Talk:Human/Archive 7

From Feb 25, 2005

Poll
This seems to suggest the poll showed most people in favor of the taxobox going on the top. The conversation where the little girl image was discussed seems to have been much later, w far fewer voices. I feel strongly that the taxobox should either be atop the page, or that Homo Sapiens should be a separate page w the taxobox atop. Also, no matter what, those 2 little girls are not a good choice for the top of this article. See woman, where they are much more appropriate (and still not on top ;). Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The voting in that poll was proportional voting with the possibility of "voting against" any placement option. There were four options.  Hence, the overwhelming winner was that the taxobox should appear in the "Biological" section.  In my opinion, the taxobox should not be at the top of the Human page because for the last 50,000 years the most important evolution of people has been cultural evolution not biological evolution.  That is, everything that people consider to be the valuable part of "human" is a result of cultural evolution--often a cultural fix to what is wrong biologically with "Homo sapiens."  I would agree with you that there is good reason to write a whole new page on Homo sapiens which would focus on what biological evolution has done to the descendants of our ancestors.  8)))  As for the picture, I think the two girls perfectly capture what is uniquely "human."  Why don't you start a Homo sapiens page--where the taxobox would appropriately be placed at the top?  8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * there have also been extensive discussions about whether Human and Homo sapiens should be separate. I was in favour, as an easy solution to disputes, but there was a strong consensus against it. I am happy with starting another poll, but only in the light of the preceding ones. i.e. we need to discuss the options first, so they are intelligent, and anticipate opinions already expressed in the past. There was
 * the homo sapiens: separate article or redirect question: no formal poll was necessary, since there was an overwhelming consensus for redirecting.
 * the taxobox poll. decided with a simple majority for the present solution: no consensus was reached, but all parties seemed to agree that compromise is pretty much impossible in what is essentially an either-or question.
 * the girls were chosen by consensus (no poll) among numerous suggestions. read up on the arguments. feel free to suggest additional possibilities.
 * the archives are still there. Don't just take my word for it, look them up. dab (&#5839;) 23:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with dab's summary in every respect. Agree with Rednblu except that the poll result doesn't seem to have been "overwhelming" (just the effort :-D). Tom Haws 23:35, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * true, the result was rather narrow. I would love to find a consensus, but it's really a discrete question (as is often the case with layout disputes) dab (&#5839;) 23:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes. I see that within the voting period, the score was 8 to 5 in favor of the taxobox being in the "Biology" section. 8)) How many would be in favor of a separate page for Homo sapiens now that we see that this Human page is 1) too big and 2) inappropriately so heavily dominated by the Biology section; Biology has very little to do with what is "human"; we are human--sometimes--despite our biology? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would still be happy with a separate article about homo sapiens' biology (with a minor summary at human of course). Maybe a new poll should start here, since if the article is split, the taxobox issue will be solved automatically. dab (&#5839;) 09:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If that is to be done, this article would need to be moved to Humanity, w Human redirecting to one or the other, or probably best, a disambig page. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

human despite biology?
What is this "human despite biology" stuff? My cat is human? Or what? I don't get it. I understand there is alot more to being human than biology, and there are terms to describe Homo Sapiens behaviours like "inhuman" or "unnatural", but c'mon... were human because of our physical and genetic, biological nature. Any spiritual or philosophic posturing is simply icing on the cake. We are a creature of our type, no matter what we choose to think about it. I find the idea that the article on ourselves should be decidedly different in format than say... Lemur or Marginated_Tortoise egocentric. I admit I would be satisfied w a separate Homo Sapiens article however, and I did link here from another of the primate series ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 07:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you be a little more specific? Where is it written "human despite biology"? If you are referring to the first sentence (and following), I agree completely with you. Will robots become human beings at last? Or aliens, are they human because of their spiritual nature, if they exist?


 * However I do not agree with creating a separate Homo Sapiens article. I see is no need to crumble basic information like that, at least for now. --Eleassar777 08:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scroll up, at least as far as Talk:Human, and have a glance at whats between there and here. This has alot to do with Human and the placement of the Taxobox

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

attention
Sam, this is stupid. "Improve it in any way you see fit" on an article with such a history is simply misleading. We are open to changes. If you want to propose changes, go about them diligently, point by point, phrase by phrase. Just look at how the intro has evolved, we had something like five hotly debated iterations. It was beaten out word by word so everybody could live with it. I don't see anything in your proposals that has not been discussed at least ten times. If anything, put the article on RfC. The way to proceed will still be to put together an intelligent new poll, and then invite people to come voting. dab (&#5839;) 10:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you made constructive edits instead of reverts and comments like "this is stupid" and "intelligent new poll". I just got done placing this on RfC w a note saying this talk page is amiable. I am now concerned that I spoke in haste. How you can say "We are open to changes" when I have been reverted repeatedly while making modest and well explained edits is beyond me. When I arrived the article was in terrible shape. I agree your version is better than what I found, but thats no reason to revert incessently. In summary: discuss politely, do not revert. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "my" version is the old version, before the anons went all over it. The PNA is just not appropriate -- it is for dilapidated articles, not those with complicated histories and sensibilities. Add the NPOV warning if you must, but PNA is simply not for cases like this: from WP:PNA:

---
 * Every entry on Wikipedia deserves attention. But some deserve tender loving attention. If you come across a page that you think needs a lot of work, list it here if:


 * 1. It needs serious attention from someone familiar with the subject, or
 * 2. You have no idea how to approach it


 * Before adding an article here, please check whether another collaboration mechanism is more appropriate for it.

--- other collaboration mechanisms are appropriate here. PR, RfC, and actual specific suggestions. Haven't you learned from Atheism that your "strong views" need to be addressed one phrase at a time if they are to have a chance for survival? Please don't turn this into another battlefield, Sam. Separation of homo sapiens and the taxobox have been discussed in extenso. All arguments have been heard. There has been a poll. The only way to change that will be another poll. dab (&#5839;) 10:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It needs serious attention from someone familiar with the subject.


 * Familiar with the subject of human?!? Where in the universe will we find such an intelligence? Be serious.  Tom Haws 19:32, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * What I have learned from Talk:Atheism is that rigorous policy accordance is vital, that wikipedians tend to edit pages wherein they have an interest (which often means a POV), and that polls and voting determine the demographics of the editors interested in voting, not NPOV or Factual accuracy, not what is objectively right. This is particularly true when they are so far removed from concensus as that poll was, but even descisions which lack unaminity are to be suspect. The more editors we have, the more difficulty in achieving unanimity, I understand, but the answer is compromise, not majoritocracy. If an editor is unable to compromise they are likely unsuited for the page in question.


 * I didn't dispute the Neutrality of the article w a NPOV header because it I don't dispute the neutrality. I don't dispute the factual accuracy either, and I think a WP:CU header would be too strong. Its experts I am interested in hearing from, anthropology and zoology experts mainly. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * and what, pray, will these experts tell you about the positioning of a taxobox in a Wikipedia article? dab (&#5839;) 11:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hopefully they'll tell us if this article is the right place for it at all, for a start. I left notes at Talk:Anthropology, Talk:Zoology, and Talk:Primate. Lets see what results. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article started out as purely a biological one, an article describing humans in various biological terms. It was correctly deemed POV, as humans are more than just biology. Discussion grew around what other ways humans can and should be described, what order those sections should be in, etc. All the major sections have been worked to give them reasonable sizes, and they point to other articles expanding upon those concepts. As things ended up, the biological section is still the largest, but this should be appropriate as there is more commonality in biological specifics than there are in other areas. It is because of this commonality that it is most appropriate to keep the biological section larger - the diversity especially in spirituality/religion needs to be handled carefully and in a more general fashion than biology, with the majority of the diversity described in other articles.

As a crude parallel, other species or animal groupings articles talk primarily about their biology and give some mention of their cultural, religious or other noteworthy place in the human body of knowledge. "Monkey" talks about how there is no one group of animals that are monkeys with out including non-monkeys, but also talks a bit about the Zodiac sign. "Squid" describes their biology and talks some about squid as food, but doesn't go into the details of squid dishes or how those dishes are prepared. "Human" is about 50% biology and about 50% other in terms of section sizes. I don't see a problem here. - UtherSRG 13:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * How about the taxobox vrs. easter seals images, which should go atop? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * huh? dab (&#5839;)


 * While standardization is a good thing, there will always be special cases where standardization rules need to be bent. While I don't think the Easter Seals image is the right one to be the lead-off image, I do think the taxobox should remain attached to the biology section. The FBI picture below certainly is shows some degree of racial variance, but I prefer the Easter Seals girls over it. In the earlier discussion, I mentioned that my favorite image showing human variation is The Golden Rule by Norman Rockwell. If we can get an image the even comes halfway close to that quality, I'd be very happy to have it replace the girls. - UtherSRG 16:32, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good choice, that is the sort of thing I was thinking of also. I assume its not public domain or whatnot? Why do you like the taxobox w the biology section, btw? And do you have any thoughts about what were discussing down @ Talk:Human? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * people objected to pathos-laden idealized representations of "humanity". We were looking for simply a healthy, natural specimen. The poll should be "where goes the taxobox", and, unrelated, "which image goes on top" (either in the taxobox, or stand-alone). theist/spiritualist editors tended to take issue with the taxobox placed outside the biology section, while atheists/scientists tended to say that the taxobox should obviously be put in the lead.
 * Really, we have been through all this, many times. Let's just hack together another poll and get it over with, then. dab (&#5839;) 16:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I see nothing positive about a poll, here or elsewhere. Polls are evil, Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * ok, I'm glad you accept the consensus we have worked out, then (it was a lot of work, too) dab (&#5839;) 18:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * On the off chance your confused, I ment nothing of the sort. The previous poll was as far from consensus as one is like to find. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The images


vrs.



Just for sake of clarity.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this is very similar to

vs.

now which of these graces the top of the llama article? dab (&#5839;) 10:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A minimum of one male and one female is neccessary to accurately depict our species. Unfortunately the wiki doesn't have much in the way of good multi-racial images, as evidenced by the Race article. I'd really like to see a mugshot of an attractive member of every race (or at least as many distinct types as could be put together), all on one image file. Anyhow, the voayager image (which is at the top of man and woman) is vastly superior in representing humanity, than an image of 2 girls. Its a nice picture tho, I put it on Woman[ myself. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something like this, but less ugly.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

look at dog. Do you see a composite table giving an overview of canine races? We want a nice image of a human being going about its business in its habitat, in line with articles on other species. The image you provide is from race, where it belongs, and to where we link from this article. Seriously, check out the archives for the other suggestions to get a feel how other people think. who says we need both male and female? this is not required at all. the image is not suppose to replace the article. dab (&#5839;) 12:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Human where I discuss and link to important aspects of the talk archives. Knowledge of a given pages archives is no prerequisite for making edits, but I think its pretty obvious I have reviewed the talk page archives, So I find your advice peculiar. What would give you the idea that new ideas ought not surface, or that historical discussion trumps the present? Think about other, quality reference sources. They display diversity within a species. Just because dog isn't perfect should not limit this article. 2 girls is a poor representation of humanity, as are the images in the archives. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * sure, new ideas would be welcome. the two girls are not required to represent "humanity" of course. dab (&#5839;) 13:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyhow, my idea about mugshots is a very long term, far away idea, unless somebody has such an image handy. I definitely think something like that would be good at dog and cat and cow and so forth, showing of the variety within those species as well. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some ideas: --JPotter 18:33, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment to Rednblu
Just want to comment Rednblu, saying that biology has very little to do with what is "human". In my opinion that's not true:


 * if the anatomy would be a little different, we could not speak
 * if there would be no aging and disease, we would have a completely different values than we have today (not health, youth etc.)
 * the effect of emotions that are biological entities in its origin and are quite human
 * impact of the need for food and water on our society
 * races (they are not mentioned at all in the article!)
 * enormous effect of genes on our behaviour
 * taking care of children (not every species does so)

Saying that biology has very little to do with what is human is like saying we are tabula rasa. That is not true at all. We are biological entities heavily influenced by society. If our biological nature would be different the definition of human species would be different too. BTW, I also want to remind of the article nature versus nurture that should be rewritten.

As for separating the articles, after reading the discussion and having thought about it I do support the idea, because the biology of human is an enormous field of knowledge. However the article should be named homo sapiens sapiens or biology of modern human but not human biology if it is created. Human biology is a science that deals with biology of human. Homo sapiens sapiens would disproportionately focus on evolution, so I would propose to use the name biology of modern human or modern human (biology) instead. The use of word modern (or sapiens sapiens) saves us from the dilemma what to do with homo neanderthalensis and with arhaic forms of homo sapiens. They are described separately. The article could become a category that would include Human anatomy, Human physical appearance, Human height and so on.

Also, there should be a paragraph about biology of modern human left in the article human. --Eleassar777 14:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: This is not meant to be a personal attack. I just want to clarify some issues. --Eleassar777 17:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, and hope you don't mind me moving you down here where your more likely to be read. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

1) You have posed good questions, in my opinion--a good homework assignment. 8))  "Human" is definitely not tabula rasa.  Human consists of two components: 1) Hardware and 2) Software, and neither the hardware nor the software is tabula rasa.  Human hardware consists of two subcomponents: a) Biological and b) Man made.  So the question is: Of what value is the part of human hardware that is Biological?  And the answer is--Of little positive value for being "human."  You have only to see how much time humans spend on countermanding, suppressing, and overriding the design flaws in the biological human hardware to see what a negative drag that biological hardware is on being "human."  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) Take our biological hungers for sugar, salt, and burned fat, for example. Those hungers may have served us well 100,000 years ago when all of us humans were scattered across Africa back in that time when we all had the MC1R gene that made our skin black, black, black and when there was little sugar, salt, and burned fat to be had.  But those hungers today are the bait on a boobytrap when there is a McDonald's within walking distance where all the sugar, salt, and burned fat you can possible eat can be had for pocket change.  Though you can become a rich man from selling all the unneeded and destructive things that are programmed wrongly as "needs" into the human biological hardware, none of that hardware is the valuable part of "human."  For the valuable part of human is the part that collects the 1) knowledge and 2) discipline to judge, for example, the human hungers for sugar, salt, and burned fat and find that they are wrong, wrong, wrong--you know that they are wrong--even when you indulge them. The valuable part of "human" looks at the human biological hardware and says, "It is wrong, I know, but I enjoy indulging that biological hardware. So I will be smart and buy spices that fool my flawed and wrongful biological hardware but do not put in me what will kill off the valuable part of being human--which is to be in good health, live long, and prosper." So the valuable part of human is the part that develops, for example, Stevia or Splenda to indulge your biological hardware hunger for the sugar that the valuable part of being "human" determines you do not need and is detrimental to your health. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3) Similarly, in all areas of human activity, the human biological hardware is flawed, inefficient, and undependable. It is only the software part of human that contains what is of value in "human."  For it is in the software, culture, experience, and empiricism that humans develop the 1) knowledge and 2) discipline to fix the design flaws of the human biological hardware.  You want to dive to see the fish and coral and stay on the bottom of the ocean for hours?  Fine.  You fix that flaw in the human biological hardware of your lungs and blood by putting on scuba gear and a dive watch to make sure you do not fall victim to the bends, that whole set of design flaws in your biological hardware.  Here again, the valuable part of human is not in the inadequate and designed-for-an-extinct-purpose human biological hardware.  The valuable part of human is in the cultural accumulation of human software that can give people the 1) knowledge and 2) discipline to fix that human biological hardware that is inadequate and, yes, designed-for-an-extinct-purpose--namely, having children that had children that had children 100,000 years ago when there was very little sugar, salt, and burned fat to be had. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your reply, Rednblu. I enjoy this discussion.

You say: "Human consists of two components: 1) Hardware and 2) Software.... Human hardware consists of two subcomponents: a) Biological and b) Man made" At this point I agree with you completely.

Then you go on to argument that biological hardware is "flawed, inefficient, and undependable. It is only the software part of human that contains what is of value in "human"". So let me ask you:

1. Do you think the position of larynx that enables us to speak, is flawed and inefficient? Perhaps, but how could we communicate without our body?

2. I'm sure that you agree with me our "man-made" culture is flawed, inefficient and undependable in many ways. If you don't believe so, I can argument. (Btw, I remembered I have to fill again my mobile phone that is so undependable. And my computer crashed before. And of course, remember how many people died because of ideologies.)

3. Would you survive if you would not feel thirst, hunger and pain? I doubt. How could you then produce the man made hardware and culture?

4. What enables us to create our culture? Our hands(!) and our brain (!) that are both biological hardware. Software is biological in fact, otherwise horses would write poems.

I could continue, however I think this suffices. I do not want to say our biological nature has only positive impact on us, but in my opinion our biological nature and our software, culture, experience, and empiricism which stem from it, both have positive and negative aspects. This world is not black-white and everything depends on the situation you find yourself in. --Eleassar777 11:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

---

Herrprofessor Eleassar! You compose such good homework assignments! I appreciate particularly in your response that you take my hyperboles for what they are worth--merely emotion-laden platforms from which to work on the next stage of our discovery. What I learned from your and my last exchange of assignment and discovery on my part was the phrase "designed-for-an-extinct-purpose." I like the possibilities in that new phrase for which I thank you. I would not have discovered that phrase and its usefulness without your able tutoring. I know me, and I recognize your brilliant contribution to my discovery--because I have had many able tutors who have taught me to recognize in real-time the moment in which you made a great contribution to my discovery. So I thank you again. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1) I think your examples of human larynx and brain are good examples to work through. Let me take the personal perspective of Red, the one with the larynx.  While I am grateful for my larynx and the brain that drives it, I note that both were "designed-for-an-extinct-purpose"--namely to play chimpanzee politics and war better in that long-gone environment in which there were few dependable sources of sugar, salt, burned fat, and nuclear weapons.   The basic defect in my larynx and brain, for example, is that they are wrongfully designed for win-lose results--the problem-solving mode that worked well 100,000 years ago, but has serious destructive consequences for the future of "humans" when permitted at the top of the U.S. arsenal of military and economic weapons of mass destruction. ---Rednblu | Talk 17:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2) How could we communicate without our larynx? We are doing that right now.  You and I are using an "extension suit"--similar to the scuba gear that "extends" our domain into hours on the ocean floor.  You and I are using keyboards, networks, display screens, and "our fingers that do the talking."  You and I, in using our "extension suits," are reengineering our fingers, larynxes, and brains to "extend" our bodies beyond their "designed-for-an-extinct-purpose" to do something more worthwhile than the defense of territory and killing the males in the neighboring defended territory for which our brains, larynxes, and fingers were lovingly constructed by some combination of those figures of speech "God and evolution" over billions of years of hurt and toil.  ---Rednblu | Talk 17:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3) Is the software of our culture, religion, and law similarly flawed, inefficient, and undependable? You bet--exactly to the extent that culture, religion, and law have become merely grosser manifestations of the inherited flaws in the biological hardware, they are similarly flawed, inefficient, and undependable!  That is, the culture and economics of food supply are destructive of what is valuable in humans to the extent that culture and economics are structured to make money off the inherited hungers for sugar, salt, and burned fat with no concern for nutrition--that valuable part of "humans" that develops 1) knowledge and 2) discipline to override, counteract, and suppress the biological hardware.  The valuable part of humans is entirely in the software of nutrition and never in the biological hardware--that, like the larynx in building the Wikipedia, is "designed-for-an-extinct-purpose," probably irrelevant in its native construction, and must therefore always be diverted, disciplined, and retrained to have any positive value at all for what is "human." When you are marooned on a desert island with no civilized tools, you must improvise with sticks and stones. The human biological hardwares are but sticks and stones, like larynxes, that we are forced to use until we develop keyboards, networks, and display screens to replace them to do the real job of making humans worthy and capable of surviving extinction. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

4) What you and I, Herrprofessor Eleassar, and anyone else interested, should do is organize a world-wide political party to make some use of our discoveries here. 8))) Of course, we would use our larynxes in the many languages effectively when we have no better replacement. 8)) How could we do that? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tom's two cents
Excellent discussion, folks. I am glad Sam came along. The article had progressively become less focused. It needs better focus. I think the headings have failed to contribute to an intuitive understanding of the consensus decisions on the article. I will be experimenting from time to time with alternate headings as UtherSRG and I discussed earlier. I recently tried Biological, Spiritual, Cultural, etc., and I may try it again. Also, I think the option of splitting the article is still open, though it's nobody's favorite idea. And it's still hard to improve on the two girls. Tom Haws 19:43, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there ought to be psychological and sociological sections. Also the article might need a bit more focus on culture, race, and non-western conceptions / paradigms. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, I think the sections you do propose deserve full featured articles themselve, and those article (probably already existing) deserve a full reference in this article. Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * we crammed as much cultural/spiritual/psychological stuff as we could in already, to the point of breaking the article's back (it started out as purely on biology/evolution). Now may be the time to condense and export material (see below, disambiguation article). dab (&#5839;) 11:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I understand the article is too long and that content should be exported. What I was suggesting was a greater variety and diversity of sections, w brief summaries and links to the key articles in question. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam, could you briefly give just what you envision as definitions of what a human is from the psychological and sociological perspectives you mentioned? Tom Haws 16:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Two eurocents
Hi, the article is too long, I believe. Just like any other species with a Wiki page, this article starts like the description of a species, featuring for example a taxo box. That is perfectly ok with me. In the category of articles describing a specific species, of course there should be an item human (species). This article, excluding perhaps chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 could very well serve that purpose. And of course there should be four articles more, if not already existing, focusing on the content of respectively chapters 2, 3, 4 or 5. The human (species) article would do very well to include references to these articles, making indeed a full reference. Maybe Biped without feathers could have a redirect to human (species) thus defined. Gebruiker:Dedalus 08:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * maybe this should just be a disambiguation page, after all, so no single view gets to dominate the prestigious human article. the "feathered biped" thing is covered on Human_self-reflection, btw. dab (&#5839;) 08:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As an alternative the homo sapiens or homo sapiens sapiens article could be filled in what I did suggest for human (species) in stead of a redirect to human. And, of course, a disambiguation page already exists, human (disambiguation). The first item on that list is human being and, surprisingly, that list does NOT include homo sapiens or homo sapiens sapiens, or human (species). Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * the piped link tells it: this should be human being, not the generic adjective, human. We would avoid many problems if we put the disambiguation here, and had this article at human being and homo sapiens. I don't see the need for human (species) -- that's equivalent to homo sapiens. homo (genus) is a genus, and "the" species of homo is homo sapiens. dab (&#5839;) 11:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, just wanted to say I like where your going w the above. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't. Splitting the article in this (or possibly any) way creates two (or more) POV articles on what "human" is. This article maintains NPOV by showing the tension between the different PsOV. A disambiguation would not adequately show this tension. - UtherSRG 16:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well stated, UtherSRG. I am torn, because, like Sam, I really like the sentiment of GD's opening comment and the follow-ups, but you make a good point.  Where this article obviously goes wring is in not staying clear about the idea of an NPOV presentation of that tension.  It seems to tend to move away from saying, "Culturists say that a human is a ..." toward saying "Humans are ... culturally"; from saying "Spiritually speaking, humans are ..." toward saying "Humans express ... spiritually"; from saying "Sociologically speaking, a human is ...." toward "Humans are sociologically ....". Is there any way we can structurally make it clear we intend to preserve the NPOV presentation of the ambivalence of definition so that the article maintains that essential characteristic of bias avoidance? Tom Haws 16:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Uther. You have me thinking again it should be one page.  That tension in the current page is probably the most important part of human!  ---Rednblu | Talk 18:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * well, how is two separate sections less biased than two separate articles, about two well-defined, different aspects? the tension can still be expressed on the disambiguation page. dab (&#5839;) 18:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The tension can be described explicitely. --Eleassar777 19:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Uther, what do you think of what dab says? It make sense to me.  As Sam says below, make this article short and broad, essentially the disambiguation page that captures the tension.  Tom Haws 23:00, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not even saying this article (or Human being, or Humanity, or whereever it ends up) would ever be short, only that it should be shortened, and broadened. Frankly of all the topic on the wiki, this one has the most potential for additions, and we need to build a hub-style frame work to accomadate that. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And a crystal-clear framework to minimize it. Tom Haws 18:13, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, while it isn't a huge problem now, practically anything is relevant to the subject of "Humans", since we are all, of course, human. We need an extremely broad scope, with rather crisp and neat descriptions summarizing the various applicable topics, w wiki-links in plenty. The point being to keep things useful for the reader, and managable for them to navigate thru. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The answer
IMO the answer is to reduce the size of this article while broadening its scope. Excess content should be summarized and moved off to the particular articles in question. More sections detailing important concepts about humans should be created, with equally condensed, summarized info and links. Finially, this article should probably be moved to Human being, and most of the biological info should be moved to Homo sapiens sapiens, leaving behind a summary of course. Human should be a disambig page. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sam. I just wish to propose the use of biology of modern man instead of homo sapiens sapiens because the latter focuses more on classification while the former focuses on different aspects of biology of modern man. Would that perhaps be an unacceptable exception to general rules of categorizing and/or describing species in Wikipedia? --Eleassar777 19:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably not, but we may still have too much content @ Homo sapiens sapiens, and need yet another article, in that case Biology of modern man. People are in a state of evolution IMO, see transhumanism. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with Sam's ideas, with the addition of the two suggested cross referencing articles 'Biology of modern man' and the 'Homo sapiens sapiens', leaving the latter probably as short as the Chimpanzee article with in the second and third line immediately links to human, human being, biology of modern man, and a 'See also' sections at the end. The 'homo sapiens sapiens' article should be included for completeness and consistency of the series of articles on primates, interesting for those looking for categorizations of species and the like. Gebruiker:Dedalus 08:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tidying up Religion
I did a little tidying up of religion around the ideas we have batted about. Essentially, I tried to focus more on Human and less on exploring religions, which should be done elseswhere (the linked articles). I removed a little content that should be in the linked articles. That's why I am confessing here. :-D Tom Haws 06:50, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)