun (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Fringy. Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose of Dysgenics but neutral on Eugenics and OK for "Evolution" as it's logical that natural selection would still be effecting changes in the human genome (thus "Evolution" cannot be left out). Eugenics has been applied to humans (though uncertain if this has had any effect on the genome) but even though Dysgenics feels it should be true, strangely enough there isn't the evidence to support it so it needn't get equal weight with Eugenics so for an article as high level as "Human" thus evolution (natural selection) is fine, Eugenics gets a passing mention but no need to mention Dysgenics. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless you add a similar section to every other species mentioned on Wikipedia! --Cedderstk 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we need this?
Delete this article, it sounds like it was written for an alien. Only an ignorant smitten retard would not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.123.156 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we might need an article for alien ignorant smitten retards. Bob98133 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a useful article for showing where homo sapiens fits within animal taxonomy. --Cedderstk 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Freud... Really?
Freud may have been influential in the founding of psychology, however, his opinions on human sexuality are generally no longer cited as fact. Ever since the second psychologist (Jung), people have thought Freud's views on this were wrong. It should probably cite someone else in the Love and Sex section.71.7.107.208 (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing Freud founded was his own irrational pseudoscience (think secular religion where "psychoanalysts" are the priests and the unconscious is the devil). I'm astonished he's quoted in this otherwise exceptional article. The quote given in the article is completely meaningless yet it brings the quality of the article into question, well to those who are familiar with Freud. If we quote Freud as an expert where does it end? Do we start quoting other pseudoscience advocates? Midnight Gardener (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Wikipedia article on Freud,
 * Sigmund Freud was an Austrian physician who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychology. Freud is best known for his theories of the unconscious mind and the defense mechanism of repression and for creating the clinical practice of psychoanalysis for curing psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst. Freud is also renowned for his redefinition of sexual desire as the primary motivational energy of human life, as well as his therapeutic techniques, including the use of free association, his theory of transference in the therapeutic relationship, and the interpretation of dreams as sources of insight into unconscious desires.
 * If you would like to re-define him as primarily a founder of a pseudoscience, maybe you should start at the Freud article, rather than here. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

He is acknowledged as a founder of psychology, but you would be hard pressed to find a psychologist who takes his actual theories seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkrockrunner (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree that this section is relatively uninformative and unscientific, and could be excised or reduced to a few words. --Cedderstk 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture image
In the discussion of the importance of agriculture to human civilization, there is an image of a person using a horse-driven plow. The caption simply mentions agriculture, not the domestication of animals (which presumably happened later). It seems to me that a better image to illustrate what the caption is about would be one of a human performing an agricultural activity by hand. Does anyone object to the change? LotLE × talk 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added some possibilities here on talk. LotLE × talk  17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the low quality of the proposed photographs are problematic, and it's harder to tell (at a glance) what's going on. While I don't object to changing the image, the image we're using is a featured picture, and I'd like the quality to be similar, if at all possible. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? These two look pretty good quality to me. I don't have any attachment to either specifically, but they are ones that I found on the Commons that seem clearly both "human" and "agriculture" (there's one that has sharecroppers that is well taken, but seems to conjure specific socio-historical associations that are not relevant to this use).  LotLE × talk  17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not bad, but not as good, at least from a technical quality aspect: The first has a lot of motion blur, the second has slightly odd composition, and looks a little washed out. =) I'd also prefer something where it's immediately obvious what they're doing, and that it relates to agriculture - e.g. scything wheat, or the like: For instance, without caption information, the first one could, conceivably, be related to commerce instead (taking a purchase home), and the second conceals what the women are doing while bent over. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the first one is a farmer harvesting grass for his cows - we're right back to domestication. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I just changed the caption of the horse-plow image to mention "domestication of animals" as well. Those are both early events in human civilization, so illustrating both in the same image isn't bad. I'd still somewhat prefer a picture that was just humans+agriculture though. LotLE × talk 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the 2nd image is better for your mean.--Taranet (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

dubious
I don't think it's at all clear that humans are at the "top of the food chain," or even that the concept of a food chain has any meaning on a global scale. Owen (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Social Infobox/Human
I just hid Template:Social Infobox/Human at the top of the Culture section because it was severely messing up the structure of the article. I'm not sure what changed in the template to cause the problem, but it was placing a References section at the top of the Culture section. -- Donald Albury 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed the template and restored it to the article. A bot had added a References section to the template, which was therefore adding a References section at that point in the article. I'm not completely convinced that there aren't other problems in the article; I can't seem to find the Christmas Seals camp image, which I know is in the article. -- Donald Albury 01:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Got that back, as well. -- Donald Albury 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Species article
Shouldn't Homo sapiens have it's own article separate from Homo sapiens sapiens, since the species isn't (or wasn't) monotypic? For example, if you were to click on "Homo sapiens" in the taxobox of Homo sapiens idaltu, you would be lead to an article which is largely about Homo sapiens sapiens, and this would be rather misleading. No other Wikipedia article I can think of about a species with several sub-species, extant or not, redirects to one particular sub-species. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Trade and Economics
what about the key role of entrepreneurship and innovation? Bgoswami (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is already 79 kB long. We can't include everything known about humans in this one article. -- Donald Albury 18:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This section is poorly written and poorly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.112.159 (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you give us some specifics? -- Donald Albury 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Images / Global view
I notice that all but two of the images in the article are either of or by Europeans. It would be nice to broaden the scope a bit. Additionally, all the images, except for the proto-human depict post-Hunter Gathers humans, which is also strange, considering the hunter/gatherer state lasted for 99% of human existence (and still does in some areas). Does any one have any objection to changing some pictures, under this criteria?Ashmoo (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It has also gender problems. Most of the pics are men.--Taranet (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Diet : Vegetarianism
I removed the following section because a debate on the pros-and-cons of vegetarianism seems out of place in a general article on Humans. At most we should humans eat varied diets, by culture, and some cultures don't eat animal products at all. Preferably with hard data on the percentages. Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. A pure animal or a pure vegetable diet can lead to deficiency diseases in humans. A pure animal diet, for instance, may lead to scurvy, a vitamin C deficiency, while a pure plant diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency. However, properly planned vegetarian and vegan diets, often in conjunction with B12 supplements, have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life. Ashmoo (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been a contentious issue in the past, and the material you removed was a wording that had consensus and had been stable for a while. Don't be surprised if you get reverted. -- Donald Albury 11:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm sorry if I broke consensus. Personally, I find the paragraph a bit odd but I'm not going to argue against consensus. Ashmoo (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, a new consensus well emerge. We used to have dueling citations in the article "proving", on the one hand, that humans were intrinsically vegetarian, and, on the other hand, that humans were intrinsically carnivorous. -- Donald Albury 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the content is important, but it also reads too much like an argument of the pros and cons of different diets. Let me try something more neutral, how about this?

Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming both plant and animal products. Varying with available food source in regions of habitation, and also varying with cultural and religious norms, human groups have adopted both purely vegetarian and primarily carnivorous diets. In some cases, dietary restrictions in humans can lead to deficiency diseases; however, stable human groups have adapted to many dietary patterns through both genetic specialization and cultural conventions to utilize nutritionally balanced food sources

I'm concerned in part to represent both the widespread patterns of vegetarian diets (both ecologically and culturally motivated) in much of the world and also the almost purely carnivorous diets of some limited groups like the Inuit. LotLE × talk 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. Something on diet is needed in the article. I hope this (or something very like it) can be accepted by consensus. -- Donald Albury</b> 20:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is much better. I appreciate the removal of the mentions of 'B12 supplements' which seemed to only apply to 20th century developed nations. It would be good to catalogue the complete range of human diets, as many people eat insects, and other foods that editors with a Western diet don't initially think of. Maybe outlining how various groups gets there carbohydrates / proteins, might be the way to go? Ashmoo (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That level of detail probably should go in an ancillary article. Diet (nutrition) might be a place to start (note that Traditional diet currently redirects to Diet (nutrition)). -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 12:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Homo sapiens! Not Homo sapiens sapiens!
Homo sapiens sapiens is a pseudoscientific and plain wrong classification! Our species is simply called Homo sapiens! --Noirceuil (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Our sub-species is called sapiens too. See, this is another reason why I think the species Homo sapiens should have a separate article from the sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens, people get confused, and there were other sub-species in the past. See here: FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And what are those sub-species? Possibilities other than H. sapiens sapiens are Neanderthal, Rhodesian Man and H. sapiens idaltu (Idaltu). But, there is disagrteement as to whether Neanderthal is H. neanderthalis or H. sapiens neanderthalis, and whether Rhodesian man is H. rhodesiensis or H. sapiens rhodesiensis. The Wikipedia naming guideline is to use the common name (if there is one) for articles about animals, and that would be the relevant guideline here. We already have articles for the other three species/sub-species. I see no point in renaming this article just so we can say we have a separate article for each sub-species. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 16:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point, which is that Homo sapiens shouldn't simply redirect to this article (which is mostly about our specific sub-species, Homo sapiens sapiens), but be a separate article. This article should stay as it is. The other sub-species would be idaltu. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what FunkMonk is saying, but many other species articles largely ignore extinct subspecies, due to the nature of evolution, fossil evidence and focus on living specimens. If the article is to remain about h. sapiens, then the infobox should be amended to include the binomial name in place of the trinomial, and the rest of the article should have an eye to the last 200,000 years, (rather than the last twenty, an emphasis that seems to creep in in places). If, on the other hand, it is solely about h. sapiens sapiens then there should be a new page for h. sapiens.  However, I don't think enough is known about the commonalities between idaltu (or other future finds) and sapiens sapiens to justify this, and I'm not aware that the historical border of what we call h.sapiens is that well-defined?  I've mentioned the subspecies again in the introductory paragraph.


 * BTW, "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" did appear widely in serious literature until very recently. The Neanderthal article suggests that if idaltu is mentioned, neanderthalensis, with its disputed classification, should be too. --Cedderstk 08:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mandarin, Chinese
This article contradicts the wikipedia page on Mandarin which states 885 Million total speakers, and is cited, whereas it says in this article says 1.12 Billion, which I think is combining all the Chinese dialects. I think the "Mandarin" part should be removed. Kyprosサマ (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ant wars
Shouldn't we note that humans aren't the only ones on this planet that engage in war? NerdyNSK (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ant 'wars' are conflicts between ant colonies that are, in some sense, 'super-organisms'. Even though such conflicts are commonly called 'wars', we should be careful about anthropomorphizing the behavior of social insects. A closer analogy to human warfare, IMHO, is the boundary patrolling engaged in by bands of chimpanzees. In any case, what reliable sources would you use? -- Donald Albury 20:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Science and Technology
This section seems a little misguided. Notably, the 'Science' part. Since Science is a system of knowledge acquistion developed in post-Renaissance Europe it is hardly universal to 'Humans'. I think the section should focus on Tool Use and Technology with a short mention that in the last few hundred years Science has been used to develop technology. Does anyone object to this change? Ashmoo (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be confusion of science and technology in the second paragraph, and history of tool use is remarkable by its absence - no doubt there are other articles to link to, and there might be something in the past history. Mention of the recent emergence of the scientific method would not be out of place, but perhaps one should keep in mind the older, more general usage of science to mean any knowledge. So, yes, a wider perspective is appropriate IMHO. --Cedderstk 08:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Human Conservation Status
This wiki states that humans are not rated on the Conservation Status thing. But on the Chinese Wikipedia (I do know chinese), it says we are under "least concern" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.213.52‎ (talk • contribs)


 * So? Just because they made a decision that is different than our means.... nothing. The Chinese 'pedia lists Humans as "LC", but that does not mean that the species has been officially rated by a conservation organization. We here on the English 'pedia decided that we would only use an official conservation status, not what some random editor or collection of editors thinks the status *should* be. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The species is now officially rated by the IUCN. I added the conservation status and fully referenced it.   Erie  lhonan  00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Technology section: dubious statements
The Technology section needs a total revamp. I have started by removing some unsourced statements that seem to exhibit a bit of a folk understanding of how technological development occurred. Improvements in technology are passed from one culture to another. For instance, the cultivation of crops arose in several different locations, but quickly spread to be an almost ubiquitous feature of human life. Similarly, advances in weapons, architecture and metallurgy are quickly disseminated. I chopped these sentences because: The first sentence is unsourced and probably not true. My personal (also unsourced) understanding is that technology more often gets transmitted across cultures by assimilation of one of the cultures. The statements about the speed of technological dissemination are also unsourced, vague (how quick is quickly? one generation? a hundred thousand years?) and probably untrue, except in modern times. My understanding is that one of the mysteries of stone age archeology is the question of why some stone tool techniques lasted so long, without obvious improvements. The same goes for agriculture. It is not true that once developed it quickly spread.

For instance, in Papua New Guinea and Australia, agriculture has been known for tens of thousands of years, but never became widespread, because other food production techniques were more economic. Ashmoo (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I also removed this paragraph: Although such techniques can be passed on by oral tradition, the development of writing, itself a kind of technology, made it possible to pass information from generation to generation and from region to region with greater accuracy. Together, these developments made possible the commencement of civilization and urbanization, with their inherently complex social arrangements. Eventually this led to the institutionalization of the development of new technology, and the associated understanding of the way the world functions. This science now forms a central part of human culture. In recent times, physics and astrophysics have come to play a central role in shaping what is now known as physical cosmology, that is, the understanding of the universe through scientific observation and experiment. because it is unsourced and totally wrong. Urbanization and civilization are the result of agriculture. Writing is a development of urbanization, not the other way around. I do think that writing and science both need to be mentioned in this section, but the above text is misleading. Ashmoo (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the pioneer plaque drawing?

 * See also Talk:Human/Image

We don't have drawings of other organisms where a freely available picture is available, so why do we not have an image of a human being in the infobox?   Ase ' nine ' '' 13:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look through the Talk archives. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed many times. Ashmoo (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the grotesque images shown look like a cross between an episode of Star Trek and a 1950's porno magazine. Please could we have something a bit more realistic, clothed or naked.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just had a look through the talk archives and there is not that much in the way of serious discussion of the image. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather like the drawing because it both pictures humans and pictures something that evidences an "accomplishment" of the species (space travel). Any specific photo of humans would tend to be much too particularistic in showing human(s) of a specific age, "race", gender, posture, clothing style if not naked, etc.  I realize we show pictures of other animals, but those pictures just don't carry as much cultural baggage as do ones of a person.
 * That said, what photo do editors propose instead of the drawing? Perhaps something that showed a group of a number of poeple, where the group ranged across ethnicity, gender, age, etc. I'd also rejoin with a prior observation by another editor that our existing photos skew male, and skew European... some better balance about that would be nice (the Pioneer drawing seems to picture European-looking humans as well).  LotLE × talk  20:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is probably not possible to get a single picture that shows a completely balanced view of all humanity but it is still better, in my opinion, to have a realistic picture (or drawing) of any humans rather than the Bowderlerised offering we now have. Any picture of any people would be better. I will make some proposals.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given this plaque is on (one of) the first human-built objects to leave our solar system I think it is notable beyond any other photo or artwork that simply would aim to be anatomically correct. Google images and the huge number of porn sites on the 'Net have many anatomically correct images but none would do justice to our technological aspirations in the same way that this plaque does. The use of tools and technology is certainly a human trait that we select for that goes beyond meer anatomy. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There also is no shortage of actual photographs of humans later in the article. If a Martian were to read the article, it's true that it might not get as much anatomical realism from the lead image as it would for some other species article, but it doesn't take that much scrolling to get to such naturalism.  LotLE × talk  18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that the Pioneer drawing really does portray quite accurately the general anatomical layout of humans: bipedal; two arms; lateral symmetry; five fingers; two sexes; mostly hairless; one head with sense organs; etc. Those are pretty much the types of features that distinguish humans from other organisms (obviously, each feature is shared with some other organisms). LotLE × talk  18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to vote and say I agree with LotLE and Ttiotsw. Cadwaladr (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one that finds the plaque offensive?Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't find it offensive, but I find it a little ridiculous. Also, take a look at the Christmas article for the sort of montage that might be wise to see.   Ase ' nine ' '' 12:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TwoVCover.jpg or if this is to in-your-face for some people this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Expecting_family.jpg which has already been suggested. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of those seem appropriate to me. We need to be able to see the human form in detail, notice that (as an example), the article buttocks has male and female buttocks, there are no drawings. Since you can still tell the skin colour and, up to a point, the ethnicity of the person from the picture, it seems that the same should apply to this article. That said, just because one thing happens it does not mean that another should follow, I am merely saying that I am yet to find any controversy over the use of such images in an article that is illustrating a part of the human anatomy (admittedly buttocks are not exclusively human).   Ase ' nine ' '' 16:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like any of the proposals so far nearly as much as the existing plaque. One danger of nude images is that they risk being overly sexualized/pornographic. Someone was putting up a "erotic photograph" a while back that suffered this (not explicitly pornographic, but suggestive). I don't see that particular problem with either the John&Yoko or the pregnant woman/man/child.

Compositionally and in content, I might like the John&Yoko. However, the fact it is a very specific and well known photo of famous people vastly overemphasizes those individuals for this article. I'm very strongly against using a celebrity picture for this lead. The family w/ pregnant woman gets a few things right. It concerns me, however, that it is yet another image of Europeans (so's the Pioneer, but the drawing form seems to make that concern slightly less). Using that image somewhere later (but not in a way that increased the European skew) might be nice.

In any case, the historic/cultural significance of the Pioneer drawing still makes it much preferable to me. Btw, to Martin Hogbin, I'm honestly and utterly baffled at how you could find the Pioneer drawing "offensive". I can understand (though not concur with) the idea that a photo is automatically better than a drawing, but finding the offensiveness in teh drawing eludes me entirely. LotLE × talk 16:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. What I hate about the drawing is that it has been edited/censored to conform to a particular social standard.  I do not particularly want to go into too much detail here but there is no body hair on either the man or the woman and, in particular, no pubic hair on the woman.  This is not because it is visually insignificant but because a minority of people, in a particular area of one country deem it offensive or improper.  Please note that I am not insisting that a realistic nude picture be show.  If certain images offend then I am happy to compromise, but the way to do this is to put some clothes on or change the viewing angle to something more discreet, not to erase body parts.  To pretend that some parts of humans do not exist and to force this on others, is in my opinion offensive to the human race.  As I said earlier, the drawing of the woman is reminiscent of airbrushed 1950's porno mags (I am told;-) .Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... that interpretation (of prudishness) seems unlikely to me. I guess it's conceivable though.  I think a more parsimonious explanation is just that the simple drawing style used doesn't allow an easy representation of body hair (which is rather less in humans than in other primates).  In any case, I continue to think that the historical/technological significance of the Pioneer drawing is of vastly greater relevance than is the remote chance that our Martian readers will get the impression that humans do not have public hair (or that they all shave it :-)... it's moot, but would you feel the same of a nude picture that showed shaven pubic hair?).  LotLE × talk  21:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look at the picture and consider what any honest person would draw if they were drawing a real woman (shaved or natural) in the stance depicted. It is not parsimony it is censorship.  Surely it would have been preferable to have chanced the woman's stance to a more modest one. It is not the Martian readers that worry me, it is the human ones.  What a sad representation of humanity this is.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid these further claims are looking increasingly less plausible to me. The drawing look pretty much like what I would expect if you were to draw humans while minimizing the number of lines involved.  I have no idea if the specific constraints of etching the image into the spacecraft were at play, but an explanation that relied solely on "the fewest lines (above some threshhold)" pretty much exactly gets you those images. What is your claim here anyway?... are you worried about female genitalia not being depicted? That seems like pretty much a matter of scale-of-detail to me (though the amount of detail around the knees does seem comparable to what would be need for some suggestion of labia, I admit).  In any case, I don't think we're going to go catch the Pioneer space craft to add a few lines to the drawing.  LotLE × talk  22:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If one looks closely, it appears that all human types are represented in the image, as the drawing is rather ambiguous and exhibits features characteristic of many different human types. A photograph would hardly be able to accomplish this. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that it does not look like any real human?Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying it looks like a composite of different types of humans, which is a good thing in this case. I think I read somewhere that it was intentional. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, in the interests of political correctness we have generated some ghastly chimera because no one dared to show a real person.Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made my point and it look like you have understood it it. Let us see what others have to say.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I say your claims of censorship is wrong; what we have is not censored. The picture correctly shows what was placed on the Pioneer craft. It is just cropped. Censored would be if this image was altered to obscure some feature on the original drawing. You claim the original drawing was "censored" but the section here it says "But Sagan himself wrote that "The decision to omit a very short line in this diagram was made partly because conventional representation in Greek statuary omits it. But there was another reason: Our desire to see the message successfully launched on Pioneer 10. In retrospect, we may have judged NASA's scientific-political hierarchy as more puritanical than it is. In the many discussions that I held with such officials up to the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the President's Science Adviser, not one Victorian demurrer was ever voiced; and a great deal of helpful encouragement was given.". Thus it may have been "self-censored" but that's really hard to pin down. Censored in the end would be if the original that was submitted was altered or asked to be altered. It wasn't. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that information, you have proved my point, "The decision to omit a very short line in this diagram was made...'. In other words the drawing was made deliberately unrealistic in order to "see the message successfully launched on Pioneer 10".  This may be how some people wish to see themselves represented, but not me.   I agree the plaque has not been censored by editors here but inherently carries puritanical message.  I do not even object that much to puritanism, but why pretend, show the people clothed if some people find realistic nudity offensive, after all nearly all humans wear clothes much of the time, but please, do not omit body parts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The John & Yoko picture would be quite amusing, but part of the rationale for its use as a non-free image is that it is only used to illustrate their work. I question whether the main image should in fact be naked individual(s), in any case.  Lest you think this is prudishness, I have no problem with the images at vulva and penis, but is the unclothed state actually representative of the subject of the article?  The hermit crab article does not apparently contain any image of a "naked" hermit crab, and although you can argue that humans are naked more often than hermit crabs, an image should perhaps be illustrative of how humans are actually observed.  It should also include features that distinguish humans from other primates: habitat, limb length and specialisation, bipedalism and hair distribution.  True, breasts are different in order from other apes, but genitalia are not that distinct from say, bonobos.  How about something like commons:Image:Tunkan Maia Yucatan.jpg or commons:Image:Indian family in Brazil posed in front of hut.jpg?  If a photographic equivalent of the Pioneer image (which feels very USA-centric and 1970s to me) is wanted, I found commons:Image:Naked kiss.jpg --79.75.111.140 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any of those would be preferable to the Pioneer image. I agree there is no need for the humans to be naked, most humans spend most of their time clothed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are all nice images that 79.-- found. I'd like to try to use one or more in the article (I like commons:Image:Indian family in Brazil posed in front of hut.jpg especially, I guess partially because it seems to portray a habitat and lifestyle that is more typical of humans over the last 200k years than are most images we have).  Nonetheless, I still think the Pioneer image is getting most of what is stated as desiderata: limb length and specialization; bipedalism; hair distribution breasts.  Habitat is missing I recognize; I can also see the point that it is an artifact of a USA government program and thereby perhaps too culturally specific.  For reasons discussed above, I still like the use of the Pioneer image as lead.  LotLE × talk  22:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Hair distribution' on the Pioneer image, you must be joking.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, not directly related to what lead image to choose. I liked the Brazil Indian family image enough that I put it down in the "Habitat" section, and replaced the image of Hong Kong at night. As I explain in edit comments, the Hong Kong picture did not actually portray any humans directly, and only pertains to a recent habitat change of building very large cities. I think this new image works nicely where I placed it. LotLE × talk 22:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Human/Image. Many of the above points defending the Pioneer plaque have already been rebutted many times before. The plaque is only present because we haven't reached a consensus on a replacement. Not because it's in any way a good or useful image for explaining to readers what humans look like. -Silence (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear and unambiguous: I believe that the Pioneer plaque is a good and useful image for explaining to readers what humans look like. It's a fine and reasonable opinion that Silence holds, but s/he is not stating a uniform or consensus opinion in denying that claim.  LotLE × talk  16:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too; Silence is presumptuous. The points defending the Pioneer plaque have NOT been refuted in any way whatsoever. I too believe that the Pioneer plaque is a good and useful image for explaining to readers what humans look like. Silence is definitely not summarising a consensus opinion. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How many of our readers do you think will not know what a human looks like, and of those, if there are any, how many will be learn something from the pioneer plaque?Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin I'm not sure I understand your point above: "Am I the only one that finds the plaque offensive?". Are you saying this because you feel it is censored (or self-censored, as pointed out by Sagan)? For me it has historical significance and to worry about it being anatomically correct or informative seems to miss the point of it being in the article. I can't imagine any other picture in there causing fewer arguments. I also think it adds something informative to readers who are not aware of pioneer. And it's one thing that is unique to humans, space technology. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, my problem is with the bizarre self censorship referred to by Sagan. It seems odd to me that we should choose a picture produced by people who clearly find the human body so offensive that they have to censor it.  It also seems strangely pretentious to show the humans naked with the woman in a particularly bold pose when you really do not wish to show certain parts of the body at all.  At the very least, the woman could have been shown a more modest (and therefore more realistic) pose, as in the classical statues referred to by Sagan.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just in case there is any doubt about the censorship, you can read the details about it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 22:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little late to this discussion, but I do not see a problem with the Pioneer plaque being used here. I would equally not have a problem with a picture depicting naked humans, nor a problem with a more abstract representation of a human.  The issue I see that could be a problem is choosing which humans get depicted?  Will it only be Caucasian?  African?  Asian?  Latin American?  South American?  From which part(s) of Asia and/or Africa will people be depicted?  I could see whomever is left out being rightfully upset in not being depicted.  The one point that draws me to the Pioneer plaque is that it not only depicts the human forms, but also represents a great human accomplishment.  To end the argument, an abstraction of a human being might be the best (the Venus of Willendorf jumped to mind), though using a single image like that could be construed as being somewhat sexist. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to User:Silence for his work on the Talk:Human/Image criteria, which I've commented on (and hope Martin and others do too), and also on the defence of Sagan's line drawing. Interestingly, there is a similar issue at Talk:Woman, so I've requested an image along Silence's lines at Requested pictures/Society.  I suggest it is necessary to have a candidate image before any vote on a change.  While man and woman have artistic images (not entirely out of choice), I don't think human, as an article in biology and anthropology, should.  Artistic images are subject to at least as much cultural bias and selection as are photographs, and while I would prefer an ethnically diverse group if it's in an urban setting, I can't see any problem over exact skin tone (and why select any particular human accomplishment?  Isn't that upsetting to either artists or scientists?).  --Cedderstk 15:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also very pleased to see the image criteria from User:Silence and will comment on them on that page.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Empty claims of consensus
Alright. Silence here. Again, I encourage people to review Talk:Human/Image, which does indeed reflect the consensus over several years, and many pages, of discussion about this very topic; I also encourage editors here to review the archives for this very talk page. But, first thing's first. Point-by-point.
 * Wrong - the current article reflects the consensus over several years not the side-talk chat on Talk:Human/Image which only refects the POV of people who wants the image out. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As with Ttiotsw, I would also emphasize that Silence' purports of consensus are just exaggerated ways of stating his/her own opinion. The opinions and arguments s/he expresses are fine, but I am finding these misrepresentations of consensus to be disruptive and bordering on bad faith.  In reality, there a few editors who do not think the Pioneer image is a good lead image, and a few others editors who think that it is indeed preferable to a photo of humans.  Probably a number of additional editors have no particular opinion one way or the other.  That's not the urgent consensus to change images that Silence keeps claiming; but neither is it overwhelming opposition to a change if a suitable substitute was widely agreed upon.  LotLE × talk  07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Silence, the Pioneer image should be replaced. A agree with all the reasons that he has given and have added my own comments below.  An RFC might be a good way to proceed.  I might add that I find the image offensive and that if others find this also then it must be removed.
 * I don't suppose that after these thousands of words of insinuation of the "offensiveness" of the Pioneer plaque you might actually be willing to tell us what motivates this bizarre impression? I suppose not, but I figured I'd try one more time. LotLE × talk  18:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'thousands of words of insinuation' is a curious way to put it. I have already explained what I find offensive about the image. Have a look at the section on censorship below.  Basically I do not like the idea that one small section of society should feel that it has the right to alter the human body. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What's with the numbering below? It appears to go: 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1. Am I missing some rational order here?--Kangabell (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I rather like the drawing because it both pictures humans and pictures something that evidences an "accomplishment" of the species (space travel).
 * First, the image does not depict space travel. Only people who already know all the details of the image's backstory will understand this at a glance, and such people have nothing to gain from seeing the image yet another time. Second, this article is not about space travel; it's not even about human accomplishments, anymore than kangaroo is about kangaroo accomplishments. Third, persuant to WP:NPOV, an image which seeks to praise humanity is less, not more, appropriate for inclusion. Our job is to educate, not to self-congratulate or to advocate a POV.
 * Firstly, wouldn't anyone honestly not know the images as being human ?. I don't think so. Then secondly we provide Wikilinks so if someone is uninformed as to what the image actually is then they can (amazingly) click the link ! - They then get educated as they learn more. On your bizarre logic that showing an image of an "accomplishment" is a biased POV, in effect you are saying that showing a picture of a film or sports star doing something in which they have won is not a neutral POV because it is highlighting that they won and others lost !. It is suggesting that we only show all pictures of humans when they are fence-sitting. That's taking tall-poppy syndrome to the extreme.
 * The Picture we have is human, and in an educational way, highlights a very good achievement of humanity.Ttiotsw (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to the points made by User:silence, which I agree with, let me add that the achievement alluded to by the plaque was just one of many human achievements in one particular field of human endeavour. There are many other fields of science and technology in which humans have achieved much and there are other fields such as politics, medicine, and arts where many might say that humans have achieved more.  To pick unmanned space travel as the pinnacle of human achievement is clear POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Any specific photo of humans would tend to be much too particularistic in showing human(s) of a specific age, "race", gender, posture, clothing style if not naked, etc.
 * This has been discussed and rebutted many times before. Many, many times. Seriously. There is far less diversity between humans than there is between vertebrates, or between frogs, or between birds--yet we successfully illustrate each of those articles with not only a single image, but a single image of a single individual. (We even accomplish this task on the molecule page.) There is no problem with choosing an example image which is an incomplete sample of the subject matter, yet still has informational value; indeed, that is not only acceptable, but effectively mandated by Wikipedia's illustrative conventions. It is profoundly easy (though not 100% necessary: the overwhelming majority of our mammal articles do not include young, nor do they include members of both sexes) to find an image which depicts both variation in humans by age and by sex; any image of a father, mother, and child (or even a father and daughter, or mother and son) would accomplish this task. Differences in posture are trivial and irrelevant, for the same reason that it is not biased to show a picture at the top of Frog of a frog sitting, rather than leaping or swimming. Clothing is similarly trivial; what matters to readers is to know that humans generally wear clothing, not to know what articles and styles of clothing each community of humans on the entire planet happens to specifically wear. And race is even more trivial; if it doesn't matter what species of frog we choose for the Frog page, it matters less than one-fifty-thousandth as much what human race we choose (since there are 5,000 frog species and tens of thousands of subspecies, compared to only a single extant species and subspecies of human). If you lose no sleep over choosing the Australian Green Tree Frog to represent the frogs on Frog, despite that order's staggering biological diversity, then you literally have .00005% as much reason to worry about which human race (or mix of races) we happen to pick.
 * 1) we show pictures of other animals, but those pictures just don't carry as much cultural baggage as do ones of a person.
 * Cultural baggage is not to be a factor in editorial content selection. The goal of the editorial process is to minimize cultural bias, not to accentuate it by indulging, and even glorifying, a double standard.
 * Explain where is there a double-standard ? Ttiotsw (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Perhaps something that showed a group of a number of poeple, where the group ranged across ethnicity, gender, age, etc
 * There are many images which depict people with different sexes and ages, e.g., Image:Tikar_crop.png, Image:Cambodia family.jpg, Image:Akha_couple.JPG. Ethnicity is a largely meaningless concept as an ethological category; showing people who are wearing different clothing styles, hairstyles, etc. is just as informational as showing two people of different ethnicities, since the variation between individuals within a community is, as a rule, much greater than the total variation between communities.
 * 1) Given this plaque is on (one of) the first human-built objects to leave our solar system I think it is notable beyond any other photo or artwork that simply would aim to be anatomically correct.
 * Not to the Human article's lead section, it isn't. Notability and relevance are two completely different criteria. Raw notability is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient, criterion for inclusion in a particular part of an article. Nobody disputes that the image is notable in and of itself--we aren't proposing that its article be deleted, after all. Nor would we need to dispute the notability of Michelangelo's David in order to point out its inappropriateness as the lead image for Human. What matters here is relevance: since the notability of the image is irrelevant to our purposes here (as we are not writing an article about space flight, about depictions of humans in science, about notable depictions of the human form, or about human-built objects), you cannot get an argument for its inclusion here off the ground merely based on its fame. You must put forward an argument for its educational, informational utility if you want to keep it where it is.
 * 1) The use of tools and technology is certainly a human trait that we select for that goes beyond meer anatomy.
 * First, this is an article about humans, not about human tool use; humans are also unique for practicing genital mutilation, but that does not, in itself, suggest that our image should be a close-up of a mutilated vagina. Second, the Pioneer Plaque does not depict human tool use. Nor does it depict humans using technology. It is an example, in itself, of humans using technology, but that sort of meta-reference is completely irrelevant since, as mentioned, it will only benefit people who already are familiar with the image anyway. Your argument would only hold water if the image depicted, e.g., humans using a hammer or a spear.
 * You're totally wrong on that one - the "sapiens" in homo sapiens sapiens means that technology ends up being the most important aspect of what is human over other animals or sub-species of homo or homo sapien. We wouldn't be here is it wasn't for technology. Slippery slope arguments on specific tool use don't help your case. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) There also is no shortage of actual photographs of humans later in the article
 * Most people do not read an entire article, which is the very reason why we include the most important and essential information (both linguistic and pictorial) at the top. By your logic, there's no reason to include a lead image at all.
 * 1) I'd also note that the Pioneer drawing really does portray quite accurately the general anatomical layout of humans: bipedal; two arms; lateral symmetry; five fingers; two sexes; mostly hairless; one head with sense organs; etc.
 * A stick figure could convey all of that bare-bones information just as easily. The advantage of a photograph is that it can convey all of that information and let a reader know in detail what humans actually look like, as opposed to letting the reader know how a caricaturist might, on a whim, opt to symbolically depict humans using a simplified assemblage of black lines.
 * 1) the simple drawing style used doesn't allow an easy representation of body hair (which is rather less in humans than in other primates).
 * Humans have much more body hair than chimpanzees; our body hair is just shorter and lighter, hence less easily visible to human eyes. This is not generally the case for hair around the head or genitals, hence the problem whichever way you look at things.
 * No photo will ever get every nuance of what is human. Disk space is cheap so we can have as many close-up photos of skin as we like. We're only talking about the lead photo. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I say your claims of censorship is wrong; what we have is not censored.
 * First, the Carl Sagan quote explicitly notes that the image was, in fact, censored: NASA was concerned about "puritanical" attitudes sinking the project if a vagina was depicted. (Yet, in an astounding display of misogyny, the male genitalia were apparently unproblematic.) Second, if the Human article is about humans, then the image, being an attempt to illustrate what humans look like, is clearly censored, because it censors out some of the most clearly visible details of human anatomy: the vagina and the male and female pubic hair. If the Human article is about the Pioneer plaque, then it is not censoring anything, because it is accurately depicting the plaque. Unfortunately, as the case happens, this article is not about the Pioneer plaque. We already have an article for that. It's called Pioneer plaque.
 * No the image was not censored by NASA. The image we have is an accurate representation of the plaque that is currently on the spacecraft. If you have proof that the image we have is different from what is on the spacecraft then please document it here.Ttiotsw (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at Pioneer plaque you will see that the image originally produced by the artist was changed before launch. Let me tell you why I find this offensive.  Suppose that in some particular culture it was considered impolite to show the eyes in public; people walked around with dark glasses on.  Let us suppose that this culture produced a drawing to exemplify humanity.  They would have a number of options: 1) consider that the drawing was important enough that it should disregard their particular culture and show the eyes; 2) show the person according to their custom, wearing dark glasses; 3) show the person without dark glasses but with the eyes deleted!!  How would you react to this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) For me it has historical significance and to worry about it being anatomically correct or informative seems to miss the point of it being in the article.
 * One could make the exact same argument for including the Venus of Willendorf at the top of our Human article. Screw anatomical accuracy, let's just put a smiley face at the top and be done with it, eh? If that's not what you're saying, this is special pleading. Historical significance is only a sufficient reason to include an image in an article specifically about what the image is historically significant for. The Pioneer Plaque is no more significant at the top of Human than the Venus of Willendorf or the Mona Lisa would be, even though they could each very well be excellent picks for the top of a more specific article because of their historical significance--Oil painting or Stone sculpture, for example.
 * That's a strawman argument because the Venus of Willendorf is a work that depicts woman whereas we want to depict "human". The Pioneer plaque images were intended to depict human. Equally does the "smiley" face depict human or just a happy face ? Ttiotsw (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pioneer space programme has historical significance for its science and technology and the hard work and imagination of the people involved. The plaque itself has little historical significance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Will it only be Caucasian? African? Asian? Latin American? South American? From which part(s) of Asia and/or Africa will people be depicted?
 * Who cares? If you are a human, which continent or region you are born in is one of the least reliable determiners of the type of organism you will be. You have much more reason to protest about regional bias in the Frog article, where the choice to favor an Australian species actually makes a dramatic difference in genetics (and, yes, in frog culture!), one many orders of magnitude greater than the difference which is possible in human 'racial' variation. -Silence (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What the editors decide in one article needn't apply to any other article. I don't see how you can say "we" have much more reason to complain about the frog pictures in the frog article, I've never edited the frog article - let those editors decide. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To attempt to sum up all of humanity in anything is impossible, especially in a line drawing. The best that we can do is to provide a good example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this issue should be looked at further. The image is representative of a perhaps 15–20% of the human population. I don't see this is a huge problem, but I think a more encompassing image would definitely be better. A possible solution would be something like the work done by the Face of Tomorrow project. Maybe one super-composite would be the best solution, or several regional composites. The Pioneer image does have many things going for it, such as the simple depictions of our anatomy. However, I am not sure if this is enough to keep it where it is. At the same time though we don't exactly have any nominees to replace it...do we?  Louis Waweru   Talk  22:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One further point about the Pioneer plaque is that it shows humans in a bizarrely unrealistic situation. We a have people with typical western hairstyles, completely naked, presumably greeting outsiders of some kind. Where is this scenario meant to be taking place? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process. Use that. Start an WP:RFC or something. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Invention
This says that "Humans are the only known species known to... develop numerous other technologies." However, Chimpanzees and Gorillas have been known to develop technology as well. I'm taking this out until someone can argue otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.213.52 (talk • contribs)


 * The anon's point about Chimps and Gorillas seems pedantic if true at all. However, I have rephrased the original sentence to clarify that the "only species" part refers specifically to fire, clothing, etc. in the first part of the sentence.  The discussion of other species is out of place in the lead, and probably in the article generally.  LotLE × talk  03:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the initial statement. There seems to be a frantic desire amongst some humans to find some property that absolutely distinguishes us from other animals - things like we are the only animals to use tools, fire, etc. The problem is that definitive statements are invariably wrong and, at best, unverifiable. I would be happier with more comparative statements along the lines of, 'humans have developed/used to a greater extent than...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What's that about (continuing evolution)
Poll for it up there

What's continuing evolution, I know evolution it self Yosef1987 (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Age of Modern Humans
The article says the age of modern humans is 200 thousands years which is unsourced material obviously because no one knows. However the source provided says 130,000 years. So how old are humans? 200 thousand years old, 130 thousand years old, or the millions of other numbers that science has claimed? Wikkidd (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "obviously because no one knows" and "millions of other numbers that science has claimed"?? That's certainly a solid argument for deletion, despite the references that explain how the latest mitochondrial DNA analysis come up with the estimate of 200,000 year. David D. (Talk) 06:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The question isn't well defined to start with, it's not just a question of specific evidence. It is not as if at some generation 100k, or 200k, or 500k years ago, the parents were "early hominids" and the children were suddenly "modern humans".  Mitochondrial or other evidence only helps us invent the categories the way we want, it doesn't decide the question on behalf of theory.  On the other hand, something along the lines of the statement seem valuable: a lot of readers simply won't know whether "anatomically modern" humans emerged a ten million years ago, 100-200k years ago, or 10k years ago.  Providing some general very rough scale of magnitude for that is good information to have.  LotLE × talk  16:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Suppose homo sapiens had never emerged
The ability to make and use tools has made humans what we are today. The cranial capacity of homo erectus, neanderthalus and sapiens is similar, but we cannot know more than that about their intellectual abilities. The other anatomical differences between these varieties or sub species may not be important, so it is possible that erectus, neanderthalus and sapiens were moving together towards a common future and may have interbred significantly. If sapiens had never appeared, modified forms of erectus and neanderthalus might now be living as we do today.

David Erskine124.179.1.30 (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ten Canoes
There is an Australian feature film, “Ten Canoes”, set in the remote past long before white settlement in Australia, and showing the minor dramas of daily life in a tribe in northern Australia. All the actors are Australian Aboriginal.

In some parts of Australia, Aborigines were living a largely traditional way of life just two or three generations ago. Their traditional way of life was presumably much the same as in the Pleistocene.

The film is of course a work of fiction, but is still interesting as attempting to show how we all lived before the last ice age.

David Erskine124.179.1.30 (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To-do discussion
This discussion was put in the To-Do infobox, which seems just to hide it. If these are things to do, let's just talk about them here.

I think the section on language statistics would be closer to the truth if you add the secondary speaker populations to the primary speaker populations of each language. In doing so you get the following (and I believe more accurate) list: (number of speakers in parentheses)

Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion) English (480 million) Spanish (320 million) Russian (285 million) French (265 million) Hindi/Urdu (250 million) Arabic (221 million) Portuguese (188 million) Bengali (185 million) Japanese (133 million) German (109 million)

<This appears to have been done>

Race and Ethnicity

So this part leaves one hanging, instead of discussing race and ethnicity, why does it prefer to talk about the origins of humans and not anything else about race and ethnicity. It first states that some humans may identify themselves with race or ethnicity, but it never really talks about it. Why is racism being mentioned here anyway?

Origin of Humans

I recently read that the earliest human skull identical to our own is about about 90,000 years old. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article. Also the article should explicitly state the age of our subspecies H. s. sapiens. How old is our subspecies?

I disagree. This sub-species name no longer exists. It was used to distinguish us from homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Neanderthals are now thought to have been a different species - homo nealderthalensis, and we are homo sapiens Orlando098 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are H. s. sapiens. There is at least one other subspeices: H. s. idaltu. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lords of Creation
During the Pleistocene, homo sapiens lived in a magnificent and dangerous world, and may have regarded mammoths, aurochs and sabre toothed cats as lords of creation. Sapiens might have regarded themselves as just successful survivors, relying on fire and spears. Sapiens cave art suggests that sapiens painted animals that they admired, as well as animals that they ate.

David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Political Section
editsemiprotected The "Society, government, and politics" section makes the claim that most governments in the world are republics. To make such a claim, it needs to cite a source. Text: "The most common form of government worldwide is a republic, however other examples include..." JSpoons (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. But could you be more specific about the edit you want made? MSGJ 11:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to ask for a citation, but because the article is protected, I can't add the [citation needed]. I am questioning the claim that most governments in the world are republics.  Without a source, it comes off as Eurocentric. JSpoons (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it all depends on HOW you classify "government". If you mean the social organisation and decision making of a a large group of people. then historically most governments have been up until very recently tribal. The very recent trend toward 'nation states' cannot be regarded as a norm, as it is new, plus we have no idea how long it will prevail.

How do qualify/quantify "most" anyway??? Per capita, per year, per unit of government??? I have no idea HOW this should be rewritten (a job for an anthropologist I reckon) but as it stands itis lacking. 212.139.85.134 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable to accept the nation state as the standard political entity today. I understand that most nation states in the UN are republics, and I have no objection to the statement in the article. There is an undercurrent: most of the poorest and most incompetent states are republics, and many of the richest and most stable states are constitutional monarchies, but there is no need to include such an observation in the article.  --David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But the nation state is such a brief blip on humanity (within 1.5 centuries and mere decades in many if not most cases); it is plain wrong to suggest that is is a norm.
 * Since the statement as it reads now (I'm assuming you're still referencing the original statement I brought up) is regarding the present state of governments throughout the world, the history isn't being addressed. If you aren't referencing the original statement, then it might be reasonable to add, or ask for, a subsection about the history of government throughout human history. JSpoons (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Richest states constitutional monarchies??? You surely aren't implying that the monarchical dictatorships of the Emirates pass as democracies? Are you also implying that there are only two models of government (republic & monarchy)?
 * I think he was referencing Western European nations when talking about constitutional monarchies, based on the stability comment. JSpoons (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to constitutional monarchies, not absolute monarchies. I should add that many of the poorest & most incompetent republics are only nominally democratic & should be regarded as dictatorships. The rule seems to be that any country which actually uses the word democratic in its name is really a dictatorship. ---David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is near-sightedly misleading and painfully Eurocentric. The nation state itself is a new development let alone speaking of republics. 88.109.98.246 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How many angels can stand on the head of a pin, or split a hair? Nation states go back to ancient Assyria, 5,500 years, and thousands of years in China and India. --David Erskine58.165.167.146 (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So, that makes the 'nation state' the all-time natural choice of all communities??? LOL! 88.111.43.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

Habitat
This section reads very Eurocentric. Agriculture/civilisation is very new to humanity. They way this section is written implies it is the norm... when clearly it can't be so easily regarded. Hunter-gatherer communities were far more prevalent for the larger part of human history. 212.139.85.134 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The hunter-gatherer communities were addressed in the section "Transition to Civilization", immediately before the section titled "Habitat". This section is not meant to describe the history of human habitats, but rather to describe the relationship between modern humans and their habitats, which is far more complex than the relationship before the advent of civilization.  JSpoons (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can you repeat that in some sort of coherent statement? It sounds like waffle to me. You think that hunter gatherer societies were somehow less complex; sounds like a superiority judgement to me unless you can somehow empirically quantify. IOW= POV Again, agriculture & civilisation is fairly new, and still not universal. The emphasis is plain inaccurate. 88.111.43.90 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Race
"although the validity of the gene expression is not completely understood because human races as distinct like other biological categories such as gender or intelligence quotient is still questionable." This reads like a sop to ever-decreasing minority scientific opinions regarding the viability of "race". 212.139.85.134 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The way it is written now is unclear and it does need to be revised, but I think the point it is trying to make is that the grouping of humans based on race is similar to grouping humans based on hair color; it has no real impact on the human, it is merely appearance. When it contrasts race to gender, it is trying to make the contrast of classifying humans based on appearance and based on significant genetic differences that go beyond appearance.  I will concede that the argument regarding IQ is weak and unfounded, seeing as how there is no scientific evidence that genetics affect intelligence. JSpoons (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Language
"Language is closely tied to ritual and religion". This is an utterly pointless and hollow statement. Language is equally tied to all things deemed important to humans. Religion occupies no singularly outstanding prominence. It should be removed. 88.111.185.5 (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Has this article been vandalised by some zealot(s)???
This whole article is brimming with extraneous references to religion and spirituality. Even the already tenuous section on 'sexuality' gets it crowbarred in. Someone needs to deflea this article BADLY! 88.111.185.5 (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)