Talk:Human/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 When Humans Became Humans 2 Evolution and Creation 3 Biology 3.1 Evolution 3.2 Intelligence 4 Culture 4.1 Origins 4.2 Language 5 various 6 POV status 7 the cave 8 Religious symbols 9 CIA.gov 10 humor 11 intro 12 Man/Woman image from Pioneer? 13 Featured Article now? 14 Images needing removed, replaced 15 Oh, so that's what it is! 16 more links 17 No reference to homo sapiens subspecies? 18 Kudos 19 Featured? 20 A small bias 21 Human#Human evolution 22 a little work on emotions 23 Sexuality 24 Great Apes 25 Just Wondering... 26 billion vs thousand million? 27 nudity 28 Human#Psychology and human ethology 29 J, C, I 30 Are humans barely sentient? 31 first person references

When Humans Became Humans

(text below moved from article David D. (Talk) 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC))

An interesting Article that I read talks abot how the human mind began to devlop and change. Meaning that humans actually began to talk and creat things that they would be able to use. The Article also states that their needs became diffferent their needs gradually began to change because of new social conditions, enviromental change, or competition from non modern species. The only question that this aarticle asks is "When, and where, was human culture born?" They believe that 40,000 years was the turning point to human creativity.

A site that Archeologist found was the Blombos Discoveries because this is were they found tools that were finely polished. The archeologist asked themselves: While the tools had o be finely shined and? They believe they did this because they were depicting things they liked and did not like. And like always scientists have to find a phrase that represents their finding and it was symbolic thinking.

Reference:

Wilford, N. J., "When Humans Became Humans." New York Times 02/26/02: Pg. 1,5

Hmm.. thats abit deep for me... Sam Spade 20:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing it. I just thought it would be harsh to delete it outright from the main article since it seemed to be a good faith edit.

There will always be time to make improvements to the article. At this point I would advise to stay on purpose, do the final touches and submit to FAC. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's looking pretty good at the moment. You have dealt with all my initial concerns. I wonder if the invasive species category is a joke? Anyone know the history of that? I'm not sure if humans are regarded as invasive species. In my mind this usually applies to a species brought in from another continent in a more modern context. I would have thought humans migrated to all continents. 'Invading species' might well be appropriate ;) David D. (Talk) 23:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Evolution and Creation

Banno, it is probably true that creationism doesn't deserve its own section, the text that is there doesn't really say much. I'd have no objection to having it deleted unless radically improved. However, I can't see the justification of lumping it together with the evolution section. The evolution text is quite a good description of human evolution and so plonking a few general comments about creationism on the end of it, seems to me to be confusing and inappropriate. Ashmoo 05:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

How about a large scale rearrangement along the lines of below. I have moved the creation section from evolution into a lead section on origins in culture. This seems like a good transition from science to culture without losing any material. We could even expand the origins section without it looking strange in the biology section. Note I have not rewritten anything! I just moved the text around a bit. If no one objects i will go ahead and make this change on the main page. David D. (Talk) 16:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Do it. Then we can work on particular issues with the existing text. Ashmoo 23:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Biology

These sections cut for clarity!!

Evolution

Main articles: Human evolution and Human migration

The study of human evolution encompasses many scientific disciplines, but most notably physical anthropology and genetics. The term "human", in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids and hominines, such as the australopithecines.

Biologically, humans are defined as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens. They are usually considered the only surviving species in the genus Homo, although some argue that the two species of chimpanzees should be reclassified from Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus to Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus respectively, given that they share a recent ancestor with man. [1]

Full genome sequencing resulted in these conclusions: "After 6 [million] years of separate evolution, the differences between chimp and human are just 10 times greater than those between two unrelated people and 10 times less than those between rats and mice." Chimp and human DNA is 96% identical

It has been estimated that the human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees about five million years ago, and from gorillas about eight million years ago. However, in 2001 a hominine skull approximately seven million years old, classified as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, was discovered in Chad and seems to indicate an earlier divergence from the ape lineage.

Two prominent scientific theories of the origins of contemporary humans exist. They concern the relationship between modern humans and other hominids:

The single-origin or "out of africa" hypothesis proposes that modern humans evolved in Africa and later replaced hominids in other parts of the world.

The multiregional hypothesis proposes that modern humans evolved at least in part from independent hominid populations.

Human evolution is characterised by a number of important physiological trends:

• expansion of the brain cavity and brain itself, which is typically 1,400 cm³ in volume, over twice that of a chimpanzee or gorilla. The pattern of human postnatal brain growth differs from that of other apes (heterochrony), allowing for an extended period of social learning in juvenile humans. Physical anthropologists argue that a reorganisation of the structure of the brain is more important than cranial expansion itself;
• canine tooth reduction;
• bipedal locomotion;
• descent of the larynx, which makes speech possible.

How these trends are related and what their role is in the evolution of complex social organisation and culture are matters of ongoing debate.

While little attention is generally given to humanities future evolution, transhumanism and eugenics involve the intentional crafting of that process. Nazi Germany made an organised attempt at selective breeding and the extremination of those they deemed inferior. The lebensborn program was one example of that.

Human extinction refers to the possibility that the human species may become extinct, either through its own actions (for example, because of pollution or the use of nuclear weapons) or because of a natural disaster. This is closely related to religious eschatology.

Intelligence

Main article: Intelligence (trait)

see below: Human Consciousness

Most humans consider their species to be the most intelligent species in the animal kingdom. Certainly, humans are the only technologically advanced animal. Along with neural complexity, the brain-to-body-mass ratio is generally assumed to be a good indicator of relative intelligence. Humans have the second highest brain-to-body-mass ratio or encephalization quotient (EQ) of all animals, with the tree shrew having the highest [2], and the bottlenose dolphin very similar to humans. (Sharks have the highest for a fish; and the octopus has the highest for an invertebrate.)

The human ability to abstract may be unparalleled in the animal kingdom. Human beings are one of five species to pass the mirror test – which tests whether an animal recognises its reflection as an image of itself – along with chimpanzees or bonobos, orangutans, and dolphins. Human beings under the age of four usually fail the test.

Culture

Main articles: Culture of human beings and Culture

Culture is defined here as a set of distinctive material, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual features of a social group, including art, literature, lifestyles, value systems, traditions, rituals, and beliefs.

Culture consists of at least three elements: values, social norms, and artefacts. A culture's values define what it holds to be important. Norms are expectations of how people ought to behave. Artefacts – things, or material culture – derive from the culture's values and norms together with its understanding of the way the world functions.

Origins

Main articles: Origin belief and Creationism

Essentially every culture has its characteristic origin beliefs. Creationism or creation theology is the belief that humans, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity. The event itself may be seen either as an act of creation (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from preexisting chaos (demiurge). Many who hold "creation" beliefs consider such belief to be a part of religious faith, and hence compatible with, or otherwise unaffected by scientific views while others maintain the scientific data is compatible with creationism. Proponents of evolutionary creationism may claim that understood scientific mechanisms are simply aspects of supreme creation. Otherwise, science-oriented believers may consider the scriptural account of creation as simply a metaphor.

Language

Main articles: Language and Philosophy of language

Values, norms and technology are dependent on the capacity for humans to share ideas. The faculty of speech may be a defining feature of humanity, probably predating phylogenetic separation of the modern population. (See Proto-World language, Origins of language.) Language is central to the communication between humans. Some scientists argue that non-human animals are able to use language too, and that non-human primates are able to learn human sign language [3] [4] (pdf). Language is central to the sense of identity that unites cultures and ethnicities.

The invention of writing systems some 5000 years ago, allowing the preservation of speech, was a major step in cultural evolution. Language, especially written language, is sometimes thought to have supernatural status or powers. (See Magic, Mantra, Vac.)

The science of linguistics describes the structure of language and the relationship between languages. There are estimated to be some 6,000 different languages, including sign languages, used today.

---

various

First of all, regarding the above, nobody should be making major deletions prior to consensus. I've not worked on this article all this time to see it hacked to bits in a flurry of edits. Secondly, I think this hmong guy would look bad on the hmong page (where btw he is not present). WHEELER on the other hand is a key player on the beard page.

Pixel count or no, I insist on the highest quality for this page at this time. The new fetus image is very nice, I might add. Sam Spade 21:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sam, the major deletion (rarrangement) that I proposed above is on this talk page for the purpose of reaching a consensus. I have not touched the main page. I take it you do not like the change since you say hacked to bits in a flurry of edits. What specifically do you find objectionable about these edits? Bear in mind that this paragraph will generate a lot of heat when it goes up for FAC. It is important to find the best compromise with regard to its location in the article.

With regard to the Hmong man I like the fact he has wrinkles as well as grey hair and possibly missing teeth. WHEELER, while having grey hair, has relatively few wrinkles. If this picture is to represent 'old' then the Hmong man, or similar, would seem more preferable. David D. (Talk) 22:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to represent "human" "beard" and pleasing to the eye. That hmong guy does none of those. As per the proposed deletions, I oppose them in general, but would certainly agree to a lesser version. Sam Spade 23:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh the beard, i missed the point i thought it was supposed to represent old. Are beards even mentioned in that section? Wouldn't that be more appropriate in body image? With regard to 'deletions', i'm not sure which deletions you are referring to. Nothing was deleted, just rearranged. What is the lesser version you have in mind? Are we possibly missunderstanding each other here?David D. (Talk) 23:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the fixation with the bearded man? :) The idea was to depict life cicle, from embryo to childhood to mature and elderly. I will keep looking for a better image. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 01:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

POV status

Surely this page violates POV rules? After all, most (if not all) of us editing are humans ourselves. How about the view of dogs towards humans? Geese don't really count, they treat us with indifference.

Don't be so ruff on us. Dogs are people too!!! >;-o) — RDF ^talk 03:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I will ask my beagle what she thinks and report back, is hse says anything that is NPOV :) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 05:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I should ask my dog... Don't tell her I said this, but I think she's slightly inbred

the cave

the "Plato's cave" illustration doesn't make sense. The human figure seems to be contemplating its own blurred shadow, which isn't what the parable is about at all. Plus, the concept is not even mentioned in the text, so I'm wondering what the image is doing here at all. 08:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I wondered the same, and wouldn't object if you deleted it. Sam Spade 14:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Mee to... I will delete.≈ jossi fresco ≈ 15:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious symbols

I prefer the original version without the Lotus. That version was carefuly rendered as a high-res duo-tone PNG file, suitable for print and it is better balanced. This new verson includes a low res image of a the symbol of Ayyavazhi, a Tamil monistic hindu sect. I propose to revert to previous version. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 15:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a strong objection, but I let User:Vaikunda Raja know, so he might be commenting shortly. As a general note, I'd rather have a superior image than high pixel content, when such a choice is necessary. Sam Spade 17:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Any number of symbols could be represented, and many are not. The way it looks now, the Ayyavazhi symbol appears to be emphasized, which is inappropriate. If that particular symbol stays, then it should be rendered in the same style as all the others. An equal number of symbols in each rows also is more balanced. I'd say remove one or add more. — RDF ^talk 17:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the lotus is over empahsised due to the different style i.e. not black and white but shades of grey. I also agree, for symmetry, that there should be an equal number of symbols per rowl. If more are needed then add an extra column or row. David D. (Talk) 18:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I'm actually surpried the swastika did not make it into the top nine religious symbols. It has avery interesting history, even before the Nazi's. May be this would be too controversial? David D. (Talk) 17:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Just like the languages depicted, this is nothing like a list of the "top 9". Its just a sampling of divergent styles. If we wanted this to be a "fair and balanced" list, we'd need to start over, and yes, the swastika would definitely be included. So would some sort of yoruba or other animist symbol maybe like this? ;). Have a look @ adherents.com. Sam Spade 19:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used the phrase "top nine" since I was not meaning with respect to fair and balanced i.e. top nine religions should be represented. I was thinking more along the lines of most impact to society. The swastika seems to be used in many different religions, so with regard to balance it's probably a good one too. I have no strong opinion here, but I thought I would throw this out there since you are discussing this topic.

Off topic here, but did you think more about the creation evolution idea above (re: no deletions it's a rearrangement)? This will certainly come up again when it goes to FAC. David D. (Talk) 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My comment about balance had nothing to do with "fairness or representativeness." Having a 3X3X4 image for an arbitrary sample of symbols is visually unbalanced and distracting. — RDF ^talk 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment:I too found uncomfortable when I placed the symbol of lotus due to the grey shade which makes it different. I didn't take it seriously. Sorry for that. But my suggestion is not to delete anything. I will give a black and white image of lotus in a day or two. If so, can we use 4X4X4 image order by adding two of them? In such case, I prefer image Swastika as David D. opinioned, as one and which one be the other? Otherwise which are the sumbols to be added? - Vaikunda & Raja

4 x 4 x 4 including the Ayyavazhi would be OK if we get a B&W image (please email it to me and I will add it to the source png file), but I would advise against the swastika. Too many negative connotations (and who whats more negative connotations associated with religion?). We could include a pagan symbol or other. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 01:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Using a swastika is a BAD IDEA!!! The most common interpretation of this symbol worldwide is Nazism. This is TOTALLY UNACCAPTABLE for an unexplained, tangential image about a hodgepodge of religious symbols. — RDF ^talk 03:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I knew it might be controversial but it is not TOTALLY UNACCAPTABLE . It would have been one of twelve small symbols. Do think it's totally unacceptable to go into a church and see swastikas on the organ pipes, in the stain glass windows on the brasses? Most people don't find it absurd they find it surprising, until they find out that the swastika, in fact, has a very long and peaceful history before it was hijacked by you know who. David D. (Talk) 04:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Guys, let's forget about the swastika. In an article about Humanity, to display a symbol that is commonly associated with genocide, is of really bad taste, to say the least. And I don't care about the symbol's beautiful origin. We are working toward taking this article to FAC, not to open a can of worms. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 04:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The swastika is the primary religious symbol of the Jains, a prominent religious symbol in all vedic religions, and an important geometric design in nearly every culture. It should defintely be included. I like encyclopedias because they don't bow to political correctness or controversy. If I wanted that, I'd read the newspaper ;) As soon as I was able to read I was scouring any encyclopedia I could get ahold of for shocking info (like that the swastika is a religious symbol, which is why the Nazi's chose it, they were calling themselves aryan, remember?) Sam Spade 11:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sam, that's a great sentiment. I'd love to see how you express it here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 3#Category:Charismatic religious leaders. — RDF ^talk 15:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, see here. I wasn't too eloquent, but its harder for me to get fired up about benny hinn types than ancient religious symbols. ;) Sam Spade 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. — RDF ^talk 19:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Considering Plato's cave got cut for goofy artwork and and no linkage to the text, I'm still a bit mystified why a symbol of hatred and genocide has such strong supporters in a survey article, but hey, who am I to judge? Maybe "Inhumanity" should just have its own section. — RDF ^talk 19:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not strongly in support of the swastika and my support is certainly not because of it's link to genocide. I just thought if we are going to have upto twelve religious symbols, the swastika represents one of the more interesting and well known ones. Of course it comes with a lot of baggage but unfortunately that is the reality of humanity and human nature. The ape is an aggressive, territorial animal. This page on humans does gloss over that fact, so maybe your suggestion of an inhumanity section, while tongue in check, is not such a bad idea. The omission of the nastier side of human behaviour could be regarded as POV on our part ;) As Winston Churchill says "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it". David D. (Talk) 20:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly we need a section on government, including all those facts we lost w the template. See my CIA section below. Sam Spade 20:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My comment was sarcastic, but I agree a section based on Category:History / History - Category:Government / Government would be an important addition. — RDF ^talk 21:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the Black&White Image of Ayyavazhi's symbol(Image:Ayyavazhi .Lotus.png. And in the case of Swastika, as Sam opinions, if it was the primary symbol of Jains, and as David in the beginning says, "It has a very interesting history, even before the Nazi's", Nazism is not the problem here. Also as Sam later says, may be Nazi's chose it from a previous source. We won't care about the later. I says, Just add it as a symbol of Jainism.- Vaikunda & Raja

Thanks for the Ayyavazhi. I will add it to the original. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 21:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please put back the Celtic cross. If you must remove something, how about the maltese cross, or that neo-pagan symbol? Or we could simply make it bigger... Maybe 4X4 or 5X5. Sam Spade 15:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no problems in replacing a symbol with another one. But before I do so I would want to underdstand the rationale for your request. (Freom my perspective this image is only a "sample" of symbols with a very obvious wikilink to the list of religious symbols article, so it is no big deal) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 20:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. I was thinking more along the lines of social importance... If your meerly looking to display a variety of images, I would think a jewish or ba'hai symbol would be better than the maltese cross. How about this" Lets all decide on what we want from these images, and THEN pursue it ;) I would like to see as many as possible of the largest world religions represented. What do others want? Sam Spade 21:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That was the intention. Now we have Christianity (two crosses: Latin Cross and Maltese, Judaism's Star of David, Hinduism's Omkar (Aum), Islam's Star and crescent, Taoism's Yin-yang, Sikhism's Khanda, Monism's Ayyavazhi, and Wicca's and other neopagan's Triple Goddess. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If you want to go the "Bigger is Better" route, here's a top twenty-something list with my guesses at representative symbols. — RDF ^talk 00:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

from a a ture misanthope......

you are no better thsn monkies....(i am at this point being kind to the real monkies.) i have not seen par a few exceptions on this world that there is anything remotely like intelegence beyond a howler monkey that exsist in the majority of humans. A few ( and i really mran a few deserve the true aspace to express,form ,and disseminate opinion and thought upon the remainder of humanity for what it is. Social interaction is mere grunts between animals that would like to crack a coconut, or see a psoosible mate before cracking each others coconuts.

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion: Christian cross
2. Islam: 1.3 billion: Star and crescent
3. Hinduism: 1.1 billion: Aum, swastika
4. Buddhism: 400 million: Dharma wheel, swastika
5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million: ?
6. Primal-Indigenous: 300 million: ?
7. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million: ?
8. Sikhism: 23 million: Khanda
9. Juche: 19 million: ?
10. Spiritism: 15 million: ?
11. Judaism: 14 million: Star of David
12. Baha'i: 7 million: Bahá'í symbols
13. Jainism: 4.2 million: swastika, Khamsa/Hamesh Hand/Hand of Fatima
14. Shinto: 4 million: ?
15. Cao Dai: 4 million: ?
16. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million: Faravahar
17. Sant Mat / Surat Shabd Yoga : 2 million: ?
18. Tenrikyo: 2 million: ?
19. Neo-Paganism: 1 million: e.g., Triple goddess
20. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand: Flaming chalice
21. Rastafari movement: 600 thousand: ? Lion of Judah
22. Scientology: 50 thousand: ?

The exact same issue could be brought up regarding the language image as well... Sam Spade 10:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Please let me know how to proceed. For me the current images are OK, but I am more than willing to accommodate any changes you guys see fit. Just let me know what needs added/removed, etc. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 17:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

i think the 3x3 with the new lotus looks great. I'd suggest leaving as is, unless there are specific substitutions or additions people think are really important. David D. (Talk) 18:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever we do, lets be certain of why were doing it. For now, would it be ok to switch the celtic cross w the cross of malta? I think the celtic cross is more illustrative. It is also pre-christian, and could be used instead of the new age "triple goddess". Sam Spade 19:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The ying yang has it's own large figure as well as being in the 3x3. This redundancy needs to be addressed. The swastika does not have Christian roots too Sam? In our parish church (christian) the brasses have swastika's and they data back to the 13th century. David D. (Talk) 20:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Supposedly its a basic symbol found in all cultures, like the cross and the circle (Celtic cross again ;) At least thats what I heard on TV! ;P

Sam Spade 20:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

CIA.gov

This website has alot of info which this page should offer, now that the template is gone. The world. Sam Spade 19:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

humor

Sam Spade 12:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

intro

User:JWSchmidt has suggested on my talk page that:

A concept current within the scientific community is that human evolution occured in response to a need for long distance running. Humans are said to be one of a short list of animals with such a capacity.

in the intro be changed to:

Current evidence indicates that bipedal locomotion appeared during human evolution before the large human brain. The origins of bipedal locomotion during human evolution and its role in human brain evolution are topics of on-going research.

or something similar. Thoughts?

Sam Spade 14:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Any wikilinks apply? — RDF ^talk 19:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I added some links, trying to cover tha same ground as before (introduces evolutionary origins of our species). --JWSchmidt 23:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking good! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 03:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Man/Woman image from Pioneer?

What happened to the image of man & woman from Pionneer's plaque? It as been replaced with an image that IMO, is less recognizable and of less quality. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Bring back Pioneer. The labels are very distracting. David D. (Talk) 19:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverted some of the changes to section order. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 04:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article now?

Sam, I think this is ready to go. You should put it forward for the vote. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(Applause) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, outside of any radical changes, I will go ahead w the FAC in a day or two. I think its best to give some time to last touches / debates. I for one feel we are rather egregiously lacking in political history, as well as the sort of info/links lost when we dropped the template.

Has anybody read this FA japanese version, btw? Sam Spade 02:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't read Japanese... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Images needing removed, replaced

• Object:
  1. The image Image:Map of skin hue equi.png has no source information, and has a note on the description page saying that "The map's intended use is in articles dealing with the history of the notion of race, and it should not be used as an up-to-date reference"
  2. The image Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg is rather confusing. Polar projections are rarely used, so they're hard to understand, particularly without some visual indication of the projection. The thick lines used obscure large areas of detail - and the drop shadows don't help. There's no indication of what the letters mean. There's no indication of what units the numbers are in. There's no indication of what the different types of line mean.
  3. The image Image:Evoskulls.gif is tagged as "fair use". There are two serious problems with this: (1) Fair use images must indicate the source. (2) Fair use images should never be used in series boxes or other templates.
  4. The image Image:Cavehand.jpg has no source information.
  5. The image Image:Kant.jpg has no source information.

  --Carnildo 19:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought the article was a bit crowded w images anyways. The skulls bit should be replaced or clarified however, as I feel it is important. Sam Spade 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I can find alternative images for the skull, the cave art, and possibly Kant's. Doubt about the others. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• replaced Kant's portrait with one from commons
• Ditto for cave art
• Removed skulls image from evolution template, as I could not find an alternative
• We need to remove all other images whose clicensing is not 100% clear.

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Or clarify them, but yes. I'd help more, but copyright is really not my area (I'm pro-pirate, arrr...) Sam Spade 15:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so that's what it is!

I had no idea what that migration picture meant until you guys mentioned it. Thanks. Kid Apathy 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

more links

• (cur) (last) 16:19, 25 October 2005 Goethean (revert to version with more links. pls discuss on talk.)
• (cur) (last) 16:15, 25 October 2005 Daycd (→Origins - remove Timeline of evolution of our species since there is already have a link to human evolution in the human evolution section.)

So here, as requested, is the discussion for the above revert. Personally I see no reason to have that link. Even the human evolution page does not have the timeline, why is that? Do we need a timeline that goes all the way back to the origin of life? Why would it be a link in the culture section? That's just three things that struck me odd about the link off the bat.David D. (Talk) 04:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

the human evolution page just have a timeline that go back in early homo species. the Timeline of evolution of our species show what scince says about the origin of homo sapiens. i know a lot of people that want to see what science have to say about our origin, and i thing a lot o people want to see it .And as we do not originate as homo , i think its a good place to place that link .

Mateus Zica 03:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So why is it better in the culture section compared to the biology section? David D. (Talk) 05:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Also why do you use the Timeline of evolution of our species name when that is a redirect to Timeline of human evolution? David D. (Talk) 05:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No reference to homo sapiens subspecies?

This article is redirected from home sapiens. I would have expected a discussion on the subspecies. I'm also a bit surprised that "human" is equated to modern homo sapiens. Mre5765 03:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the subjects of Homo sapiens idaltu and the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens need attention. Sam Spade 00:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Along those lines, the article says Recent DNA analysis indicates that neanderthalensis were not a subspecies. What's the evidence/citation for that? --Rikurzhen 07:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[5]

H. neanderthalensis Lived from about 250 to 30 TYA. Also proposed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. There is ongoing debate over whether the "Neanderthal Man" was a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a subspecies of H. sapiens. While the debate remains unsettled, the preponderance of evidence, collected by examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA, currently indicates that no gene flow occurred between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, and, therefore, the two were separate species. In 1997 Dr. Mark Stoneking, then an associate professor of anthropology at Penn State University, stated: "These results [based on mitochondrial DNA extracted from Neanderthal bone] indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans… Neanderthals are not our ancestors."² Subsequent investigation of a second source of Neanderthal DNA confirmed these findings.³

http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/Neandertal.html --JPotter 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Kudos

Just a shout-out to all your contributors who have made this an excellent page. --Dpr 03:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured?

Is 5 supporting and 3 opposing a consensus to feature? I thought the FAC status had stalled, and since the objections weren't being addressed, the article wouldn't be featured. --Yath 07:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The 3 opposing votes were not actionable, or were not in the best interest of the article, and thus could be disregarded. Congrats, everybody! Sam Spade 22:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm baffled. These were my objections:

• Too much explaining in detail what things are instead of explaining how they relate to humans. For example, "Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon operating in the three worlds of time, pitch, energy, and under the three distinct and interrelated organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody." Completely irrelevant. There are many similar instances throughout the article.
• The article is full of single-sentence paragraphs, collections of random facts, and sections without internal structure. This particularly applies to the section on "Mind".
• Replace instances of "Lorem ipsum... (See [also] Foo and Bar.)" with "Lorem ipsum ... foo ... bar ...". Get rid of the "See also" section entirely.
• Replace the current mixture of inline links and Harvard style citations with footnotes.
• Remove details. For example:
  • "on October 31, 2000"; "in 2000" would suffice.
  • "Geneticists Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending of the University of Utah have concluded that"; put the source information in a footnote.
• Copyediting needed. Skimming the article revealed several instances of erroneous capitalization. I also spotted an instance of "da Vinci"

Please explain to me how these objections are not actionable, or not in the best interest of the article. I doubt you're serious. (By the way, I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates.) -- Fredrik | talk 23:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

There were multiple objections to your objections, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Human. I personally felt they were variously non-actionable, and/or against the best interests of the article. Sam Spade 23:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I defended all my objections, and the most serious ones were not addressed by others at all. Are the serious objections the ones that are "against the best interest of the article"? How can criticism of bad writing be against the best interest of the article? And why didn't you say that you found the objections non-actionable and against the best interest of the article while the nomination was running? Fredrik | talk 05:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't feel a need, since I assumed the article was going to fail anyway, and I didn't feel like a RFA-esque fight. Instead I addressed the concerns I felt were actionable and in the articles best interest, and ignored the rest. Sam Spade 16:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess my objections are truly late. I glanced at the FAC nomination, saw a raft of objections, and moved on. But to feature this article would be truly unfortunate. The opening is poorly-written. The biology section, which should begin with classification, doesn't even mention it. And of course, there are Fredrik's objections, which are still relevant and which are actionable. They should not have been ignored. --Yath 04:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I dislike your emphasis. You should be focused on making the needed improvements, not on insulting our work and attempting to remove the featured article status. I find that unhelpful. Please help us improve the article, if you have enough free time to discuss it. Sam Spade 16:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no desire to insult your work. Had the article not been elevated to featured status, I certainly wouldn't have been making complaints here on the talk page. This is about an apparent glitch in the process. The article is not good enough to be featured, and its FAC entry reflected that, but still it got featured, hence the objection. --Yath 17:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A small bias

Congratulation for the FA status of this article. It'an awsome article. You won't find this kinf of informations anywhere else. I encourage to fix some of the objections in this already superb article.

I just want to address a bias I've found in the "Anatomy and physiology" section. Why did you include the average and median heights of North American only, and not on a worlwide scale, like in the "Life cycle" section.? CG 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe we have the world-wide info. Perhaps you can help find it? Sam Spade 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Human#Human evolution

There's quite a bit of repetition (not to mention other kinds of bloat) in the article, but it's especially noticeable in the Human#Human evolution section. I've done some general tidying, but left that section, as it needs some thought. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

a little work on emotions

I remember reading on that book about the emotional intelligence (its a serious book, not a self help book) that emotions were in fact very primitive, and that they were in this sort of constant struggle with the neo-cortex (the part where the rational thinking was, as i remember... could be wrong). Anyways, the book sayd that emotions were created when men had a use for them, as they all are like quick solutions. Example: when we are angry, blood goes straight to our face and hands, we are ready to fight, to grab something with our hands. When we are scared, blood goes to our legs, we are ready to run away. When we are surprised, our eyes open wide, in order to enhance our sight, just incase theres a lion a round.

Regarding love, its supposed to be what made us care for the other, consequently what made mothers not eat their children once they were born (as some turtles run away from the mother once they are born).

Can someone... elaborate more into this?, will man become, in time, more rational? and less emotional.

Sexuality

I believe we should add this:

Most sexologist, starting with the pioneer Alfred Kinsey and Sigmund Freud, believe based upon the human species close relatives' sexual habits such as the bonobo apes, and historical records (particularly the widespread ancient practices of paederasty) that the majority of homo sapiens are attracted to males and females, being inherently bisexual.

Its true. Any objections?

So far one user stated: "This is a one-sided point of view of sexologists of the like of Alfred Kinsey which ignores opponents which believe that most humans are in fact heterosexual."

Which any reputable sexologist certainly doesn't believe that. The societies of ancient Greece and pre-modern Japan for an instance were fully bisexual. In fact the only socities that thought of it to be some type of a disease and thus unnatural were Christian and Jewish dominated. 70.57.85.74 20:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Great Apes

Bonobos are not mentioned as great apes. They have become widely accepted by the scientific community as a distinct species and they should be included. I would do so myself but seeing as this is such a revered page I thought I woudl leave it to the more exeperienced editors. I also believe a bit more should be said about the Great Apre project and what it really means to be a human, but that is up for discussion.

If i were you I'd just get stuck in and start editing. It sounds like you know what you are talking about. And if people don't agree with the changes it can be discussed on the talk pages. I think you make some good points and look forward to see the edits. David D. (Talk) 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just Wondering...

Why is this article written in third person plural, as if a non-human was writing it? Shouldn't it be written as first person plural? After all, only human beings are editing this site and we are the only animals here. If anyone has a reason for why it is written as it is, I'd like to know, because otherwise this just doesn't make sense! Have bottle-nosed dolphins taken over Wikipeidia?

Using the third person does not imply that the speaker is not among the referents. Thought the Manual of Style admits that it might sometimes be appropriate to use "we", it would sound weird if we changed it to "...human beings define ourselves..." and "...Humans have an erect body carriage that frees our upper limbs..." —Keenan Pepper 04:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes we have. Click click click. Pass the fish. --Billpg 07:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. This cleared things up for me! Keenan, you're right... doesn't make any sense at all!

Bill: way to be.

billion vs thousand million?

Why does the article use both "billion" and "thousand million" when describing population?

"Thousand million" is a bit of a relic from times when both short-form and long-form were used in the anglophone world. A few decades ago British English used "billion" to mean e¹² and "billiard" to mean e⁹. Now, it is generally accepted that "billion" means e⁹. "Thousand million" sounds rather condescending and over-simplistic. --Oldak Quill 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

nudity

is it entirely nessesary that we have nude pictures? i understand that we should have them, but do we need them as the first thing you see when you enter the page? that's not exactly elementary-school safe, and it's not really nessesary. i'm noit saying we should remove it, i'm saying that we should move it farther down in the article and find a more suitable "main" picture. Preschooler.at.heart 22:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? — goethean ॐ

The "nudity" picture is the one that NASA sent into space. It's only a drawing, not showing any actual people so no one should be offended. This picture is very relevent and apropriate, because it is an article about human beings. Human beings have reproductive organs. Also, this article commonly compares humans to other animals. On other animal articles, all the animals are *gasp* naked, so the humans should be as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.185.128.70 (talk • contribs) .

The Pioneer plaque image seems appropriate to me. What would you suggest as a replacement? —Keenan Pepper 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Preschooler.at.heart, as one who shares your sensibilities, I can only say, be thankful it isn't worse, and try to acknowledge that the image carefully avoids pandering to the prurient interest. And to others, I respectfully request you refrain from using tones of mockery that tend to mar discussions of this issue. User:Hawstom

The pioneer plague is tasteful and certainly not disturbing. I'm having trouble knowing who is offended here, the adults or the preschoolers and elementary school kids? Last time I checked young children are not consious of nudity. Many, in fact, prefer to be naked than have clothes on. Many have dolls that are naked. Many have siblings that nurse. Many bathe with their siblings. Preschoolers are as innocent as Adam and Eve prior to sin, lets keep it that way. David D. (Talk) 03:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors Ashmoo 00:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Human#Psychology and human ethology

I have rewritten the psychology part so that it more closesly (and a little too closely) reflects the main Psychology article. What used to be in here only mentioned Freud, ignoring the earlier research in psychology and his general rejection by modern psychology.

dr.alf 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

J, C, I

I agree with Tznkai, every listing of the Abrahamic religions will be Judaism, Christianity, Islam, for both logical and historical reasons. dab (ᛏ) 16:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've started a discussion concerning this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Abrahamic religions. CG 21:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Are humans barely sentient?

Can you please explain the following comment which I removed for discussion?

<<'(Note that Humans, while being the dominant species on Earth, are barely sentient).'>>

Aren't mammals generally sentient--having sense perceptions--when they are awake? --Rednblu 08:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd explain it in terms of two things:

• • Failure to grasp the definition of "sentient;"
  • Pop misanthropy, or the popular wish to see humans as no higher than then other animals, or even lower;[6]; Ungtss 02:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, by the way, and Merry Christmas:). Ungtss 02:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

---

War? Should somthing be said about the ability of humans to wage war between each other? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.16.131.26 (talk • contribs) .

Good point. But there is already an excellent page on War, is there not? So your question asks: What is essentially Human about war? I would say that the cycle of war and apparent peace is the most human quality that we inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. The "phase transition" from 1) peaceful but serious competitions of masculine hierarchy to 2) killing war is uniquely Homo. Wrangham and Peterson say it this way. "Very few animals live in patrilineal, male-bonded communities wherein females routinely reduce the risks of inbreeding by moving to neighboring groups to mate. And only two animal species are known to do so with a system of intense, male-initiated territorial aggression, including lethal raiding into neighboring communities in search of vulnerable enemies to attack and kill. Out of four thousand mammals and ten million or more other animal species, this suite of behaviors is known only among chimpanzees and humans." [7] --Rednblu 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Chimps have been seen to engage in organised, large scale, lethal warfare, using weapons such as rocks and sticks. Sam Spade 19:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? Can you give me a citation to such an observation. As far as I have seen, chimpanzee males in a raiding party retreat if there is more than one male that opposes them; the chimpanzee raiding team looks for an isolated male to beat up. The result is usually fatal. --Rednblu 19:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

sure, the Four-Year war at Gombe. It was atypical, but it did occur, assumably on more than just that one occasion. Sam Spade 19:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation. --Rednblu 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There are also army ants and the behavior of dolphins and whales against sharks. I don't see why we shouldn't have more about nations, wars and politics however. Sam Spade 16:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

first person references

First person references such as "our senses", "affect us" and such are completely abhorrent, unprofessional and ugly. I will attempt to spot most of them and change them accordingly, but in the future, please be vigilant about excising all references in the first person. Thanks. -- Natalinasmpf 19:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)