Talk:Human/Archive 22

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.

1 Humans Inherently Bisexual
2 Conservation Status
3 Archives
4 Attributed definitions of human that emphasize spirit
- 4.1 Bordering on orignial research
5 My proposed intro
6 Three potential intro options
7 No to editwarring
8 Responses to Josse's changes
9 War
- 9.1 Problems with "War" and "Government and politics"
10 Should "spirit/spirituality/religion" be a subsection of "culture/society" or not?
11 Classified as
12 I like it
13 Material that is not related
14 The Intro Might As Well Be the Article – it is too long, and covers too many topics
15 Sapiens Sapiens?
16 Absurd POV
17 Page bug
18 The intro seems ok
19 Today's featured article
20 Consensus
21 Other encyclopedias' takes on Human
22 Spirituality not needed in intro, says Hawstom
23 Human image
24 Recent unilateral changes to structure ????
- 24.1 Structure
25 Note the project this is linked to
26 Urdu vs. Arabic
27 NPOV tag
28 Editor history
29 homo sapiens vs human vs humanity
- 29.1 Outline
- 29.2 Discussion
30 Suggestions for article structure
31 RfC of Sam Spade
32 Curiosity
33 Picture
34 Removal of NPOV tag
35 Removal of image
36 'heto-panubutiosis' edit
37 I think it would be proper
38 Sentience
39 Isn't homo latin for person not man?
40 Explanation of removal
41 Intro paragraph
42 Manipulative ... participative....
- 42.1 A start---
43 A naive question...

Humans Inherently Bisexual

A section of the article reads:

"Most sexologists, starting with the pioneers Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey, believe that the majority of homo sapiens are attracted to males and females, being inherently bisexual. This belief is based upon the human species close relatives' sexual habits such as the bonobo, and historical records."

There are many problems with this section:

The claim that "most" sexologists believe people are inherently bisexual is unverified. Recent studies of neurology and genetics suggest people may be born with one sexual orientation or another. This would undermine the idea of an inherent bisexuality that is pushed in one direction or another by life experiences. In other words, sexologists who keep up on sex research would have reasons to doubt the inherent bisexuality of human beings, so the claim that most sexologists continue to believe this needs to be verified.
The concept Freud proposed was polymorphous perversity, which is a concept of psychoanalytic theory and does not equate to bisexual orientation as most people think of it.
Kinsey never claimed that all people were inherently bisexual. Kinsey claimed that sexuality was complex, and that people could express varying amounts of homosexuality and heterosexuality in different areas of sexuality. He created continuous scales to try and capture the complexity of human sexuality. He was perfectly comfortable with the idea that some people fall on the 100% heterosexual end of the continuum and others fall on the 100% homosexual end of the continuum.
Freud and Kinsey did not develop their ideas about sexuality based on bonobo sexual behavior. Most of what we know about bonobos has come from research conducted after their deaths. Besides, bonobo sexual behavior proves absolutely nothing about human sexual nature. Humans split away from the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos. This means human ancestors had already started down their own unique evolutionary path before the bonobo species existed. The sexual evolution of bonobos and human beings occurred quite independent of one another.

First of all, please sign all comments with four tildes.

Second, good points. I will try to edit the bisexuality bit to incorporate your observations.

Aroundthewayboy 01:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent studies of neurology and genetics suggest people may be born with one sexual orientation or another. Does anyone have a source on that? I believe it, without doubt, but I'd like a good source. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 13:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservation Status

The fact that this article says "Conservation Status: Secure" is a lesson in absurdity. Please excuse me if this has already been mentioned. --Weldingfish 13:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that humans are not on an endangered species list, what else would it be? •Jim62sch• 14:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How about: "N/A" 'Conservation' of a species has to be done by someone, applying a status to humans would be assuming other animals (or perhaps super-animals; god(s), aliens etc.) read Wiki and consequently decide wether or not to start a breeding program?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.56.173.3 (talk • contribs).

'Conservation status' as used in the taxoboxes is a classification system that indicates the likelihood of the species becoming extinct in the foreseeable future. It does not imply that anyone or anything is 'conserving' humans. I think its a nice piece of irony here. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Irony is as inappropriate as humor in an encyclopedia article. Even worse, this instance is sophomoric and degrades the tone of the article more than it otherwise would. --Yath 18:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the conservation status of humans is debatable. — goethean ॐ 19:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Am with Yath on that one, more so due to article's significance. Sure the status is debatable: tiny planet, small solar system and odds for our survival definitely not favourable. But that applies to all other (earth) animals as well, doesn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.163.201.38 (talk • contribs).

The phrase "conservation status" is used to gauge the responsibility of humans, as caretakers, to take steps to ensure the survival of a species. However, humans cannot be their own caretakers since it is logically impossible for a group to be more powerful than itself. Even given the debatability of our long-term survivability, the phrase is not applicable. --Yath 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This statement is completely incorrect. Of course humans can "conserve" themselves. Who ever said that something has to be "more powerful than itself" to conserve itself?! By that logic, an individual human (or any other organism) cannot possibly defend or aid itself, but must be protected or aided externally. Clearly this is absurd. Please review Wikipedia:Conservation status. If you disagree with the system currently in use, which requires that humans be considered "Secure" at this point in time (I fail to see how the size of our solar system has anything to do with that; our solar system is plenty large, and the argument about the planet's size applies even more so to every other species on Earth!), then bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Conservation status rather than making Wikipedia inconsistent by arbitrarily changing one article, Human, and not any of the others, like mosquito or spotted bass or cucumber tree. -Silence 18:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. All "conservation status" implies is the degree to which the species is or is not endangered. Fishhead64 19:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but humans are different, they are not animals. OK, enough sarcasm. Silence is correct, let's put this argument to bed. •Jim62sch• 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "conservation status" has a very specific meaning: it refers to conservators, who are powerful beings with responsibilities, taking care of others using abilities that those others lack. The definitions of the individual words do not capture the meaning of the phrase. --Yath 20:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Especially since you just made that meaning up. Do you have any references to back up your belief that "conservation" requires that there be "powerful beings with responsibilities"? Sounds more like a comic book fiction than a biological term. -Silence 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

conservation status definition. •Jim62sch• 23:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, can we please decide it on the talk page rather than get into a revert war? My own opinion is that Homo sapiens should not be treated any differently than any other animal. It sounds like there is a project afoot to create a series of articles dealing with the various aspects of human existence, and hopefully that will settle the matter. Fishhead64 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the conservation status in; I think the consistency is important and it helpful to see how we compare to other species. We are enjoying a secure future for now but there is no inherent reason that must be. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that a consensus would be to leave the conservation status in at this time. Even though I think it makes Wikipedia look very silly, I'll drop this subject for now. --Yath 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reaction, actually, but the definition on conservation status makes it clear that conservation status is really a euphemism for "immediate survival likelihood"; it has little, if anything, to do with actually conserving anything. -Silence 00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just thought you'd like to know that humans are listed in Appendix II of CITES: [1]. If they list humans so can Wikipedia. Jerkov 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Attributed definitions of human that emphasize spirit

The following might have been written by C3PO, R2D2, an angel, or a muskrat abiding by NPOV and NOR, being only able to cite human "knowledge". Tom Haws 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the three largest religions, that together have adherents totalling 70% of the world, humans are beings of soul. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church a human is a being of body and soul in the image of God. According to Islam, every human "is composed of three parts—spirit, carnal soul, and body" [1] and humans are the "vice-regents of God" [2]. According to Hindu Advaita thought, "no such thing as a human exists. The human phenomenon (supposed to consist of the mind, vital energy, and physical body) is an illusion. Only God exists." And according to Hindu Dvaita thought, "humans, like all creatures, are souls of God (or divinity) enclosed within a complex of bodies ranging from very gross (the physical body) to very subtle (the ego). Humans, however, are unique among living things in that they have the potential to realize their divinity."

--Tom Haws 19:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow oh wow, delete that bit of silliness with extreme haste. --Cyde Weys 19:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, are you disputing that 70% of the human population hold beliefs such as these? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand Cyde's comment either. Clearly this level of detail is too much for the introduction of this article (if we started listing off every religion in the intro to the article on the human species, we'd have to list all sorts of other groups by belief too, like atheists, agnostics, deists, Buddhists... However, I feel that this information could be extremely useful in the Human self-reflection article, which I think would be a great place to take this debate too, simply because it's clearly so narrowly-focused. Few people are disputing that this information belongs on Wikipedia; all that is disputed is that it belongs in the first three paragraphs of the human article. Not every single personal agenda or hot-button issue can be squished into such a small bit of text! I'd love to continue this discussion, moved to an article more appropriate to this specific topic. And then, who knows, if human self-reflection gets enough focus and attention from guys like goethean and Sam Spade, that article could eventually become a Featured Article! Since Sam's two primary focuses in this discussion seem to have been (1) restoring this to Featured Article status (something which is honestly of worse-than-secondary importance for me), and (2) advocating spiritual perspectives in a prominent position in this article. Since the first of these goals will be a very long-term project (which doesn't, no offense, seem to serve Sam Spade's temperament; the way he keeps simply repeatedly reverting this article to its form at the time it was previously FAd is not very methodical or progressive, and is in fact counterproductive) for such a complicated and huge-in-scope article, and the second of these goals is off-topic for an article with such a broad and all-encompassing subject matter as human, the ideal solution to both problems with Sam Spade's most-expressed goals here is to simply focus on another article that deals with the issue of human self-identification or self-definition more precisely, like human self-reflection or human nature or even a brand-new article, since including lots and lots of variant religious perspectives on humankind would be much more welcome and valuable and NPOV there, and would have the further advantage of being much, much easier to get up to Featured-Article-status due to being easy. I don't know if the FA thing would appeal to you (you may be interested specifically in getting human FAd, since it's so central a topic), but the "getting to include lots of variant evaluations of the human condition" certainly should as soon as you give up on interjecting it into this article's intro. -Silence 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

See [6]] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And this from Britannica [7]] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about how many people in the world belong to each religion; if we don't list what the most-populated countries or most-spoken languages are, we shouldn't list the most-followed religions, either (which could also cause POV tensions because we'd have to have an arbitrary "cut-off" point at some point, and no matter where we stopped listing major religions, we'd cause offense to people; it would obviously be offensive to only list Christianity, but only listing Christianity and Islam would also offend because it'd exclude Hinduism; and so on down the list). We should refrain as much as possible from listing examples at almost any point in the human article: it consumes too much space for too little general information, and thus belongs more on quasi-daughter articles like religion and language. -Silence 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[8][9][10]

Sam Spade 09:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all those links. I learned something. 85% of Americans agree or mostly agree with "I never doubt the existence of God." 100% of Nigerians (highest). 56% of UK (lowest). Russia and South Korea also low. Tom Haws 16:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about Americans or Nigerians. It is about humans. -Silence 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

100% of humans are homo sapiens. This belongs in the intro. 70% of humans believe in some form of spirit. This belongs under the religion section of the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold your horses. 100% of people are homo sapiens according to you. Were not here to discuss our own opinions. We are here to attribute and catalogue the opinions of others. Humans are homo sapiens in latin, or according to anthropology. 'According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church a human is a being of body and soul in the image of God. According to Islam, every human "is composed of three parts—spirit, carnal soul, and body" [1] and humans are the "vice-regents of God" [2]. According to Hindu Advaita thought, "no such thing as a human exists. The human phenomenon (supposed to consist of the mind, vital energy, and physical body) is an illusion. Only God exists." And according to Hindu Dvaita thought, "humans, like all creatures, are souls of God (or divinity) enclosed within a complex of bodies ranging from very gross (the physical body) to very subtle (the ego). Humans, however, are unique among living things in that they have the potential to realize their divinity."'

Please, leave your POV at the door. Were here to write an encyclopedia article, not to enforce our personal paradigms on others.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."

Sam Spade 10:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So Sam, what do you propose for the name? Homo ingenii, or Homo image Dei or Homo Spadi? Humans are all homo sapiens, and that is the extent of commonality. Jim62sch 23:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"100% of people are homo sapiens according to you." - That is a misrepresentation. You might as well respond to someone saying "the chemical formula of water is H₂O" with the claim "the chemical formula of water is H₂O according to you.", and argue for including spiritual "definitions" of water in the intro to water (molecule), on the bizarre and unfounded assumption that just because spiritual perspectives on and significances (like holy water) for water exist, those perspectives are somehow an "alternate view" for water's chemical formula, of equal importance and truthvalue even to people who don't belong to and aren't interested in those religions, and necessarily contradictory to the chemical formula (i.e. people who are spiritual don't "believe in" water's chemical formula?!)! This is no more or less reason to list off religions in the intro to "human" than there is to lits off religions in the intro to "water"; both certainly have plenty of significance in religion and in all sorts of areas of human culture and society, but the articles should begin with the simplest and least controversial facts: that humans are bipedal primates of the species Homo sapiens (which is so uncontroversial that it's even included in most mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias as the sole definition of "human" or "human being"!!), that water is essential to all known life, it consists of dihydrogen monoxide molecules, etc. More complex, controversial, and unsupported beliefs like "humans are creatures of soul" or "some water is magic" should be included, but should not be exaggerated in universal significance to the point of being mentioned at the very beginning of an article that is incredibly wide in its scope and significance.

"Were not here to discuss our own opinions." - Correct. "Humans are Homo sapiens" is not an opinion. It is the dictionary definition of a word, as I've proven above with my list of some of the most prominent and widely-used dictionaries and encyclopedias in the entire English language, which describe the current accepted definitions of this word among the overwhelming majority of people who use it. "Humans are beings of soul", on the other hand, is an opinion, since there's no reputable dictionary in the world that would define the word "human" in that way. Your comments apply to yourself infinitely more than to KillerChihuahua: leave your opinions at the door, and consider how much real documentation there is of the dictionary definition of "humans" being controversial, and how much of it is just what you feel should be controversial.

"Humans are homo sapiens in latin, or according to anthropology." - This is not really accurate, on either account. Humans are homines (singular homo) in Latin; Homo sapiens is in Latin, like all binomial classifications, but it's not a Latin word or phrase you'll find in any dictionary. You are also wrong in your claim that humans are Homo sapiens merely according to anthropology: have you still failed to see my comment with the list of all those dictionaries and encyclopedias?! Those are general-use reference tools, not obscure anthropological or taxonomical treatises!

You then proceed to rattle off a lits of religious beliefs and doctrines regarding humankind. But what you don't seem to realize is missing from those quotations which would actually give your argument some weight is any real objection to the classification of humans as "Homo sapiens" (or as humans, hominids, hominins, primates, mammals, chordates, animals, or living beings), any actual support for your convictions that there is a controversy or dichotomy here. You have failed to show this. Yes, many Catholics believe that humans are creatures of body and soul, crafted by God (though they don't inherently define the word "human" that way—if they did, they wouldn't even have to say "humans are beings of soul and body", since that would be redundant, since it would already be the natural meaning and full significance of the word), but that is an issue of religious doctrine and ideology, not of the "variant definitions" of the word human—where in Catholic dogma does it state that humans are not Homo sapiens? If it said that anywhere, you might at least get away with including a footnote where we said that humans are Homo sapiens, explaining that Catholics disagree and so on. But without that, there's no controversy, and thus you have no grounds for demanding that your POV be interjected into this article's intro. NPOV is explicitly for controversial beliefs, not uncontroversial word-definitions.

"We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly" - And here is the heart of your fundamental misunderstanding, Sam. Because you see that there are different beliefs regarding humans, you assume that these views conflict with the definition of humans as "bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens—but there's no conflict! There are certainly countless conflicting views among the religious beliefs, but to then jump to the conclusion that all of these religious are somehow a monolithic POV that directly opposes the ever-so-silly notion that humans are animals, primates, apes, etc. (which all of the aforementioned articles state quite uncontroversially and clearly) is indeed a huge leap of faith. There are very, very few religious people in the world who deny that humans are Homo sapiens; there are no academic resources, news organizations, or other noteworthy sources (or indeed, thus far, sources at all) supporting the claim that people dispute whether humans are Homo sapiens that you have cited; there is no legislation being passed or battles being fought to try to get humans to not be called Homo sapiens, as there are battles raging in some parts of the U.S. over whether evolution should be taught in schools on its own (yet evolution doesn't describe "alternative theories" in its intro or promote them with equal weight, merely briefly alludes and links to a controversy (because the controversy is cultural, not scientific, and "evolution", like "human", is a scientific article, one about a scientific theory and the other about a species of life); have you read that article or its talk pages?). Nothing you have provided suggests that the dictionary definition of human is controversial; all it does is make clear what this article already states: that there are a wealth of religious beliefs in the world today, many of which believe that humans are creatures of spirit or soul, though the specifics thereof are often dramatically different. -Silence 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There you go again Silence, way too many words!!! ;-) I like the water analogy. David D. (Talk) 19:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that was in contention. You posted something to that effect some time back, which was unclear to me, and I asked for clarification. Either you never saw my request or you decided not to answer. So I ask again: If humans aren't humans, what are they? Rocks? Gerbils? Ethereal matter? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

According to who? Opinions vary, as should be clear by now. You can read over Tom Haws posting above, or my quote from it. If you want to know what I think (which isn't relevant here), see User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. Sam Spade 11:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, your post does not illuminate. I am not speaking of opinions, or POV. I am speaking of terminology and accuracy. What is the issue with homo sapiens? What precisely is your objection? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to homo sapiens, rather I am pointing out that is aterm (in latin) used in a certain field (anthropology) to express a certain paradigm (humans are a zoological animial). Clearly many other paradigms possess alternate views of humanity. Sam Spade 11:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Alternate" does not equal "conflicting", nor do the fact that different beliefs exist indicate that those beliefs exclude any acceptance of scientific facts or terminology. The only religious or cultural group I can think of that might fit any of those requirements is the Amish, and I've never heard of any Amish scientific controversies. :) Also, scientific classification is based in biology, not anthropology. See Scientific classification#Examples, which includes side-by-side taxonomical comparisons of humans and other species. -Silence 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

By that reasoning, calling salt Sodium chloride is a POV. Sam, for every statement on WP, there is probably some fringe group or person (sometimes more mainstream, sometimes more fringe) who disagrees. There are flat-earthers and hollow-earthers among us. Undue weight is the section of the NPOV policy that applies here - and this is not even about views, per se, but about terminology. Humans are homo sapiens. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that or has issue with that. Are you saying you do? And if so, who? And again, humans are animals - we eat, we excrete waste, we have hearts and lungs and reproduce sexually, we have every part and function of animals, and physically we have no part or function which other animals do not have. We may or may not have additional attributes, such as the ability to think in an abstract manner, such as a spirit, and those are matters of varying degrees of opinion and evidence. But it sounds like you are saying humans are not homo sapiens, and they are - just as table salt is sodium chloride - and neither is anything other than a specific scientific name for what is. Salt may or may not be special in a religious way - but it is sodium chloride regardless of what else you may or may not believe about it. Are you saying there is a statistically significant view that people are not homo sapiens? Can you provide a source for that? Not that some vanishingly small minority believes that, but that it is actually believed by any significant group whose expertise is the study of humans? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that in this case, the fringe group is you. Step outside the box, and try looking at things from the majority paradigm. I understand that you can't imagine people thinking anything other than that "humans are animals - we eat, we excrete waste, we have hearts and lungs and reproduce sexually, we have every part and function of animals, and physically we have no part or function which other animals do not have", but a great many people do not agree. I get the impression your not a terribly philosophical guy, are you? Look up acosmism or christian science sometime. Sam Spade 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, KillerChihuahua is not a guy (lassie? gal?) and not part of a fringe group. These types comments are not going to get us anywhere near a consensus. Certainly it means other editors will take any serious input you do make with less weight. David D. (Talk) 00:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So, KC is a fringe group (oh, I belong to that one, too), and only Sam the Great knows what the truth is? As I've noted several times -- notations to which you have chosen not to respond -- the only concrete factors all humans share are those biological functions belonging to the species, homo sapiens. You have, unwittingly, proven this by noting that 85% of American believe in God. The converse is that 15% do not, thus any argument regarding the universality of religion or spirituality (note, they are not synonymous) is a fallacy. (The syllogism for the coverse is, "All humans are homo sapiens; many humans believe in god/gods; therefore some humans do not.) Jim62sch 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, do you think that "homo sapiens" is not a useful, agreed upon description of humans? Mentioning notions of spirit and such are by nature highly POV. JoshuaZ 16:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I keep trying to explain, my private opinions don't matter. I will discuss my opinions, but I'd prefer not doing so here. As far as homo sapiens, obviously that should be mentioned, but only with the explanation that it is the latin term, used by anthropologists and zoologists. Most english speakers, expert and otherwise, use the english term. In any case, just as we can explain that zoologists call man homo sapiens and consider him a primate, we can also explain that theologians feel man is primarily a spiritual entity. Sam Spade 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, of course that we are, according to the taxonomy used by antropology, "Homo Sapiens". The problem lies in this: Homo Sapiens = Human. But Homo Sapiens is only an anthropological classification. I think that this is the problem we are facing. Please note that I am not advocating for a religious POV, just that I think we ought to accept that there are different ways to classify humans, one of which is the antropological classification. Saying that humans are "homo sapiens" is not POV, but saying that humans are only biological beings is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, the article gives an essentially biological defintion, it nowhere says that people don't have a spiritual element (whatever that means). Furthermore, if one added any such theological classification, it would become a complete mess since there are so many different, conflicting views/vague defintions. (For example, compare Theravada(sp?) buddhist definitions to christian to kabbalistic ones to Shinto). JoshuaZ 16:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally! Yes, there is no dispute that there are many competing definitions of what is a "human being". As per NPOV we should describe these competing definitions as competing definitions without asserting one or another. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) So far as I know, no one is saying that humans are only biological. Definition goes in the intro, with a brief overview of variables and details; Brain and mind are under Brain and mind, Spirituality and religion are under Spirituality and religion, etc. Sam is saying "a great many people do not agree" but he does not specify with what they do not agree. That people reproduce sexually? That they have hearts and lungs? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jossi is right, homo sapiens is the zoological label, and should be explained as such. Theologically, man is possessed of a soul, and is primarily a spiritual entity. Culturally we are americans, europeans, sikhs and etc... Each of these catagories has validity.

To killer, what were not agreeing about is the definition of man. I think thats extremely obvious. Sam Spade 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And if theology were a science, that definition might belong in the intro. However, not all -ologies are science. Additionally, if all homo sapiens were spiritual there would be no atheists or agnostics. To repeat, "the only concrete factors all humans share are those biological functions belonging to the species, homo sapiens". The items that are not factors of commonality belong in their niches. Jim62sch 00:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam is saying "a great many people do not agree" but he does not specify with what they do not agree. That people reproduce sexually? That they have hearts and lungs?

That humans are a primarily biological phenomenon; that reproduction and hearts and lungs – that is to say, the physical aspect – is the primary aspect of humanity. (Remember, humanity redirects to this article.) Is our humanity constituted primarily by our animal or physical natures? — goethean ॐ 16:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, it is. Survival of the species is the ultimate goal. Everything else develops from that. Jim62sch 00:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not what Sam said. He said "Hold your horses. 100% of people are homo sapiens according to you." Which is it? Both? Neither? If humans are not homo sapiens, what are they? Ondatra zibethicus? Be serious. As far as the physical not being the only attribute, I have stated, and continue to state, that other attributes are, and should be, covered. But claiming that a belief held by up to 70% of humans is a definition of human is the epitome of POV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Or phrased otherwise, would an alien author cataloguing all human "knowledge" need to report that, "Regarding themselves, they say that they are constituted primarily by their animal or physical natures"? Would such a statement be facutally accurate, or would the alien author need to vacillate a bit if questioned directly? Tom Haws 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not what Sam said.

Sam and I are two different people. Perhaps I shouldn't have put words in his mouth.

As far as the physical not being the only attribute, I have stated, and continue to state, that other attributes are, and should be, covered.

By defining humans in terms of biology, you are implying that the biological is the primary constituent of humanity. You ignored my question: Is our humanity constituted primarily by our animal or physical natures?

But claiming that a belief held by up to 70% of humans is a definition of human is the epitome of POV.

Only when compared to something that is not a belief. That science, and scientific definitions, are fundamental is also a belief, if an infrequently examined one. — goethean ॐ 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can classify scientific definitions as a beliefs since they can change. Do beliefs change? Scientific definitions are based on the available data. They can and do change. David D. (Talk) 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but if it is a belief, count me in as one of those non-religious fools who believe that absolute, concrete facts trump unchanging beliefs developed from mythology and an inability to factually explain the world around them. It amazes me that homo sapiens especially the American variety, have shown great intellectual growth that is nonetheless retarded by mysticism and fear. Jim62sch

One possible solution would be to have separate articles for Human being, Homo Sapiens, and Humanity, rather than attempt the seemingly impossible task of synthesizing all these views. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How would one do an article on Homo Sapiens without it being a redirect to Human? Regardless of whether you feel Humans are more than just Homo Sapiens, Homo Sapiens is, by definition, Human. Avedomni 17:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh... that will be easy. Look at Homo habilis as an example. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So we include a "findings", "interpretations", and ""famous specimens" section, and declare that Homo Sapiens is a species of the Genus Homo that first appeared approximately <<N>> years ago? Homo Habilis works because it refers to an (at least apparently) extinct species with no other generally accepted classification. We don't have seperate articles on Gray Wolf and Canis Lupus because they are one and the same. To seperate Human and Homo Sapiens into their own articles would necessitate the same treatment to every other article on living things. To paraphrase Sam:

Canis Lupus is the zoological label, and should be explained as such. In some beliefs wolves are possessed of a soul, and are primarily a spiritual entity. Culturally they have distinct packs and territories and etc... Each of these catagories has validity.Avedomni 17:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would hope Jossi is not being serious. If we really go with Sam's reasoning the fist paragraph for this POV fork would end up along the following lines.

Homo sapiens ("wise man" or "thinking man") is a species of the genus Homo, which is an abundant bipedal primate. Some believe that this species includes all modern humans.

An implication of what we are reading in this discussion is that humans that cannot classified in terms of religion are somehow less than human. Otherwise why would anyone have a problem with all humans being Homo sapiens? Aren't we trying to write a real encyclopedia here? David D. (Talk) 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

An implication of what we are reading in this discussion is that humans that cannot classified in terms of religion are somehow less than human.

No one has implied any such thing. What is at issue here is that people have different, contradictory conceptions of what constitutes the human. Each of these different conceptions includes all humans. — goethean ॐ 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So what is the logic against the use of homo sapiens = humans? David D. (Talk) 18:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

David, no one is disputing that Humans = homo sapiens. What is being disputed is that Humans only = home sapiens. The assertion is that humans are classified as homo sapiens in Anthropology and that there are other ways to define what is "human" besides biology and anthropology. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am making a serious attempt to try and understand you, but this is not making any sense to me at all. You write:

"What is being disputed is that Humans only = home sapiens. "

Are you implying that other animals could be Homo sapiens? What other animals? From what I have read above it appears as if the 30% (atheist?) is this other group? Seriously, I'm not trying to be provocative but this is how I am parsing this section of the discussion on this talk page.

It's very easy to understand. Humans are more than mere animals. — goethean ॐ 18:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So where's the probelm? Nothing you are saying seems to conflict with humans are synonymous to homo sapiens. Sam says its POV but how is it POV when the introduction of the article clarifies very clearly that humans are distinct from animals in many ways? David D. (Talk) 19:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked "So what is the logic against the use of homo sapiens = humans?". From a religious perspective, is there documented evidence that this is not accepted by various religions? If not, I don't see how it is POV. At least, I am assuming that Sam thinks it is POV since he wrote: "100% of people are homo sapiens according to you. Were not here to discuss our own opinions." David D. (Talk) 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

<< David, I find it very peculiar that you do not seem to understand what I am saying. It is very simple: Of course that Humans are the "homo sapiens" species. That is not disputed. What is disputed is to use the species as the principal way of defining what is human. The argument goes that defining humans as Homo Sapiens ONLY, is not NPOV as it does not present competing views, such as the one that asserts that Humans are not only a species of animal called "homo sapiens". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Where in the introduction are humans defined as homo sapiens ONLY? David D. (Talk) 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

They aren't. Jim62sch 00:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bordering on orignial research

Sam, you write above:

"100% of people are homo sapiens according to you. Were not here to discuss our own opinions. We are here to attribute and catalogue the opinions of others. Humans are homo sapiens in latin, or according to anthropology. 'According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church a human is a being of body and soul in the image of God." " Quoted from Sam above 10:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This implies that the Catholic church does not recognise and use the term Homo sapians. This is strange given that the Catholic church accepts evolution. Your analysis here is bordering on original research. As you, yourself, have said many times, "Please, leave your POV at the door. We're here to write an encyclopedia article, not to enforce our personal paradigms on others." Maybe you should heed your own words? David D. (Talk) 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I was looking throught the archives to try and get some perspective on the discussion here. Sam contributed the following which seems almost at odds with the current discussion. To tell you the truth it just makes me more confused with regard to the current discussion. David D. (Talk) 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed at odds, at least on the face of it, with what is happening right now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I sense a disconnect. Jim62sch 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My proposed intro

Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae^[1]. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Like all primates, humans are an inherently social animal.

Culturally, humans create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics important aspects of human society. Humans build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relation between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view. Many believe Humans are beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue.

Sam Spade 17:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Uniquely complex and varied social structures" seems POV, given that there are many who believe other animals have equally varied and complex social structures. Also, doesn't "many people believe Humans..." constitue weasel words. I am relatively new here, but I thought that phrasing such as that was frowned on; in fact, "Many people say..." is given in the examples under Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words Avedomni 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The latter is easily correctable with links given above by Hawstom and jossi. — goethean ॐ 18:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Three potential intro options

Here is a new table with the version that Sam has endorsed. I have removed the 3 (from original FA) from the table to conserve space. It can be found in the table above. Version4 is the version Sam posted for consideration (above). David D. (Talk) 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Part	Version 1	Version 2	Version 4
Intro	Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Bipedal locomotion appears to have evolved before the development of a large brain. The origins of bipedal locomotion and of its role in the evolution of the human brain are topics of ongoing research.	Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).^[2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species of animal.	Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, Hominidae^[3]. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Like all primates, humans are an inherently social animal.
Society / Culture	Humans are distinguished from other animals in many ways. They create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans are the only living beings that build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This natural curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans also have a unique appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.	Like most primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.	Culturally, humans create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics important aspects of human society. Humans build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
Mind / Spirit (?)	Spiritual perspectives on humans state that they are spiritual beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue.	Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythologyology. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies. It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and God, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.	The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relation between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view. Many believe Humans are beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characteried by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue.
Endorsed by users:	goethean, schwael	Avedomni, David D., Clawed, Hitchhiker89, Jim62sch, KillerChihuahua, Knowledge Seeker, Silence, Ashenai, Tzepish	Sam Spade

Please to not edit the content of the table above unless it is to add your name to endorse one of the versions.

I really don't like these charts, and the appearence that they are some sort of a vote. Some of these people listed have not been active here, and should not be listed. Sam Spade 20:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a reference point for opinion. This discussion is impossible if there is no point of reference. I have no problem taking out the endorsements but a side by side comparison of the different versions is necessary, right? David D. (Talk) 20:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated than that. Here's the first sentence of the last version that I reverted to:

Human beings are biologically classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes..

But that was a version that I could live with, not an ideal version. You see, I don't insist on this article mirroring my point of view. — goethean ॐ 20:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not insisted anything. In fact, I have made very few edits to the actual article. Also, i have no idea what you mean by "It's a little more complicated than that." I would have thought it was obvious we are trying to discuss what is a good consensus version. Obviously there is give and take. You seem to be assuming that I am trying to force my POV version on you with out any give? What is the point of discussion if you take that attitude? David D. (Talk) 20:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. But for the last week, several editors have insisted that anything but their version is nonsense. I am willing to compromise a great deal, as should be evident from the above quotation. It is the other side who is unwilling to compromise. — goethean ॐ 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed version synthesizing from all three above. It needs polishing, though.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Humans, or human beings, are from an biological anthropology perspective bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).^[4] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species.

Like all primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are distinguished from other animals in many ways and are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans are the only species that build fires, cook their food, and clothe themselves. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

The human mind has several distinct attributes and it is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Humans are also noted for their curiosity and their desire to understand and influence the world around them by developing elaborate sciences, technologies, philosophies, and mythologies. Human's natural curiosity also factors into the self-awareness of humans, leading to sel-reflection and the development of distinct personalities. Human religious perspectives often emphasize the existence of a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits.

I really like that, jossi. That is about what I would expect from Wikipedia. Not in-your-face Catholic Encyclopedia, but not ignoring things like clothes, fire, or soul either. Nice job. Tom Haws 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom, all three version that are in the table above mention clothes, fire, and soul. Which version are you refering to? It might be better to focus on the disputed sentences from the versions in the table since they have been more refined over the months. However, after a quick look at your new version I would mention the following:

"Humans are the only species on earth that ...."

i would remove Earth unless we are considering species outside Earth.

"Humans also have a unique appreciation for...."

"unique" seems to be POV

"Humans, or human beings, are from an biological anthropological perspective..."

"biological anthropological perspective" seems to be unnecessary (as discussed above) and cumbersome.

"......and use countless other technologies."

"countless" seems like hyperbole and unnecessary.

(disclaimer, these are my opinions, take them or leave them, but don't assume i am trying to force them on anyone) David D. (Talk) 21:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of these coments with the exception of biological anthropology. I am refactoring the version above accordingly. I also remove tThe "countless technology" sentence as it is already addressed in the last para. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So are we going to go through and add "biological anthropological perspective" to every entry on living organisms?

My main problem with this debate is that some people believe humans have spirits/souls and some people don't; some people believe humans are more than just animals and some people don't; some people believe humans have significance above and beyond that of other animals and some people don't — these are all POVs. On the other hand, there doesn't appear to be any significant dispute about whether or not humans are Homo Sapiens. Since it is inherently a biological classification, I see no reason to qualify it with the "biological anthropological" comment unless you do dispute that classification. Avedomni 22:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I dispute that it is the only possible way in which beings can be classified. Discussion here. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was the only possible way in which beings could be classified, I said that it was an undisputed classification. I have read that discussion and still see no reason to include the biological qualifier, unless the intent is to add it to every entry on beings. Note that I never said it would be incorrect to include the qualifer in all such articles, only that if we are to include it in this one then it should be included in all of them. This is, without question, an article on a species of living organisms, whether or not that is the only method of classifying them. I have yet to see another classification system that is inclusive of every entity identified as a Human and exclusive of all others. Avedomni 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that "Homo Sapiens" is not a biological anthropology term? If it is so, why not adding that distinction? In particular as Humans are the only species that we know that care about its own classification :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a BA term. As I said above, I am not arguing for or against the inclusion. I am merely of the opinion that should it be included in this article, it should also be included in every article about any given species; further, that every article which makes a categorical assertion should then be expected to state which categorical system it is using to classify the subject. If it is necessary to qualify Homo Sapiens as being a biological anthropological designation, then it should be equally necessary to qualify "deity" as a theological designation or "G2V yellow star" as an astronomical designation in the articles in which they appear.Avedomni 22:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words we are opening a can of worms with regard to the use of qualifers. David D. (Talk) 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur strongly. Adding the qualifier is unecessarily verbose, and poor writing. Of course its a biological categorization; who else categorizes species? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Agreed. Such sesquipedalianism brings nothing to the party. Jim62sch 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So, if that is your position, whay about changing the order of the sentences as follows? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

reduce for easy reading Humans', or human beings have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans are the only species that build fires, cook their food, and clothe themselves. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are categorized as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).^[5]. Like all primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are distinguished from other animals in many ways and are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas.

Why reorder? This makes no sense. Just drop the unecessarily verbose descriptors, and you have version 2 in the table above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

wow, I thought we were really getting somewhere until I read that comment... Sam Spade 23:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Jossi's version is very similar to version two above why would you say that? The crux of this discussion is clearly coming down to the use of the qualifier "biological" or "biological anthropology". Are you suggesting that Jossi's version above is getting us somewhere? The only reason I ask is that jossi has cut out some of your preferred sentences. David D. (Talk) 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Second the Huh? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Third the Huh? (Sorry I know its redundant but the phrase was so amusing...)JoshuaZ 23:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to provide a description of various physical and mental aspects before the classification. The first paragraph uses phrases like "has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species" and "Humans are the only species that..." It seems logical to me to put the classification section before such comments in order to provide a basis for them; that is, we should clarify what species Humans are before we begin comparing them to others. Avedomni 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Which actually brings up an interesting point. If throughout the article comments comparing Humans to other beings refer to speciological (is that a word?) differences, then where is the sense in defining them as anything else in the beginning? Avedomni 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed this new version is very disjointed. You have "Like all primates, humans are by nature social." in the paragraph after "Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups".

Going back to your previous version, I would agree that the biological anthropology qualifer might be suited for the second and third paragraph in the first paragraph. David D. (Talk) 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have started a new approach at User:Goethean/Human4. — goethean ॐ 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

For reference, this is where we currently stand. User:Daycd/human_intro_versions version5 is jossi's consensus version above (not the rearranged one). David D. (Talk) 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I updated your page to add some more info on the various versions, since it's a convenient way to store stuff without it cluttering up (or being scrolled away by) this Talk page; hope you don't mind. I added complete texts of the five versions (since they should each be read in toto in addition to being compared with one another, to ensure internal coherency), and some new stats on the different versions (which are obviously infinitely less important than most of the other issues being discussed here, but are at least points of interest): a word count (actually a complete character count, including spaces but not par-breaks), which may interest users who prefer a more concise or more lengthy version, and an internal link count, which may interest users like Cyde and Jim62 who have expressed concerns that the article is overlinked (and, on the other hand, may interest users who prefer that articles be as linked as possible). Pretty trivial stuff, but interesting (it's cool how versions 5 and 4 have exactly the same number of links, for example!). -Silence 02:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I only see versions 1,2 and 4 in the table. JoshuaZ 02:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Versions 1, 2 and 4 are listed in the table above (presumably for space concerns; things start to get a little squished with 4+ intros listed side-by-side. Hell, two would probably be ideal, but that may have to wait until some other version than #2 gets enough support to outweigh the other alternative candidates); versions 1, 2, 4 and 5 are listed on the User:Daycd/human_intro_versions page. Versions 1, 2, and 3 are listed in the original table a few sections above (3 was not repeated in any of the two more recent table-creations because it has no current supporters now that Sam Spade's devised a new version). -Silence 02:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Groan. I'll take a look at the new tables maybe sometime tommorow, right now, all the versions are blurring together when I tried to read them. JoshuaZ 02:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Know what you mean. See you then! -Silence 03:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge (minor); Version 2, ~~2nd~~ 3rd paragraph, last sentence currently reads: "It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and God, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities." There are two issues with this - bias and highly questionable accuracy of the second half. The cause, or mosre probably causes, of distinct personalities could be debated ad nauseum, but the desire to understand and influence is more properly part of our nature, not a cause. I propose we take Sam's sentence: "Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characteried by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits." which is much more NPOV, without the Jewish/Christian only view in version 2. Follow with a philosophy statement if desired, or end the paragraph there.KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First i think you mean the third paragraph. Do you remember this version from Feb KC? Talk:Human/Archive_19#Working_version_.28as_of_16:00_8th_Feb.29 This had a more similar content to what you are suggesting. David D. (Talk) 10:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Human beings are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes. However, humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection.

Like all primates, humans are inherently social; however the memetic ability of humans to learn via instruction rather than by imitation, and hence to share ideas, creates a developmental niche that they alone occupy. Thus, they create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups ranging from nations down to families. Humans are currently the only animals on earth who build fires or clothe themselves. This trait of trying to understand and manipulate the world has led to the development of technology and science. Social norms, Beliefs, mythologys, rituals and values have each played a role in forming humanity's culture.

Human curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relationship between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view, while spiritual perspectives hold that destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Religious perspectives emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. Philosophy attempts to fathom the depths of all these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings.

Yes I remember that version. Its my preferred version, far more strongly than the current version or any of the proposed versions. It seems to have been dumped, so I am trying to work with what appears to be a closer-to-consensus version. It needs a little copyedit (thus, hence, etc trimmed.) And yes I meant 3rd, I shouldn't edit at 5 am before coffee, thanks for catching that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

<<Made some minor changes to current version. If not agreeable, please restore previous. Note that I have done other edits not related to the intro. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the reason you had to make that change was the wrong version was pasted under version 5 (long hand). i have nw corrected it to match the comtent of version 5 in the table. David D. (Talk) 04:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to note why I added my name to version 1 above. I have not been involved in this discussion before because I only just stumbled upon it, and I have not read beyond this point into the discussion, so this is just going to be based on my personal first impressions. I like starting off noting the biological point of view. It might not seem neccissary in the context of scientific articles, but when human is linked from philosophical or religious articles, the biological language doesn't fit as well. Secondly, I like the use of the word spiritual in the 1st version rather than religious as n the 4th version. It's a minor preference based on my own associations between religion and things like culture and community, where as I associate spirituality more directly with theology. Schwael 19:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No to editwarring

Goethean, Sam, JoshuaZ, ~~Duncharis~~. Regarding your recent reverts:

In my experience editing Wikipedia for the last few years (and I am sure in yours as well), I have yet to see an article about which there are competing views, in which a side manages to "win" and the other side to "lose". The four content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT are a very strong framework and able to repel POV pushing, and assist in the development of articles that are factually accurate, verifiable, and encyclopedic. "Edit warriors" always lose in Wikipedia. I reminder that it is best to refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. Remember WP:3RR, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dunc made one revert, methinks including him is a bit specious. Jim62sch 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This article made FA for one reason and one reason alone: constant correction. This is probably the hardest article to edit of any on the encyclopedia, because of the periodic interest of diverse persons (all of whom biased by being human). Some people here helped this article to FA status; others forced it from that position by their POV advocacy. Have a look at the article before I started editing it: [11]

I had to edit war for what seemed like forever just to get a taxobox at the top of the page and out of the biology section!

I have edited longer than most, and I have learned that the majority is usually wrong. There is a reason the wikipedia is not a democracy, and why NPOV is non-negotiable. Sam Spade 01:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, and yet, from a logical standpoint, incoherent. The POV that blew away the FA status was the spirituality perspective being rammed down people's throats.

Yes, we've ALL seen the original.

However long you've edited is irrelevant. The quantity of time is subordinate to the quality of time spent on a subject. I find as humourous your statement that "the majority is usually wrong" given your earlier rant regarding the massive percentages of people who believe in god/gods. I find as ironic any statement you might make about NPOV.

Finally, this edit comment was beyond ironical, it plunged into the sublime: "good grief, read consensus, will ya?)". Jim62sch 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Above Sam said to KillerChihuahua:

"What you don't seem to understand is that in this case, the fringe group is you. Step outside the box, and try looking at things from the majority paradigm. ....... I get the impression your not a terribly philosophical guy, are you? " Sam Spade 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet above he says "I have learned that the majority is usually wrong.". Sam, I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but what an earth are you talking about? You seem to be arguing against yourself? Not to mention that in the archives you were arguing for a pro-biological stance. What I find even more ironic is that you also stated above:

"I for one am not here for drama." Sam Spade 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Given all this are you trolling us here or serious? This is real question and I really am wondering because you seem to play devils advocate whatever the topic or opinion. David D. (Talk) 03:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Insisting on neutrality and policy adherence is not trolling. I've told you guys over and over this has nothing to do w my personal POV. Personally, spiritual evolution is a law of nature. That is however irrelevant when a spiritual POV dominates the article (as it did in the past), or a skeptic POV dominates (as it does today). Both are against the articles best interest, and thus I oppose them.

As far as my seemingly contradictory statements regarding the majority, you are missing the subtleties. According to NPOV, minority views among the public (like secular humanism) should not be over emphasized. Again, according to policy; majority views among editors have no special status. My "the majority is usually wrong" was ment to apply to editors, but can apply to the general public as well. The truth is, wikipedia articles are not about absolute truth. They are about cataloging human knowledge in a neutral, verifiable manner. If that knowledge is wrong (and alot of it is), so be it. Sam Spade 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be justifying your current edits by saying that the majority is often wrong. Isn't this counter to the wikipedia philosophy of consensus building? For example, the precedent for spirit as a subsection of culture seems to be set in wikipedia (see silence below). You challenge this but why is your challenge the NPOV way to do it? You seem think that all your calls are objective while everyone elses are subjective. How can this be? And why is consensus not considered in this case? Your job as an editor is not to tell the majority that they are wrong but to persuade that majority that you are right. This is what consensus building is all about. It's hard work and you are not doing the leg work. Without the leg work the article will never be stable. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting that the "Humans, or Human beings, are classified as..." intro be left in place until a better concensus can be achieved. While it is not preferred by the larger majority, it does appear to be the most widely accepted (as a temporary solution if nothing else) at the moment, and this constant rv-edit warring is doing nothing for the discussion. This particular point will not severely affect the impressions of readers, nor will it drastically affect the overall POV of the article — is it something that needs to be settled, yes; is it so imperative that it needs to be "fixed" everytime someone changes it, no. Avedomni 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. "Classified as" is redundant. To repeat myself for the nth time, the only thing all humans have in common is their biology. The rest are developments based on a wide range of experiences. Jim62sch 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Josse's changes

Humans, or human beings, are characterized as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens

Not acceptable. Doesn't add any information, merely seeks to cast unreferenced and vague doubt on a scientific fact/dictionary definition, making it more of a rhetorical tactic than a truly informative or NPOV addition. Also, it's meaningless; to characterize is "to describe the qualities or peculiarities of", by which one could stretch to include everything in the article, making its usage in this specific instance the mere casting of unsubstantiated aspersions. This is important: Stating that human beings are Homo sapiens does not in any way, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, imply that humans are "only" Homo Sapiens, anymore than stating that humans walk upright on two legs implies that that's the only information about humans (or even about human locomotion or transportation) that exists, or even that it implies that no humans ever walk in any other manner, or do anything aside from walking! Reading so much of a complex agenda into a simple dictionary definition of an English word (human) smells of paranoid suspicions of spirituality being marginalized more than of general POV problems with the article's first sentence. And sneaky qualifiers like "are characterized as" or "according to biological perspectives" are unacceptably misleading and counterinformative. They are the opposite of a solution to a POV problem: they are the POV problem, at least until there is any actual evidence (i.e. citations) that specific taxonomical statements like "humans are members of the species Homo sapiens" or "humans are mammals" are genuinely controversial.

has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species ~~of animal~~.

I'm fine with this change. In fact, I was about to make it myself before you did, for the same reason "life on earth" was recently changed to "life". Humans make tools better than any other known species, not just better than any other known species of animal.

(intro-text on beauty and culture moved from end of second paragraph to end of third paragraph)

I don't really agree with this move. It's impossible to understand art before one understands human interaction, since art is not only a means of pure self-expression, but also a means of conveying ideas and feelings to other people. Art also has next to nothing to do with tools (or at least no more than many other parts of the intro, particularly the third-paragraph bit on technologies like clothing and cooking) or anything else in the first paragraph, whereas I think the rest of the first paragraph flows very nicely indeed (from the dictionary definition of human, including scientific classification, to an explanation of a few of the obvious biological differences between humans and other primates (brain construction, body carriage, etc.), to a synthesis of the two aforementioned qualities into the one of most basic and significant statements about humanity: that they are the ultimate tool-makers. And then the paragraph ends on that important yet elegantly unadorned statement, to proceed into the human condition in more detail and complexity (which is not to say that society or religion are "less essential" than biology, merely to say that they're a lot harder to understand, and that it's easier to learn about and understand society and religion after knowing that life exists than learning that there's life after reading a tome on society and religion :)) in the ensuing two paragraphs. Concise, smooth, clear, informative. Certainly it can be improved (and I believe the second paragraph can be improved even more so), but I'm not sure this is quite the way to do it. Perhaps if you explained the motivation behind moving this snippet of text?

(image additions)

Woo! I'm in love with the image you added to "motivation and emotion". The one you added to "Art, music, and literature" could be better, though—it's too closely and explicitly tied to another section, the religion one (in fact, to so great an extent that it'd really be better to include it in that section rather than the "art" one, if anywhere at all in this article) to provide unique information. In fact, since we've already included a very large number of examples of visual art in this article, and since an image of text (to illustrate literature, poetry, etc.) would be more appropriate in the "language" section than the "arts" one, I recommend an image related to music to illustrate this section, since it's the odd man out in the rest of the article's contents and illustrations, and thus an image illustrating this concept has the most potential to benefit our readers. Possibly something from the Commons? -Silence 05:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Silence, what you are saying is that you are unwilling to find a compromise. You coud have said that in one sentence. I am trying to find a way that could accommodate all what is being discussed, with the intention to achieve an intro that will leave us all with the feeling that maybe we are not 100% happy with, biut that we can all live with it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Replaced image in Art section with a detail from a Caravaggio painting that I found to be quite suitable. Let me know what you think. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Silence, what you are saying is that you are unwilling to find a compromise." - Incorrect. The fact that I have revised my version of the intro four or five times now shows that I am very willing to compromise. However, the fact that my version of the intro currently has 8 supporters (almost all of whom would likely switch to another intro if "characterized as" or "biologically classified as" or some other weasely rhetoric was interjected into it) despite 4 or 5 alternatives having been proposed and endorsed, shows that there's strong agreement between the large number of people who feel that a citation is required before we can start to devalue the entire field of biology and every major general-use dictionary and encyclopedia in the world (adding "characterized as" without references to valid sources justifying it indicate that the field of biology is merely a "characterization" of humankind (which is just a rhetorically-loaded way of saying "description", though even a more neutral term like "described" or "classified" is deeply unnecessary, and potentially misleading, in this case) violates the three most important policies of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research), whereas the fact that none of the alternatives that has yet been proposed has more than 1 supporter shows that, even if there's discontent about the current version of the intro, there's absolutely no agreement yet as to how best to solve the claimed (but, as has been said, uncited, which makes it irrelevant to Wikipedia at this point) controversy, arbitrarily changing the intro to suit the interests of any one of the three or four dissenters a much worse situation.

This is not to say that the arguments and claims of the minority are irrelevant just because a majority strongly disagrees—not at all, I've consistently said that I'm happy to discuss the matter at length (though since I've gotten complaints about the length of my "at length" a few times, I've withheld some of my criticisms of a few versions of the article thus far—if you want them, I'll gladly share) and am glad that there's an ongoing discussion on this matter, rather than a war. Everyone on Wikipedia has the right to criticize an article, and those criticisms should be responded to, no matter how many people disagree—in fact, it's more important to respond if a large number of people disagree with the criticism, to make it very clear to the criticizer exactly why the change isn't being made at this point. So, goethean's earlier claims that I'm trying to "bully" people is clearly false—I've participated heavily in the debate for days now, to an even greater extent than goethean has (by far), so if anything he's been relying more on force (and tenacity, a very powerful thing) to have his say than myself. Arguing against a certain version of an article is not "bullying", no matter how many people are arguing against it—it's discussion and debate.

And it's not that I'm unwilling to compromise (I love compromise; I'd get bored fast if everyone just did what I said, plus I'm often wrong), it's that attempting to attack scientific facts and dictionary definitions without any valid evidence, reasoning, or referencing whatsoever to back up your convictions and feelings is not a "compromise". Characterizing your changes as "compromises", when they're really just attempts to push your POV into the spotlight with backdoor rhetorical tactics (like adding words deliberately weighted to subtly poke holes in a sentence for no clear reason, confusing and misleading our readers, rather than doing what you should and finding solid, reliable, noteworthy references explicitly and specifically stating exactly what's wrong with saying that humans are Homo sapiens, or mammals, or anything of the sort, and then citing those, informing our readers), does not make them "compromises" any more than version 2 is a "compromise". Face it: all of the versions are "compromises", in one way or another, because there are just so many opinions on the topic of "humans". Arguing that your side is the only one making any compromises just because you keep trying to think of new ways to create the same POV problems in the intro (e.g., switching from "scientifically classified as" to the even worse "characterized as") is dishonest and inaccurate: if you want us to compromise further, then provide solid facts and references to back up your firm belief that "humans are Homo sapiens" (or some other snippet of taxonomical information) is directly controversial or is disputed by highly noteworthy sources; then it won't violate WP:NOR or WP:V.

But don't act like you're the persecuted underdogs trying to save the intro from the crushing POV of the oppressive majority, that you're constantly trying to find effective compromises and we're just blindly shooting them all done like the callous monsters we are—I took the time to specifically refute your addition and explain in great detail what's wrong with it. If I'd merely reverted it without an explanation (in fact, I didn't revert it at all, since I expected you to be willing to do that once you realized that such an insertion was unacceptable, though instead you replaced with with another pointless rhetorically-founded qualifier, "classified"), then you'd have had a right to complain, but I did everything I could to make it clear that your change is unacceptable because it violates Wikipedia policy and guidelines (being unreferenced, sneaky, inexplicable, etc.), not because "I'm unwilling to compromise". If the only way to make you happy is to simply give way to every demand you make, because otherwise you'll launch unfounded accusations at us now matter how clearly and soundly we argue against and point out the flaws in your changes, then you're the one who's really unwilling to compromise, and clearly unwilling to discuss this. If you disagree with the points I made, respond to them! What's so hard about that? I'm willing to change my mind, if you take the time to try and are convincing enough—explain why you added the words you added and I'll reconsider my initial evaluation, then respond anew! But if you're just going to attack me for daring to criticize an action you've taken, no discussion, compromise, or progress can possibly occur in this matter. The choice is yours.

As for the new image: acceptable. If you can find one that more clearly demonstrates music in some way, though (this picture, though beautiful, features the donkey as prominently as the act of music, and the instrument (the most important part) is a bit difficult to see, especially in thumbnail; readers may also be confused as to whether this image is meant to illustrate "art", "literature" or "music", we should be clear about it to avoid confusion, not get fancy and try to include all three in some subtle way). It'll certainly do for the present, though. -Silence 18:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Silence, with all due respect (which I sincerely have for you), could you please synthesize your responses? I do not have neither the time nor the patience time to read these longs comments. Surely an effort in this direction will be appreciated by me and others. I have added the word "classified" to the intro. This is not intended to poke any holes, but to provide a way out of this seemingly endless discussion. Can we go back and copyedit the main sections of this article that needs people with the pen skills you obviously have? I would love to see your copyedit skills and prose shine in the article rather than on this talk page. {I will look for other suitable images later on)≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagre with "classified as" as it is redundant (see above). I do however agree re Silence's responses: as someone once noted, "brevity is the soul of wit". Jim62sch 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you disagree that humans are classified as "homo sapiens"? That is factually accurate, verifiable and NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

No, I said that "classified as" is redundant (and unnecessary).

War

Jossi or Silence is there any section that is better suited for the end of the article? War seems a little depressing. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

But accurate. While most of the rest of the "society" section is about the creation and ordering of things, war is about the destruction and disordering. Plus it's a real show-closer; hard to follow an atom bomb. That, and, more importantly, I don't see any substantial reason right now to move "War" elsewhere; being "depressing" isn't really an encyclopedic concern. Is there any pressing reason to move it? (Or to move anything else to the end?) -Silence 05:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well i can live with the go out with a bang analogy. David D. (Talk) 05:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, since this has nothing to do with my above comments on Josse's edit, I'm putting it in a new section. Hope y'don't mind. -Silence 06:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I just added on to the bottom since the section happened to be discussing general edits to the article rather than the introduction. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, discussions of content past the first line or two are getting rare these days, aren't they? :) -Silence 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is more to this article than an introduction? I'd had no idea. JoshuaZ 06:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:) While we're on the subject, I also made a lot of sub-intro edits a while ago that may be of interest (I expected some discussion when I made them, but perhaps they slipped under the radar because they happened to be interspersed between edit wars). The difference can be seen here. (I'm not actually done with the copyedit and reorganization yet; I haven't done the bottom few sections, and "philosophy" still needs a trim, but most of the work's there.) -Silence 06:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That explains the reference that popped up in the introduction. At present most of you edits are intact so amazingly they slipped in under the radar. i'm sure we can rip them to piec.....erm..... i mean, copy edit them for you. ;-) David D. (Talk) 06:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Superb. I'd have been very disappointed to see them survive unmolested. I didn't put all that hard work into tearing apart other people's contributions just to have my contributions untorn! Let the reverts, corrections, re-insertions, and bitter disputes flow like wine. :D And now I've lost track of what I'm satirizing, if anything, altogether, so time to sleep. -Silence 07:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
And yes, all the inline citations in the article are my doing. I merged and reworked the in-use citation and note systems in one of my edits, to improve consistency and accessibility. I also removed a few unused (and often unuseable, for an article like this) citations that were, I'm sure, stayovers from past versions of the article—and there are probably a few more superfluous or unused citations that could still be trimmed if someone wanted to do the dirty work. (But obviously the much more important task at the moment is adding more citations, for the countless unreferenced claims this article makes.) Anyway, g'night. -Silence 07:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Last edit of the intro could work! It follows the structure of the article itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Problems with "War" and "Government and politics"

These sections require a lot of work. As these stand now they look more like article stubs about these subject and without relation to "Human". My proposal is to make "War" a subsection of "Government and politics" (as most wars, if not all are related to these) and to re-write these to add value to this article rather than parrot the article about these subjects. The additional benefit of this restructuring is that we will not end the article with "War" but with "Trade and economics". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Strongly support. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not ending with war is a disadvantage, not an advantage, now that I've explained to David D. why ending on it is valid, even if it could be seen as "depressing". I'm also slightly confused as to how "war" is any more "governmental" or "political" than "trade and economics" itself—aren't both topics distinctly related to politics (which is why both originally followed that section), without either being clearly a subdivision of it, per se? But I don't care enough to fight about it. I would, however, point out that almost all the sections in "Culture/Society" merely serve as stubs for the articles themselves, and do a remarkably poor job of explaining the actual topics of those subsections or how they directly relate to humanity—the "Language" and "Art, music, and literature" sections are horrendous, for example, and consist almost entirely of disjointed sentences taken from the first few lines of each daughter article. Definitely a world of work to be done on this article. -Silence 17:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the sections in Culture/Society. Wouldn't it make more sense to merge them into fewer, more general categories with an increased emphasis on their relationship to Humans? Right now, as Sam said, they are basically just synopsis-stubs for the articles. Avedomni 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Let's roll our sleeves and start copyediting rather that worrying to much for that intro. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Avedomni's suggestion that we merge them into fewer, more general categories. All of the categories are currently incredibly general, they just lack much-needed information, perspective, and context. "Art, music, and literature", for example, is already just about as general as you can get—the reason it's so terrible is because noone's bothered to write much of anything new for the section, they've just copy-pasted filler into it from other articles. The solution is to rewrite, not to tear down the currently-existing categories (though a little reorganization could certainly help). -Silence 18:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point. As they exist now, the sections have nothing to do with how the topic relates to humans; that is, the secion on "Art, music, and literature" for example describes those things, but not as they pertain to Humans, which is what the section on them in the Human article should do. When I say generalize them, I mean to move away from explaining what they are in terms of the specific categories and move toward how they relate to the concept of Human. For instance, the Language and AML sections could be merged into a section which would referrence how Humans express themselves through the use of those things, and how they are incorporated into the social/cultural structure (which would also justify including it as a subsection of Society and Culture). Avedomni 19:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

But I feel we can do all that without merging the sections themselves: that's exactly why the arts section immediately follows the language section, in fact, so that the "literature" part can shed further light on the uses of language. (However, lately I've been thinking more and more that we should expand "art, music and literature" to just "the arts", because dance and other theatrical arts are currently excluded from the page, depending on how one defines "art". There's also a valid argument that could be made for merging "Language and literature" and leaving the other arts a distinct section, but I'm not sure that's necessary.)-Silence 19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur strongly with Silence that merging is to be avoided, improving is badly needed. Disagree on suggested (possible) merge of language and literature - the Arts would be an excellent section; merging Language into any Arts or sub-set of arts would necessarily either result in losing much of the communication aspect of language, or having a disjointed, non-arts related statement or series of statments, in the Arts (or Literature) section; either would be no gain that I can see to literature. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Points taken, and I concur. Avedomni 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Silence, you posted: "Not ending with war is a disadvantage, not an advantage, now that I've explained to Chihuahua why ending on it is valid..."

Indeed? Perhaps I missed that in the multitudinous edits to this talk page. Please point me to where you explained this to me? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My error. I confused this section with the "war" section above because they're on such similar topics. -Silence 19:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And confused me with David, apparently. I didn't think we looked that much alike. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do we not discuss the human cost of war? What of the hundreds of millions killed, maimed or injured (physically and psychologically)?

Secondly, most of the military jargon can really go, as it serves no purpose other than to show that whoever wrote the section is really into military stuff. Jim62sch 20:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Should "spirit/spirituality/religion" be a subsection of "culture/society" or not?

To settle this matter once and for all:

Category:Religion and Category:Spirituality are both subcategories of Category:Society, Category:Culture, and Category:Belief (meaning they fit comfortably and uncontroversially into each category)

Ergo Wikipedia's current position is that religion and spirituality is a subcategory of culture/society—whether it's true or not is immaterial, it's still an important aspect, and there's no better way to classify or organize it. To detach it from "culture/society" in human is deeply POVed, because it implies that the article's editors believe that religion is too "special" or profound to possibly be related to things as mundane and earthly as language, science, philosophy, art, literature, music, and emotion, which are all still subcategories of "culture/society". Making "spirit" the exception to the rule and giving it its own top-level section is not only a huge mistake organizationally (and has given Sam Spade license to bloat the section once again with far too much trivial detail, even though we should currently all be working together to trim down sections like that, not overwhelm them with lengthy lists!), but also inconsistent with the current state of all religion articles on Wikipedia, deeply POVed, and just plain pointless. It's just as ridiculous and inconsistent to argue that religion isn't an aspect of culture/society (even if it's more than that as well, it's still an aspect!! putting something in a category or section or attributing a label to it doesn't mean it's only that!) while all the religion and spirituality articles currently claim it is (by being categorized under both society and culture) as it is to argue that humans aren't primates, apes or animals, when the primate, ape and animal articles all clearly and uncontroversially state that humans are all of the above. Why must this article always be the one place you seek to use to further your POV, while ignoring all the rest of Wikipedia? Come on, now. Do we need to take a vote as to whether "spirituality/religion" can be categorized under "society/culture" or not? Perhaps you should propose a Wikipedia-wise RfC to discuss and vote on the matter, since clearly you're trying to upset the very fundamental structure of Wikipedia's treatment of religion and spirituality, by advocating and trying to force on others your view that it is biased to categorize religion/spirituality under society/culture. Yeesh. -Silence 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, "spirituality and religion" is a much better title than "spirit" which is vague and POVy. JoshuaZ 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is also very true. "Spirit" is also inaccurate, since the section discusses spirituality, not spirit. -Silence 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, these unilateral decisions do not bode well for the spirit of collaboration (pun intended). The previous structure was agreed and supported by all of us. At least ask before making such massive changes. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Where was anything agreed to by "all of us"? There has been long standing consensus for the quadratic FA format, dividing the article into biology, culture, mind and spirit. Sam Spade 17:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never claimed that there is a clear consensus from Talk:Human at this point for or against one organization system or another for Human; my argument, as can be seen above, is based on consistency with currently-established consensus and conventions on Wikipedia in general, which are much less flexible (and subject to individual whims or opinions) than those of a single article.

Since you opted not to turn "Mind" into a separate top-level section again when you turned "Spirit" into one, clearly (unless I'm mistaken; feel free to correct me) your main concern is that you feel that (1) "spirit" (spirituality and religion) is just as important (and needing a huge level of detail) in a general-use, top-level (and thus covering a huge swathe of topics) article on humans as the entirety of human biology, society, and culture, which seems like a rather self-centered view (why such a huge section for "spirit" and not for "emotion" or "science" or "the arts"?); and that (2) "spirit" should not be categorized under "Society/Culture", presumably because it's neither an area of society nor of culture. This confuses me, because if anything, "religion/spirituality" is one of the only subsections of "society/culture" that clearly belongs there: Category:Spirituality and Category:Religion are both subcategorized under both the Society and Culture categories, reflecting a clear and uncontroversial organization, whereas some of the other subcategories of "Culture/Society" don't neatly fit under the division, but are kept there anyway out of convenience: Category:Science shows that science isn't usually considered "cultural" or "social" (though it's acceptable here because it's being discussed primarily in reference to human society), Category:Emotion labels "emotion" a subset of the field of psychology, not "society/culture" (so I could see much stronger arguments for moving "Motivation and emotion" from "society/culture" to "biology" and/or "brain/mind" than for moving "religion and spirituality" to its own, unique section).

My point is, I didn't create this thread to try to bully the "spirit" section out of the article with false claims of pre-existing consensus. There is no consensus, currently (at least on this article), as to whether "spirituality/religion" can/should be subcategorized under "culture/society". That's what I want us to establish in this thread. So, everyone with any interest in the matter, please state your view on whether "religion/spirituality" can be placed under "culture/society" (and, if possible, your reasoning behind that). Hopefully we can resolve this right now, one way or the other, and use that decision as a springboard to address the rest of the organizational issues of this page (like whether "race/ethnicity" belongs under "biology" or "society/culture"—I'd say certainly the latter). -Silence 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say spirituality/religion is most certainly a subsection of Society/Culture, given that a person's level of spirituality and what religion they follow are almost exclusively a product of the society/culture to which they are exposed (either by themselves or others); and the religion and spirituality of a group is often a defining feature of their culture or society. It would be fairly difficult for a person who has never been exposed to Catholicism to be a Catholic. Avedomni 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Jim62sch 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

According to an skeptic. Read mysticism, revelation, and Perennial Philosophy.

Once and for all, there is nothing neutral about a skeptical POV. Sam Spade 21:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing neutral about pandering to a spiritual POV, either.--71.112.234.168 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Both the "skeptical" and the "spiritual" POVs about humans need to be present for WP:NPOV, as these two are widely held POVs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, yet Silence is correct. The mind should also be a separate section if the spirit is to be one. It is from the mind (sorry Sam, but this is reality) that all religion and spirituality flows. The genesis of spirituality is rather complex, and need not be gone into here, but to claim that humans are inherently spiritual (as a couple of editors are wont to do) is obviated by the fact that even one human is an atheist. Jim62sch 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hardly, the article claims humans are bipeds, but I've seen a guy w no legs. The fact that a person who doesn't love God is an "atheist" is proof that man is naturally spiritual. The exceptional quality of having no love for God is like unto the quality of having no legs, in requiring a label to describe its peculiarity. Sam Spade 11:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheists are clearly mutants (ok i admit i made this up) such that spirituality is now functioning as morality. The mutant allele is now starting to spread throughout the worlds population, so I suspect there could be some advantage that natural selection is working on. David D. (Talk) 01:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The less scientific viewpoint might be that mankind is beginning to grow up. Jim62sch 01:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of anything less scientific than atheism. Sam Spade 11:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be Argument from ignorance and thus invalid. I would however like to hear your explanation of that statement. Tenebrous 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

? David D. (Talk) 13:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify the question mark. Reading above, at no point was atheism equated to science. I don't understand the context of Sam's statement. David D. (Talk) 18:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Classified as

What is the problem with using "classified as" in the first sentence. Is that incorrect, not-factual, not verifiable, etc? What exactly? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It suggests that the rest of the first sentence isn't "classification", just the Homo sapiens part. For example, "primate" is just as much a part of the taxonomial classification of humans as anything: just look a few inches to the right and look at the "Order: Primates" part of the human taxobox. More than anything, inserting "classified" adds unnecessary noise and verbosity that has no chance of adding information and does have a chance of adding misinformation (or at least confusion), and certainly, above all else, adds completely unnecessary inconsistency, in that most other species don't require such subtle disclaimers. What good does it do, that is not outweighed by the bad? What information does it add, that isn't redundant to the already-clear use of words like "species"? Articles on Wikipedia do not start with "X is classified as Y", they start with "X is Y", because the job of the beginning of an article is to define its subject, not to "characterize" or "classify" it—though in some cases, especially for species of organisms, the scientific classification is a part of the dictionary definition of that species' common name. That is the case here. -Silence 01:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You speak of verbosity, Silence :) . Adding ~~ONE~~ 'TWO words, that is are factually accurate, verifiable and NPOV is not verbose. Verbosity: an expressive style that uses excessive or empty words. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to "classified as" - it is two extra words, it is not absurdly silly like the "biological" specification (one wonders, as opposed to what other classification schema?) and it is not inaccurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's much less silly than the "biological specification", and I object to it much less strongly than the "biological specification". But being less absurdly silly doesn't mean that it's not absurdly silly—surely our qualification for inclusion isn't so loose that something gets added to the first sentence of the article as long as it isn't the worst proposal (just a bad one with no real benefits). -Silence 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, there are many ways to classify beings. — goethean ॐ 03:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This argument of yours has already been thoroughly refuted. If you disagree (or have new nuances to add to your past argument on this subject, which were deeply unconvincing), it's past time for you to respond to the last comments at Talk:Human#User:KnowledgeSeeker's claim that only biological classifications exist, rather than continuing to advocate a fantasy. If frog doesn't need the qualifier "classified as", neither does human, and that doesn't imply anything about humans or whether they're "only Homo sapiens"—it implies nothing, it merely states the dictionary definition of the word human (and if you disagree with that, you should respond to my list of dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles at Talk:Human#Archives). -Silence 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no specific objection to the phrase; I don't really thing it's misleading or biased or anything like that. It just seems a little silly/redundant. "Star Trek: The Next Generation is classified as a science fiction television series..."? My cursory search didn't show any other articles using "are classified as" instead of "are". But if enough people feel it adds something to the article, that's fine with me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Silence, you may see no benefit on the use of "classified as", but I see many. One of them is that it will enable us to put our energies to copyedit the article rather than filling pages upon pages about the absurdity of using "classified as" or the crime of omitting it. Let's go people, we have work to do! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I like it

I like the version that seems to have been up for a couple of days now. I really like it. And here is why:

It stops just barely short (thanks to that "classified" discussed above) of asserting "Humans are great apes" and will thus be more NPOV dispute resistant.
It has a short separate paragraph at the end of the intro explaining that religious perspectives define humanity in terms of soul.
It mentions that humans are the ones that build fires, wear clothes and write.

I have a few small reservations with it, like the fact it doesn't say humans are the "only" beings known to wear clothes, etc. But I could live with this version without dispute. Tom Haws 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too, Tom. I added the very interesting distinction you suggested (it was there before, but was lost in the shuffle): Humans are the only beings known to.... I really hope this version can stay, so that we can move on and pay some attention to the sections that need work, as discussed above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with these "humans are the only being who" claims is they nearly always have exceptions. Tool usage for example, or cloths ;) Sam Spade 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for link Sam. Very amusing. Who on earth would do that to their cat!? With respect to tools there are birds that use sticks to pry out grubs. I have always been amazed by the birds that weave their houses. (excuse the off topic respite) David D. (Talk) 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We need to say only. So we need to limit the list to Fire, Clothes, and Reading and Writing. Tools are not an only. Tom Haws 15:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Material that is not related

This material was in the section Philosophy and self-reflection. It does not belong there, and could not find anothre home for it. So I am placing it here with the hope that editors can refactor it back somehwre else. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

From a scientific viewpoint, H. sapiens certainly is among the most generalised species on Earth, and few single species occupy as many diverse environments as humans. Various attempts have been made to identify a single behavioral characteristic that distinguishes humans from all other animals, e.g. the ability to make and use tools, the ability to alter the environment, language use, and the development of complex social structures. Some anthropologists think that these readily observable characteristics (tool-making and language) are based on less easily observable mental processes that might be unique among humans: the ability to think symbolically, in the abstract or logically. Others, that human capacity for symbolic thought is a development from the capacity to manipulate tools or the development of speech. It is difficult however to arrive at a set of attributes that includes all humans, and humans only. The wish to find unique human characteristics could be more a matter of anthropocentrism than of zoology in the end.

The Intro Might As Well Be the Article – it is too long, and covers too many topics

In reviewing 10 completed versions of the “Human” article in 10 languages, I noted the following regarding word count, and mention of religion and spirituality

English 269 – 49 words devoted to religion and spirituality
Bulgarian 85 -- nothing on religion and spirituality
Danish 72 – nothing on religion and spirituality
German 141 – See below
Spanish 268 – BUT: not a word about spirituality or religion
French 46 – nothing on religion and spirituality
Galician 197 – BUT: not a word about spirituality or religion
Italian 34 – nothing on religion and spirituality
Dutch 99 – nothing on religion and spirituality
Swedish 240 – mentions the word “religion” twice, and that’s it, the word is listed along with Art, Politics, Medicine, Genetics without any elaboration

Of the three featured articles, the only one I can read is the German article [12], which I have translated for your elucidation:

Modern humans (Homo sapiens) are mammals in the order of Primates. They belong to the suborder Haplorhini, and to the family of the anthropoids (Hominidae). In former times humans (Hominidae) and other anthropoids (Pongidae) were regarded as two separate families, due to the special mental development of humans. However, recent investigations see a closer resemblance, between both groups and therefore place them into a common family.

Modern humans are the only survivors of the genus Homo. Sometimes, modern humans also have added sapiens sapiens to the scientific designation Homo, which was used to express that the Neandert(h)aler (then Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) belonged to the same kind as modern humans. This opinion is considered today however as very doubtful, thus the modern designation is simply Homo sapiens. This comes from the Latin homo "humans" and sapiens "wise".

Bottom line is this: the intro is too long, and is out of step with 10 other fully completed articles. In fact, even the incomplete articles and stubs do not mention religion or spiritually in what is likely to become their intros. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line is that this is the English Wikipedia with a very active editing process. Spirituality, beliefs, etc. are part and parcel of humanity since time immemorial and until today, even if you don't like to think about it in these terms. As for the lenght, read WP:LEAD. We have discussed this to death already, let's put that one to sleep and let's fix the article instead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We definitely need to consider the context. Since humanity is redirected to human in the English version i think we are on the right track. It is possile that the other wikipedias have separate articles for humanity. Personally, i prefer what we are trying to do here, despite the fact it is sometimes tempting to POV fork. Certainly the intro is longish, i prefer things below an arbitrary 250 words, but it is not outrageous. David D. (Talk) 18:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny how the English article is the only one that overreaches. •Jim62sch• 01:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sapiens Sapiens?

What is the difference between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens? Thank you. --Abdull 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Also what is known about the next step in human evolution, if anything? I agree these questions, as well as a more thorough discussion of our recent anscestors is needed. Sam Spade 21:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, let me apologize in advance if this is rude or violates WP:CIVIL , but this question has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore evolution does not occur in "steps." It might help for you to read Evolution. How do you think that you can discuss whether or not the article is correctly defining anything if you don't have a background in basic biology? JoshuaZ 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

(clashed in edit with Sam) It all depends on where you draw the line between species and sub species. This is very subjective. For example, are Neanderthals Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or Homo neanderthalensis? What about Homo sapiens idaltu? Sorry for the vague answer I'm not clear these distinctions have been firmly established, or ever can be established. David D. (Talk) 21:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Homo sapiens is the human species. Homo sapiens sapiens is the subspecies to which all modern humans belong; see trinomen. Homo sapiens idaltu is the only other known subspecies of humans, and is extinct. It is a common convention to repeat the species name for certain subspecies, rather than having to think up a new name for every single subspecies. Unfortunately, sometimes this can go a bit overboard, as in the trinomial name of the Western Lowland Gorilla: Gorilla gorilla gorilla. :) -Silence 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard that recent (2003) works on cladistics revealed there is no such thing as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. Instead, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are used, Neandertal being a different species, not a different race. Cro-Magnon and modern man, in turn, are the same species (hence homo sapiens = homo sapiens sapiens

OLD
- homo sapiens (Cro-Magnon) → homo sapiens sapiens (Modern man)
- homo sapiens neandertalensis
NEW
- homo sapiens = homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon and Modern man)
- homo neandertalensis
  David Latapie (✒ | @) 10:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is old news. The article, and all of Wikipedia, already reflects the fact that Homo neanderthalensis is a distinct species, not a subspecies. That doesn't change the designation of Homo sapiens sapiens, however; you seem to be unaware of the fact that there is another (extinct) subspecies of Homo sapiens. That subspecies is not the neanderthal, but rather Homo sapiens idaltu, as the human article currently correctly points out. -Silence 10:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Needed in the article, not on the talk page! ;) This is not the first time this complaint has come up, and it is a valid one. Sam Spade 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, it is in the article! Did you miss this paragraph?

The study of human evolution encompasses the development of the genus Homo, but usually involves studying other hominids and hominines as well, such as the australopithecines. Humans are defined as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens; Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elder wise man"), the other known subspecies, is extinct.^[6]

This seems to be quite clear. David D. (Talk) 17:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Its a tiny speck. What I was asking for is a lengthier discussion of idaltu, as well as a discussion of mankinds future evolution. Clearly were not going to be Homo sapiens sapiens forever, are we? Sam Spade 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with jim)I'm not sure that kind of detailed analysis is appropriate for the scope of this article. What can possibly be said about future evolution that is not speculation? I feel that this would be off topic for this article, but what did you have in mind? David D. (Talk) 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes we are going to be Homo sapiens sapiens forever. If a new Homo species evolves it definitely won't be us, and if a new subspecies evolves, it will be different enough to not really be us in the current sense of the word. What would you like to know about idaltu? •Jim62sch• 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Absurd POV

First of all, my apologies if I'm stating the obvious (for some). I have little to no experience with this article. I feel, though, that there are things seriously wrong with it that are immediately apparent.

To be specific: I feel that the article places massive and undue emphasis on the "spiritual" aspect. The waffling about soul, atma, etc simply does not belong in the intro. In fact, I don't think religion/spirituality belongs in the intro at all.

Similarly, the section on "spirit" is stupidly long. All that stuff belongs in the "religion" or "spirit" article, not in "human".

I've read this talk page, and I see that I'm not saying anything new here. I just thought the views of someone taking a "fresh look" at the article might be welcome.

As it is, the article really really feels like religious propaganda, just barely toeing the line of NPOV. --Ashenai 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Query, at this point do we have a consensus to take out, or at least massively pair down the Spirit section? JoshuaZ 21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely support a reduction in the size of that section; it's long enough to be a short article in itself. Tenebrous 23:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the more people that come in and make this initial response (Jim, Silence and now Ashenai) it should be clear that there is a lot of compromise occurring here with respect to religion. I think the compromise intro is starting to look OK, but Sam, realise it is a large compromise for some, as it is for you. It sometimes appears from your perspective that the religious side is the only one trying to compromise. I think this is not true. David D. (Talk) 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I don't see a need for compromise. The number of editors who disagree with Sam is massive. JoshuaZ 22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Let's significantly pare down / split off the spirit section. Argyrios 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, if we could just pare down the whole article and stop overreaching, it might make it to FA again. •Jim62sch• 02:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Over-reaching has only increased (on the part of those opposed to spirituality verbiage) since the article was modified from the consensus version a few months ago. — goethean ॐ 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored the the previous version as a subsection of Socitey and culture. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

well, I don't see any prima facie difference between the Human biology article and the [human] spirituality article in relation to this page. So, no, it is not absurdly long, any argument that stuff can be taken from the spirituality section to the main article holds just as much for the "biology" and "society" sections. This article has long had a tripartite division body/mind/soul (biology/society/spirituality), and the spirituality section is shortest as it is. So I would emphatically support making the "religion" section h2; of course it is related to society and culture, but then society and culture is also related to biology etc.. It is another question whether the Spirituality section is "waffling", but that doesn't seem to be the case; indeed, it appears to succinctly link the core topics, taking only about a third of either the "biology" or the "society" section. dab (ᛏ) 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Great work, guys, the article is looking much better. For those of you worried about compromise, please consider that sexuality is at least as fundamental a part of humans as spirituality, and still only merits a small subsection.

Anyway, we're definitely in the right ballpark now. Please let's not screw it up. :) --Ashenai 20:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Page bug

Is there some kind of bug w this talk page or what? Will somebody archive it already? Sam Spade 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the desynch bug, it's not specific to this page, and archiving wouldn't help. Wikipedia's servers seem unable to agree on the time, which means you'll get different versions of a page depending on which server decides to deal with your request. At least, I assume this is what's happening. --Ashenai 22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Either way this page is at about 300k, and needs archiving bad. I'm not sure my laptop is up for it. Sam Spade 22:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Allrighty, I've done a partial archiving. All discussions that were at least a week old (no responses since March 21) have been archived at Talk:Human/Archive_21.

Please note that I don't want this archival to be any source of controversy; the talk page was getting long, that's all. Anyone who disagrees with my archival is specifically encouraged to reverse it in part or in whole. They'll get no arguments from me. :) --Ashenai 23:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. One week is usually my limit for archiving, too. •Jim62sch• 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The intro seems ok

I can accept what is there for now. Now lets follow its example, and make sure the article is at least as balanced. Spirituality is not a cultural phenomena, and suggesting so is unacceptably biased. As there are 4 sections for the intro (biology, culture, mind and spirit), let there be 4 sections for the body of the article as well. Sam Spade 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it not a cultural phenomena? Are you implying that every person on the planet is inherently spiritual, or that belief in some form of spirituality is in some way intrinsic to humans or humanity? Avedomni 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That is how i think he is interpreting it, but it seems like original research to me. David D. (Talk) 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

People who believe in spirituality generally see all humans or all beings as more or less spiritual. Those who do not tend to see belief in spirituality as a function of culture. — goethean ॐ 18:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't the mere fact that some people believe in spirituality while some don't imply that it is a function of culture, or at the very least of the mind? No one disputes that humans have a biology, culture, or mind (though the exact source of these things is often debated); however many people simply do not believe in spirits, souls, or any other similar entity or force. Granted, we aren't here to determine the truth value of spiritual belief, but to indicate that it is not a cultural phenomenon, or at the very least heavily influenced by culture and society, seems inappropriate for an encylcopedia. Avedomni 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict - no point pasting now, concur 100% with Avedomni. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this the version below the one you are talking about?

Humans, or human beings, are classified as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "Wise man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).^[7] Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Like all primates, humans are an inherently social animal.

Culturally, humans create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas, human social interaction has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans are the only beings known to build fires, cook their food and clothe themselves.

Psychologically the human mind has several distinct attributes and it is responsible for complex behavior. Humans curiosity and desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of elaborate sciences, technologies, philosophies, and mythologies. This curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Religious perspectives often emphasize the existence of a soul, shen, or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. Most human beings participate in organized religion, although a growing number are independently spiritual, secular or atheist.

If so where did this come from, has it been discussed on the talk page, if so I missed it. i had thought we were leaning towards the version 5 that had been written by Jossi? David D. (Talk) 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not discussed, and actually we were leaning toward version 2 over version 1 and version 4 (9 votes, to 2, to 1). Version 5 has too many problems, not least of which was the unnecessary inclusion of the word "classified". •Jim62sch• 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Either way, just declaring "I can accept what is there for now" which is, as far as i can tell, a new and undiscussed version is not playing in the spirit (excuse the pun) of the wikipedia rules. Brow beating is not the way to go. Discussion of the pro and cons of the current intro candidates, or introducing new ideas on the talk page, is the only acceptable way to reach a compromise. Anything else is, at best inviting a revert war and at worst subversive. David D. (Talk) 20:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirituality is a cultural phenomenon. Geez. A simple proof would be to point out to you communities or cultures that aren't spiritual. I can think of many. --Cyde Weys 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely true. Spirituality is not inherent in homo sapiens. •Jim62sch• 18:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

False. Every human is an ape (according to biologists) and every human is a spirit (according to major world religions). No exceptions. How could you make this conceptual error? Tom Haws 20:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. To begin with, not every human has a spirit according to all religions, and secondly, there are those who do not belong to any religion. How could you make this incredible error? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess that you are joking, but I will respond anyway. Tom's point seems to be that there are multiple points of view, which are correct or valid to a greater or lesser extent, but which are all legitimate points of view. — goethean ॐ 20:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the distinction is not "legitimate POV", rather "widely held POV" or "significant POV":

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

This is an article about Human and Humanity and to assert that a non-biologial or non-scientific POV such as spirituality is not a widely held and significant POV, is absurd. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks jossi. I concede that the non-religious view is a significant minority point of view. — goethean ॐ 21:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you both missed the point. Additionally, why are you trying to concatenate the two subjects? They are not truly mutually inclusive. Prior to college, one learns about Humans in science class (biology) and about Humanity in either sociology or history class. In college, Humanity is broken out into countless classes. An article entitled Human, should be from the perspective of commonality. Outside biology and basic social instincts there is nothing elose all humans have in common. •Jim62sch• 00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

if you bother to glance at the archives, you will note that this very discussion was had a year ago, and an incredibly detailed compromise was beaten out with sweat and tears. Of course, it was then torn down and the discussion started over. Yes, the point is that these points of view are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Therefore, it is not a "controversy" as such, but rather a question which aspects you are more interested in. You can ponder matter from a mental pov, or the mind from a material pov, that's both fine and interesting, you just cannot reduce both views to a single blend or compromise (that's unnecessary too, they do fine each on their own). dab (ᛏ) 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree w the spirit of the above (by Dbachmann), tho certainly not he letter. We need a unified field theory ;) In the end I agree w Einstein:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein

Sam Spade 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing that it is a "controversy", only that an article about Humans and Humanity ought to include all significant viewpoints, particularly if these are widely held. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

See above. •Jim62sch• 00:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, rather than create a POV fork, what has actually happened is the creation of a POV non-fork. Just as Religion, Spritulity and Theology have separate articles, so should Human and Humanity. It really isn't that difficult to see the logic. •Jim62sch• 00:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam you keep adding this version of the introduction (the one i pasted above) and referring to it as the compromise version. What exactly do you mean by that? No one has discussed this version as far as i am aware. David D. (Talk) 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Gee, and here I thought frogs had a spirit. Guess not.

"Frog is the common name for amphibians in the order Anura. Adult frogs are characterised by long hind legs, a short body, webbed digits, protruding eyes and the absence of a tail. Most frogs move by jumping or climbing. Most frogs have a semi-aquatic lifestyle. They typically lay their eggs in puddles, ponds or lakes, and their larvae, called tadpoles, have gills and develop in water. Adult frogs follow a carnivorous diet, mostly of arthropods, annelids and gastropods. Frogs are most noticeable through their call, which can be widely heard during the mating season. The distribution of frogs ranges from tropic to subarctic regions, with most of the species found in tropical rainforests. With over 5,000 species described, they are among the most diverse groups of vertebrates. However, their declining numbers are increasingly giving cause for concern. A distinction is often made between frogs and toads on the basis of their appearance, prompted by the convergent adaptation of so-called toads to dry environments; however, this distinction has no taxonomic basis."

•Jim62sch• 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they do. But Wikipedians have not had the time to search, evaluate, prioritize, debate, and reference the required sources to add that to the article. And I don't know any that are about ready to try. After all, we have to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Let's work on documenting what we've said at Human before opening any cans of worms elsewhere. Tom Haws 20:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. See [13]. [14], etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. •Jim62sch• 00:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, what>?--205.188.116.138 01:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Ashenai: nine editors supporting one version and five editors opposed to it is not consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. — goethean ॐ 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In the "three potential intro options" section, I see two editors for version 1, nine editors for version 2, and one editor for version four. Where do you get your numbers from?

But, very well, I can concede that there's no consensus, or only a rough consensus at best. So, what do you propose then? I don't think your technique of "Restore NPOV version" is going to help build consensus. --Ashenai 23:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Haws has not voted and jossie did not support version two so that would make the five against. David D. (Talk) 23:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your technique of "Restore NPOV version" is going to help build consensus.

That was User:Hawstom, not me. jossi, Hawstom, Sam Spade, myself and schwael oppose Silence's version. Jossi hasn't voted because (I assume) he – correctly – finds it counter-productive, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are a few options: revert to the pre-Silence compromise (as User:Dbachmann seems to suggest, above), create a new compromise, or continue to edit war. So far, the tactic of the secular folk has been essentially to offer no quarter and to insist that the spirituality text is nonsense and must be deleted. This is, essentially, choosing to force their position onto the article through edit war. — goethean ॐ 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I for one do not want the spirituality text deleted; I simply find v2 to be the most acceptable overall of those option presented above. I believe that including spirituality in the human article is most certainly necessary; I just feel that it doesn't need to have its own section, or be given more weight in the introduction than, for instance, scientific endeavors. Both are important aspects of human society and culture, and both should be included in that section. To seperate spirituality into its own section would, in our POV, necessitate giving all of the current subsections of Culture their own sections.

As it pertains to the edit-warring, I would prefer that the introduction be left alone by all sides until an acceptable concensus can be formed. None of the current options are overly POV, and the NPOV template ensures that readers know that whichever version is currently in place is not necessarily ideal. Avedomni

I am a little confused as to the "no quarter" comment. "No quarter" would be excising all mention of spirituality from the article. I could probably mount a coherent argument for that, were I so inclined. But I'm happy with including information about spirituality in the article, as long as it doesn't become a primary focus. It currently has a respectable-sized section devoted to it. Larger than the sexuality section, in fact; I'd love to hear an argument for how spirituality is more important to humans than sexuality.

I honestly believe that the current version is a fair compromise, and certainly not the result of us non-religious folk giving "no quarter" to the spiritual POV. --Ashenai 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

hello? so there are 14 editors involved here at the moment? Has any of you considered that the article you found has been discussed before? voted upon by dozens of editors even? So if you're going to talk of consensus, kindly check the polls in the archives. Of course you are free to refactor the article. However, I am not prepared to give up the long-standing tripartite division, viz. biology, individual and society; or, zoon, zoon logos echon, and zoon politikon, or yet again, humans as seen by zoologists, humans as 'monads' (emotion, spirituality), and humans as seen by each other (society). I think the content of the article is quite fair, but it seems arbitrary to lump spirituality and emotion under "society and culture"; of course it has consequences for society and culture, but by that argument, we could list the entire "society and culture" as a subsection of "biology" in the first place. See in particular Talk:Human/Archive_14 for past discussions of what belongs in the intro, and Talk:Human/Archive3 for extended discussion of taxobox placement (which is fine with me as it is, but it will be interesting for Ashenai to see how difficult it was to etablish consensus that this article should even primarily be about biology, never mind deleting the spirituality aspect altogether). See also Talk:Human/Archive5#Spirituality_and_religion. It's all very well to be bold, but with articles that have histories of intense discussion going back two years, you want to look at its history before you make quick assumptions about 'consensus'. Incidentially, I object to the assumptions that this is a conflict between religious and non-religious editors. It is a simple matter of religion & spirituality being an encyclopedic topic, and if I insist on giving it due prominence here, this is because of its notability in human history and not because of any personal beliefs I may or may not hold. dab (ᛏ) 09:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that is the caliber of editor we can use more of here: the kind whose POV takes a backseat to whats best for the article. Sam Spade 09:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet, you still edit Sam. In any case, no one said spirituality or religion were not encyclopedic topics -- they have their own articles, in fact -- but rather that the overemphasis of those two facets of cultural development do not merit becoming the keynote definition of the article. It is a simple fact that neither spirituality nor religion are common to all humans. This is really not a difficult NPOV concept to grasp. •Jim62sch• 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've followed and read all of the links that you provided (thank you), and I am, if possible, even more confused. I can't really say that I found any definitively stronger consensus anywhere than the one we have (or don't have) now. I also couldn't find the "dozens of editors" coming to a consensus about things. Finally, some of those archives are over a year and a half old. I daresay what was good then is no longer that great. The quality of articles of Wikipedia is getting better all the time. :) --Ashenai 10:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I felt the same upon perusing the archives. Perhaps this notes one of the intellectual frailties of most humans -- the tendency to remember that which suits a particular purpose and to conveniently forget that which one finds inconvenient. •Jim62sch• 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not this one, as evidenced by our replacement of FA status w a dispute header. Sam Spade 13:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps that is due to standards getting higher. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Or lower, in regard to NPOV. — goethean ॐ 17:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. •Jim62sch• 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias' takes on Human

I checked out what other encyclopedias have to say about Human, and found the following:

Encyclopedia Britannica: a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Some of these characteristics, ... (rest of article subscription-only)

MSN Encarta: full article here. Reference to spirituality: two words; religion is mentioned under "cultural attributes" once, and under "other definitions" once.

Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia.com have no Human article, only links to anthropology, human evolution, and race, none of which deal with spirituality, obviously.

Every encyclopedia I found that was not specifically and admittedly POV (The Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance) has far less information (both absolutely and relatively speaking) about spirituality under Human than we do. I don't believe this is a coincidence, but if anyone can find a general encyclopedia with a Human article that has more to say about spirituality, please show us! --Ashenai 11:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And who exactly cares about what these encyclopedias write about human? I don't. Why?

This article is about Human], and humanity
This project has distinct content policies, such as WP:NPOV that these other traditional pedias don't.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Utter BS. We are no better than a traditional encyclopedia -- and don't quote Wales to me. The only things all humans have in common are the biological. As I noted previously, of the ten completed Human articles in other languages I read, only one even mentioned religion in the intro, and that was only a mere mention of the word in concert with music, politics, culture, etc. Are not those Wiki's under the same guidelines as the English Wiki? None of this is rocket science, relativity or string theory, this is relatively easy to comprehend if one removes one's intellect from one's beliefs.

Additionally, as I stated before, Humanity should be a separate article if one is to do true NPOV. •Jim62sch• 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

...if anyone can find a general encyclopedia with a Human article that has more to say about spirituality, please show us!

This is irrelevant, as these encyclopedias all have different policies from wikipedia. Although I do note that our "bipedal primate" is actually more reductive than Britannica's "culture-bearing primate". This issue has been discussed extensively in the archives. — goethean ॐ 15:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but it is relevant. As for looking in the archives, been there, done that. Seems that the memory is sweeter than the reality. •Jim62sch• 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirituality not needed in intro, says Hawstom

Article says:

It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and God, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.

There is no need to discuss spirituality in the intro. I don't know particularly that it even needs to be in the article. Some humans are spiritually inclined. Others are not. We are saying what doesn't need to be said. And we are failing to say what needs to be said: that humans are widely defined and described in terms of spirit, soul, or what have you. Or to be more NPOV/NOR compliant, "According to the three largest religions, that together have adherents totalling 70% of the world, humans are beings of soul." Tom Haws 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fully NPOV/NOR compliant, that sentence also needs a footnote to the following:

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church a human is a being of body and soul in the image of God. According to Islam, every human "is composed of three parts—spirit, carnal soul, and body" [15] and humans are the "vice-regents of God" [16]. According to Hindu Advaita thought, "no such thing as a human exists. The human phenomenon (supposed to consist of the mind, vital energy, and physical body) is an illusion. Only God exists." And according to Hindu Dvaita thought, "humans, like all creatures, are souls of God (or divinity) enclosed within a complex of bodies ranging from very gross (the physical body) to very subtle (the ego). Humans, however, are unique among living things in that they have the potential to realize their divinity."

--Tom Haws 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought on spiritual discussion- Human beings believe in things- they are animals who symbolise and create: in this way they are inately spiritual and imaginative . Is it necessary to go into details here about religion? The article doen't go into the same detail in Art Music and Literature , for example.
I have just read it right through carefully and thought you might like to have a general impression from someone not involved as a contributor on this subject (or you might not but here it is):

War: should war be treated as an isolated subject? Human aggression and Human cooperation are part of human behaviour.If modern warfare is mentioned the most significant aspect is the threat to humans as a species from ourselves. There are human attempts to stop war eg Hague, Geneva and United Nations Agreements and a growing International Peace Movement which could be mentioned, to give a balanced view.
To someone not american looking up the term HUMAN, there is a strong US bias, both visually (the NASA image is a give away) and in the text ,and most of the references are from American sources .

paula clare 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fresh view, PC. Tom Haws 19:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The American bias in this article has been noted before. •Jim62sch• 01:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Human image

A couple of ideas. One white family and one Asian boy with nice imagery on both. I could not find a decent looking group shot with mixed ethnic and age groups represented. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Another possability is a cartoon hand print or a color paint hand print? I suggested these a while back but there was no response. David D. (Talk) 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel both pictures proposed by KillerChihuahua are a bit too "artsy", but the family picture is, I think, still far preferable to the NASA thing we have now.

I do not like the idea of a handprint as the picture, at all. --Ashenai 20:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the family picture best, followed by the color paint hand print. What don't you like about the handprint, Ashenai? No age or ethnicity to a handprint. It is beautifully generic and instantly recognizable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But it's not a picture of a human! The article is Human, there should be a picture of a human in the taxobox. We don't have a picture of a trunk in the taxobox for Elephant. --Ashenai 20:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason that i suggested a hand print is that beyond a crowd picture there is no way for the representative picture to be viewed as NPOV. A hand print is so generic that it would be very hard for anyone to claim POV. I know this is not the best option but it is certainly one that will not cause arguments with repect to POV. I also think it could be quite a dramatic visual for those coming to the page for the first time, more so than a crowd picture. KC, I also have a preference for the coloured handprint. David D. (Talk) 20:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, sure, a handprint will not cause POV arguments. It will cause arguments about relevance. Besides, I don't think avoiding arguments is the best motive for choosing one picture over another.

If you want to avoid POV, you can have, I dunno, a silhouette of a person, so you can't tell the person's race or gender. For the record, I think that's a bad idea too. But it would still be better than a handprint, IMO, because at least it would depict the subject of the article. --Ashenai 20:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that what we have now is better than either of the two images to the right (or the handprint). — goethean ॐ 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For reference this has been discussed in recent history. Talk:Human/Archive_19#human_picture and Talk:Human/Archive_20#Image_to_represent_Human. David D. (Talk) 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current Pioneer picture as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it keeps getting discussed though, because so many people don't like the current image. It seems that while many do not care for it, there is no consensus about a better image to use, so it will probably remain, and it will probably keep being mentioned and discussed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the family picture a little heterosexist. I'm all for a picture of male and female humans, humans of different ethnicities, and humans in various stages of development, but this image encodes an exclusive definition of human relationships. Fishhead64 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

there is one question to all this, who can you not make angry these days? panasonicyouth99 2:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. At this stage I'm beginning to think that the only pic that might be acceptable would include a homsexual couple (oh, no two, lesbian and gay), a hetersexual couple of the same "race", a "mixed-race" heterosexual couple, a young boy and a young girl, senior citizens, a northern European, a Southern European, an Arab, a Sub-Saharan African, an Asian, an American Indian, an Indian indian, an Albino, a Pacific Islander, fat people, skinny people, tall people, short people, physically disabled people, someone with Down syndrome, and Michael Jackson (who is apparently non-classifiable). •Jim62sch• 10:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I could live with that :) Fishhead64 03:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent unilateral changes to structure ????

What happened? We had a discussion week ago bout the organization of this article. Suddenly, all of that is thrown away without even a mention beyond a edit summary I insistI insist on three sections, viz. zoon, zoon logos echon, and zoon politikon? What about showing some respect for editors efforts? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Interesting and yet ironical. •Jim62sch• 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is just being processed by the rest of us. And I would welcome all the other editors who contributed to the archives of this talk page to throw in their own thoughts too. David D. (Talk) 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW: unilateral would be the wrong word, as the changes are well supported. •Jim62sch• 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The taxonomy does not make sense to me, I do not see the rationale of mixing brain with mind, placing "mind" under biology, placing philosophy under individual, and art not there but in Society and Culture. What is going on? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Jossi, I misunderstood what you were saying (I had just gotten done beating back the nutters who totally destroyed the Noah's Ark article and was in a rather pissy frame of mind).

A while back, KC and I proposed an outline of the structure that seemed to reach consensus, but I'm not sure which archive it is in. In any case, that's what needs to be done. Get the structure on this page, reach consensus, and make things fit the structure. I'll have to look through the archive and also take a closer look at the article. •Jim62sch• 11:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was here: Talk:Human/Archive_20#Structure. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, hardly 'unilateral', this was throughly discussed not a week but months and months ago, and I linked to those discussions. Try to take them into account too, I know it's additional bother, but if you only maintain a memory of two weeks' worth of discussion, this talkpage is doomed to going round and round in circles. Glance through the 20 or so archives for an impression of just how redundant they are. Of course both ToC and content still need fine-tuning. Hey, our objective here should be to get back to FA status. This article was once (briefly) featured. What went wrong, how can we get it back there? The talk archives are a pretty exhaustive thesaurus of what people may think is wrong with this article, build your consensus on that, and not on the four or five random people active at a given moment; if you do that, you may beat out a 'consensus' that will predictably collapse as soon as one of the common objections is reiterated yet another time. dab (ᛏ) 11:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found it... •Jim62sch• 11:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure

Terminology
Biology
1. Anatomy and physiology
2. Genetics
3. Evolution
4. Intelligence
5. Life cycle
6. Habitat
7. Population Demographics
  1. (sub topic Race and ethnicity )
8. Food and drink
Culture
1. Language
2. Emotion and sexuality
3. Music , Art, Literature
4. ~~Artifacts~~, science, and technology
Mind
1. Philosophy
2. Psychology, human ethology and Motivation
3. Self-reflection and humanism
4. Religion and Origin Beliefs
Political and Economic structure
1. Government, politics and the state
  1. War
  2. Colonization and Slavery
2. Trade and economics
See also
References
1. Further reading

If we use this template, we can come up with a structure. The only debate is see is if the religion section should be under culture of mind, as religion/spirituality are clearly by-products of both. •Jim62sch• 11:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

what's wrong with a "society and culture" h2? why does "Political and Economic structure" need to be h2? A h3 "Colonization and Slavery" is a terrible recentism, the section title should treat all of human migration. "Emotion and sexuality" is also a weird combination, what's wrong with a section about the "individual" which can then include spiritual aspects. If sexuality is not treated for its subjective aspects, it belongs under biology. If it is, it overlaps with emotion and spirituality, viz. the subjective aspect. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} in the outline above. That's the idea. Hack at it here, discuss, move there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Note the project this is linked to

See the begining of this page and notice that this article is part of "WikiProject Primates". To me, this would indicate that a separate article on humanity would be a good idea.•Jim62sch• 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Urdu vs. Arabic

Sorry, my summary was truncated. My understanding is that the word Human in the image is in Urdu, not Arabic so it doesn't matter which is more prevelant. They use the same alphabet, but then so do English and most western European languages, and to call a word "English" when it is in French simply because the letters are all from our usual 26 is absurd. If the word is the same in both languages, that is a different matter. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know either way. I was just repeating a correction that I thought had gotten lost in the reverts. — goethean ॐ 16:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Then the two of us had better start shouting for a linguist. Is there a linguist in the house who can read both Urdu and Arabic? Hello? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on User talk:Farhansher, as he is the only one with Urdu native babel linked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I did the same at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics. — goethean ॐ 17:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The word originates from arabic root i-n-s & is used in both Urdu & Arabic . I think its also used in Persian , but I am not sure about that. Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 21:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

It appears we can state either Arabic or Urdu. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

or both. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold the phone here. Based on what Farhansher wrote, it would seem that Urdu has no word of its own for human? Urdu is an Indo-European language and I cannot think of one IE language that does not have its own word for human. This needs to be checked into a bit more deeply. •Jim62sch• 00:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

He said it was the same word in both languages. He is a native speaker of Urdu according to his Babel; not sure of his expertise with Arabic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a little research, the i-s-n triliteral word is not the only word for human in Urdu, nor is it the primary. Aadam zaad, aadmi and baSHr are the other words. Whether aadam or aadmi were borrowed from Semitic is debatable, as a case could be made for them being IE. •Jim62sch• 01:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam is a semitic word for the first man. Adami/adam zaad are its Persian adjectives meaning "from adam/son of adam" . Adami is used in a lot of other meanings, like friend, worker, employee, husband e.t.c. Bashr is an Arabic word from the root b-sh-r. All of them are used in Urdu, although Aadmi & Insaan are the usual choices. Since Aadmi is used in a lot of different meanings, & is usually used in the meanings of man (not human), so we are left with Insaan ( the word that appears in the picture ).

Urdu originated around a millennium ago , as a merger of Hindustani, Arabic, Persian & Turkish .So there was no need to create new words for the language when there were at least 3-8 existing words for each & every thing/concept. Since the language is too young compared to other IE or semitic languages, & unlike other semitic or IE languages, its ancester languages arnt dead , so its difficult to make clear cut distinctions regarding its vocabulary . So most of the words are shared . It became lingua franca for the same reason, because everybody was able to understand at least some parts of it . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 09:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

can we not just kill the image? It seems extremely arbitrary and silly to illustrate this article by words for "human" in seven random languages, apparently selected for their (to the compiler) 'exotic scripts'. What exactly is the informative value of that? If you are serious about collecting this sort of information, do a proper terms for humans in the world's languages or something. Or see writing system for an overview of writing systems. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

F.a.y., thank you for the explanation. My knowledge of the Indo-Aryan group of IE languages is limited to Sanskrit and Hindi, and I hadn't realized that Urdu was relatively new. In structure it is very much IE, but the Arabic borrowings give it a somewhat different flavor.

Dab, I think the box is cool, but not indispensible. Let's see if we can get a consensus one way or the other on it. I don't care one way of the other, so whichever way it goes, would be fine. •Jim62sch• 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is relatively interesting, but I'm not hung up on it either way. I came to offer a source on the language issue, Platts, A dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi, and English gives it as of Aribic origin, but as a common Urdu word. - Taxman ^Talk 18:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Up goes the POV tag again. Sam is it this intro you are objecting too?

Humans, or human beings, are classified as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).^[8] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make greater use of tools than any other species of animal.

Like most primates, humans are by nature social. However, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas. Humans create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups, ranging in scale from nations to individual families, and social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans also have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythologyology. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies. It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and deities, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.

Your own preference seems to be this new version.

Humans, or human beings, are classified as bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin for "Wise man") under the family Hominidae (the great apes).^[9] Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Like all primates, humans are an inherently social animal.

Culturally, humans create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression and the exchange of ideas, human social interaction has established a variety of social norms, rituals, traditions, values, laws, and ethics which form the basis of human society. Humans are the only beings known to build fires, cook their food and clothe themselves.

First where did your preferred version come from since i have not seen a paragraph starting with "Psychologically the human mind has several distinct attributes " in any version discussed to date. Second what is your problem with the first intro? Everything is mentioned in the first intro. What is the POV that you object to so much? David D. (Talk) 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam, for your consistent efforts on this. I essentially agree with Sam. The Religious paragraph needs to be separate. But I would remove its confusing second sentence. The paragraph should be about the religious perspective on humans, not about the religiosity of many humans. Tom Haws 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I only put the second sentance as a(n) (unsuccessful) compromise w the large number of atheist/secular humanist editors present here. What I am mainly objecting to is not the intro, but the moving of the spirit section into culture. Spirit is at least 1/4 of what man is, and this article needs to reflect that. When I began editing spirit dominated the article, and that was POV. We finally achieved balance after about a year of struggle, and the article recieved FA status. Then the skeptics began their attack, and what we have now is just as embarassing as what I found over a year ago. Those who think calling spirituality a sub-catagory of culture is NPOV need to go and read "views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.". It doesn't matter how many editors have what opinion or the other, NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. Sam Spade 11:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Spirit is at least 1/4 of what man is" ... cite, please? --Ashenai 11:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

One cannot really cite that which is clearly non-scientific and a matter of opinion. •Jim62sch• 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You want me to cite my talk page opinions? Sorry, but I feel free to say what I want (within reason, and on topic of course ;) on the talk page! I can give you plenty of cites for spiritual experts stating that man is 100% spirit btw (look up Mary Baker Eddy and Sri Sankaracharya for a start...) Sam Spade 11:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you say that "[this is my talk page opinion], and this article needs to reflect that", then yes, I think a cite would help. Or are you saying that articles need to reflect your talk page opinions, in general? --Ashenai 11:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My guess, based on the edits would be the latter. As for what percentage anyone thinks is spirit, soul, atman, karma or whatever, that is irrelevant as it it mere speculation based on theology, mysticism or mythology. •Jim62sch• 23:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think this article needs to reflect this intro, as the consensus FA version did. I notice you are ignoring the fact that I cited my opinion in favor of arguing w me and trying to make me look bad? Is your purpose a logical and rigourous one, or merely rhetorical in nature? Sam Spade 11:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But the cites you provided are obviously POV, and you yourself appear to agree with this; "When I began editing spirit dominated the article, and that was POV." Evidently, you believe that the statement that "man is 100% spirit" is POV, and this is certainly something we agree on. Can you provide a source that at least you believe is NPOV for your claim that man is at least 25% spirit?

My intentions are quite rigorous and logical; I'm merely trying to pin down your exact meaning. You claim that man is spiritual, but you feel that an article focusing on the spiritual is POV. Therefore, you clearly feel that an NPOV view would be that man is partly spiritual. Without sources, however, this is original research; and with POV sources, this is not NPOV. Please give us sources that you feel are NPOV and support your contention. --Ashenai 12:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This article does not need to state that in the intro, as it does not represent commonality. That's as very easy concept, Sam, but one that you can't seem to get your head around.

Additionally, there is nothing wrong with a rhetorical question -- absent that type of inquiry, of true knowledge of our universe would be much less. In fact, absent a rhetorical question raised by Einstein when he was 16, we'd not have the theory of relativity. •Jim62sch• 23:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(And also, yes, I was trying to score a debate point instead of a real one, and for that, I apologize. Chalk it up to habit. The main thrust of my argument is honest, and--I believe--valid.) --Ashenai 12:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is neutral, and all sources are biased. That’s why NPOV involved the citing of verifiable POV's, rather than achieving absolute truth. A neutral article will be one which gives balanced emphasis to all the various POV's.

Oh, and I certainly accept your apology, no hard feelings. My complaint was less specific to you, and more about the general polarisation of this talk page, and the improper motivation of so much of what has been said (even a comment or two of my own, I'll admit :) Sam Spade 12:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, "Nothing is neutral, and all sources are biased". Seems a bit too absolute for me. So if I say that the sun is a yellow star and find cites to confirm that statement, both my statement and my citations are POV/biased? •Jim62sch• 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Editor history

While we all appreciate a fresh eye and new ideas, I sympathize with dab in that many of the new editors on this article fail to appreciate the history involved here, and that some of us have been personally present for months of debate. dab and I were working on this article in September 2004. Yes, that's 18 months of history and continuity. I don't want to be stodgy, but it does get hard to rehash the same points again and again. Dearly valued newer contributors, please try to be respectful of the possibility that some of us (see my user page for a little list) may have considered many times the issues central to this article. That said, my understanding and approach are refining and evolving still. Tom Haws 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this applies to me; in any case, I've now read most of the archives. I have certainly read enough to understand the (ancient and recent) history of the article.

In any case, I'm new to the article, not stupid. While it is certainly useful to understand how the article came to be as it is today (which is why I spent considerable time browsing the archives), a consensus (or rough consensus, or supermajority, or whatever) today is no less valid that one achieved a year ago, and I don't think a new user would necessarily be any less adept at determining consensus or deciding on a preferable phrasing for the article than an old-timer would be.

No disrespect meant to anyone, of course. :) --Ashenai 10:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate very much your courtesy (as manifest not only by your words, but by your careful review of the archives). Editors like you are like a well of cool water in the desert. Tom Haws 14:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus today. There was consensus regarding the FA version. That long standing consensus trumps the majority of views here, at the very least until a new consensus is formed. Sam Spade 11:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, i was part of that consensus, however, as other editors have appeared and made strong cases I feel I compromised too much. If you remember, there was a a lot of criticism of the article during the FA nomination. It hardly passed with flying colours. David D. (Talk) 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Let us also recall that the people running Dodge/Crysler/Plymouth thought they were handling things well. Then the nearly went bankrupt. Then new blood, Lee Iacocca and his crew, came in and the company took off. There's a lesson in that. •Jim62sch• 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally only buy cars made by former Axis powers ;) Sam Spade 22:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Romanians export cars? :) •Jim62sch• 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

With a small nod to my LambdaMOO experience, I (mis)interpret Sam to say he drives his edits with a Fiat. *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Very good. ;) •Jim62sch• 16:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

homo sapiens vs human vs humanity

Having just re-read Talk:Human/Archive1, it's clear to me that dab's original point is the best summary of why this page will never meet Wikipedia neutrality guidelines.

If you ask me, I would say "Homo sapiens" and "human" should be two separate
articles, with a section "biology" in "human" pointing to "Homo sapiens"...
Dbachmann 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The term "Homo sapiens" is the term for humans-as-animal. The term "Humanity" stands for what distinguishes us from animals. To have both of these terms redirect to the human page, apart from being simplistic, has made writing this article in a neutral way very difficult. Predictably, this difficulty has been compounded by extreme difference in opinion regarding the essence of humanity, as well as an unwillingness to include the beliefs of others rather than insisting that the article only reflect one's own view. The two concepts, homo sapiens and humanity can be disambiguated within the article, or they can be seperated into two seperate articles. But to define humans on this merged page in strictly biological terms ("humans are bipedal primates") is simply inaccurate. — goethean ॐ 17:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

They need to be separate articles, as I said. However, so long as they are merged, only those items showing commonality (i.e., =the biological) should be highlighted in the intro. •Jim62sch• 21:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

only those items showing commonality (i.e., =the biological) should be highlighted

That doesn't make any sense. I am talking about perspectives various people hold on what all human beings are. You believe (let's say) that all human beings are comprised or constituted materially. Sam (let's say) believes that they are constituted spiritually or non-materially. Tom believes that all human beings are created in the image of God. All of these perspectives possess an equal amount of "commonality". Commonality, in the sense of how many individuals are being categorized, cannot be the criteria to determine inclusion in the article. — goethean ॐ 21:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That said, I'm glad that someone agrees that the article should be split. Anyone else? — goethean ॐ 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Commonality does not, in this case, refer to how many people "believe" something, but rather to the sharing of scientifically verifiable aspects. Thus,

The material aspects are not belief, they are simple scientific fact (see KC's eloquent description from two weeks ago), are measurable and quantifiable, and are solely representative of the concept of commonality as they are shared by all humans.

Spirituality is a belief (in some ways "new age", in other ways ancient), but it is not common to all humans -- the existance of even one atheist disproves any "theory" (vulgar usage) of spiritual commonality.

Tom's belief that all human beings are created in the image of God, is a purely theological perspective absent any scientific basis.

Thus, we are left with spliting this article in two as was propsed by dab sometime ago, and by myself sometime more recently. •Jim62sch• 12:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the most polite response would be for me to suggest that you enroll in Philosophy 101. Materialism has not been proven to be any more factual, to use your completely inapt term, than the other competing ontologies or metaphysics. And if you have such proof at your disposal, you should run it over to the nearest philosophy department so you can collect your Nobel Prize. — goethean ॐ 19:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not discussing Philosophy, now was I? Had I been, you might have a point, but as Philosophy is hardly an exact science (although it does have "rules") and as it is really no more than a collection of Gedanken experiments, I tend not to use it when discussing science. (Yes, I'm aware that science grew out of philosophy -- a loooonnnnggg time ago.)

Nonetheless, I would suggest, politely, that you avail yourself of a good lexicon and peruse the meaning of "material" (the OED, for example, has 18 definitions of the word). •Jim62sch• 22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So you believe that the natural sciences are the foremost or only generators of absolute knowledge. That's a fine point of view. But it is a point of view. Wikipedia is not interested in hosting articles that only reflect one particular point of view. Instead, Wikipedia articles strive for neutrality in regards to point of views. Please see WP:NPOV for more information on this policy. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree to split this article into two. one for Homo sapiens sapiens and one for Humanity. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not oppose (nor enthusiastically support). Sam Spade 21:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Sam - I can see the sense in it, but I'm concerned about a possible POV split happening. I abstain. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why, because, ¿por qué? -- for example we have "Star", "Astronomy" and "Cosmology"; "Earth", "Geology", "Geophysics", "Age of Earth" and "Geochemistry"; "Primate", "Ape", "Human", etc; "Human", "Paleoanthropology", "Anthropology"; etc. •Jim62sch• 11:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Sam. Splitting the article into two may lead to a more exact and balanced pair of articles, or may just lead to a POV fork, or may lead to edit wars being waged on two articles from now on, instead of one. --Ashenai 12:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If we don't try, we will never know.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim's comments make excellent sense. I agree. Lets be bold. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also an article on Human nature. — goethean ॐ 14:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This fork may seem like a POV fork to some (even to many) and yet not actually be one. Some (incl. myself) believe that science provides a different perspective from other areas of human knowledge (philosophy, religion, humanities, etc). Others (see Jim's comments above) see scientific knowledge as absolute, and all the rest as mere opinion. So yes we do run the danger of expanding an edit war unless we are all clear about what we are doing. — goethean ॐ 14:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've not contributed to this article, but have been following for some time and have felt separating these topics would be a good idea. I would have thought Homo sapiens would cover anatomy, physiology, phylogeny and evolution/age, among other things. |→ Spaully°τ 16:12, 3 April 2006 (GMT)

I agree with goethean. We need to consider how all these human-type articles relate to each other in the big picture of wikipedia. In a way, we need to write them together to avoid redundancy and inconsistencies between the various articles. Perhaps the first job here is to do a census on related articles that are already present in wikipedia. Once we know what is out there we can consider what the role of each article is with respect to the level of detail and placement in the information hierarchy. David D. (Talk) 16:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I started a "gateway" at User:Goethean/Human6. — goethean ॐ 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Great job, i think this will allow us to get a little more coherent. David D. (Talk) 16:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am assembling a ginormous list of articles that have the word "human" in them at User:Goethean/Human6#See_also. Maybe this, along with other suggestions, will help guide us towards the contents of the new articles. — goethean ॐ 18:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've listed all of the homo sapiens articles that I could find at User:Goethean/Homo Sapiens. Some could debatably go in either article. — goethean ॐ 18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to reiterate User:Dbachmann's suggestion, above, of three articles:

biology -- zoon -- humans as seen by zoologists
individual -- zoon logos echon -- humans as 'monads' (emotion, spirituality)
society -- zoon politikon -- humans as seen by each other (society)

Keep in mind that we already have three articles, sort of: homo sapiens (the biological stuff from this article) humanity (the socio-cultural stuff from this article), and human nature (which is essentially religion and philosophy). — goethean ॐ 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

<< I like this idea a lot. Finally it feels like we are collaborating rather that doing something else. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What I would do is to locate #1 (above) at Homo Sapiens and/or Homo Sapiens Sapiens (...makes no difference to me); #2 at Human and #3 at Humanity. The gateway/disambiguation page I would put at Human (disambiguation). I would then link to Human (disambiguation) from the top of each article. — goethean ॐ 19:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I've reverted the disambig page for now, because it was a horrible mess of disambig links that redirected back and forth in circles. As I said, I'm not against a forking disambig solution, but I think the transition, if any, should be as seamless as possible. Please let's only have Human be a disambig page when all the links actually point somewhere. --Ashenai 19:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm putting it all on my user subpages but its getting a little messy. I wonder if we can set up a sand box somewhere that would make it convenient. — goethean ॐ 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, here's my current outline: Go ahead and modify this. — goethean ॐ 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Outline

Four articles:

Human (disambiguation)

Homo Sapiens

Human biology

Physiology and genetics

Life cycle

Evolution

Food and drink

Human

Human psychology

Brain, mind, and consciousness

Humanity

Society and culture

Language

Art, music and literature

Motivation and emotion

Love and sexuality

Spirituality and religion

Philosophy and self-reflection

Science and technology

Government and politics

War

Trade and economics

Discussion

I think Human should be the disabmig page. Psychology can be discussed on both, in different ways. On Homo Sapiens it can be discussed from a biological/behaviorist POV (brain chemicals and all that). On Humanity it can be discussed from a spiritual or humanist POV, taking into account freud and jung and other somewhat "philosophical" views. Sam Spade 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Holy cows and elephants, we agree. :) •Jim62sch• 21:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not that hard to agree when we focus on moderate, centrist positions, and leave out the extremes (Humans are a soul bound for glory/humans are a lump of shortlived cells enroute to the grave ;) Sam Spade 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm cautiously optimistic. :) --Ashenai 03:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The focus of this page seems fine the way it is, but Homo sapien clearly should be an anthropological page, similar to Homo sapiens idaltu.--Nectar 23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for article structure

I haven't read the entire discussion yet, but my suggestion is that the article should be structured almost like a cross between a portal and a long article. It should serve as an introduction to the numerous "human-related" articles on Wikipedia, written summary style, with each section having a link to the main article for that section. As long as there is a summary in this article, the other articles will not be POV forks. I repeat, a POV fork is only when neither article mentions the other article or misrepresents that article's POV. One thing for sure, the "human evolution" box at the bottom should go. I would recommend that it is replaced with an infobox at the top that summarises all the articles linked from the sections. In other words, treat Human as a subject disambiguation and summary page (a meta-data page, if you like), and keep Human (disambiguation) to distinguish between articles and other objects of similar name. Carcharoth 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. These are excellent suggestions and comments. David D. (Talk) 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The downside though is keeping the summary consistent with the article it is a summary of. Possibly put an "editor-visible" note with each section mentioning that the section is a summary of the article linked from the top of the section, so anyone making major changes should read that article as well. Conversely, a similar note at the top of the talk page of the article being summarised and an "editor-visible" note at the top of the article, next to a "subject disambig" link back to the article, would be needed. Usually, just clicking "What links here", or using categories, can help keep things updated over a subject area like this, but that is more difficult for a widely linked subject.

The other downside is deciding the order of the summary style sections... :-) Which should come first. What is the most important aspect of humanity. Who gets to write the lead paragraph that summarises the summaries? :-) But I guess that has already been debated here. One argument with a short summary-style article, is that no-one can say that "their" section is too far down the page. And anyway, that is what the contents table is for. One other thought about the order of the sections, is to try and find a narrative thread, or several threads, connecting the sections, making one lead on naturally from the other, and grouping sections and subsections that have things in common. Carcharoth 17:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I created a template Template:Humans...and I have farked it up beyond all recognition already. I was using the code from Template:creationism2. Pls join in when you can. Also, template can be moved to a different name -- I'm not tied to this one. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not thought too much about the form a template should take but this is certainly a good start. Why do you consider you have farked it up? David D. (Talk) 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The formatting. Jossi fixed it. — goethean ॐ 20:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC of Sam Spade

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade - I've started the RfC on Sam Spade based on his reverting and avoidance of discussions on various articles. Feel free to comment, but please remain civil. -- infinity0 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wondered where you all went. — goethean ॐ 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are 12 edits before this today; 24 yesterday; 6 on the 2nd, and so on. This article and talk page haven't slowed a bit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the non-religious editors havent participated this week. — goethean ॐ 19:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually i know where Goethean is coming from since there have been quite few major proposals put on the table. I would have expected more response too, but then i was busy else where ;) I hope this RfC can be seen as friendly advice. Sam, you may dismiss it, but you should at least consider what is being written. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The "non-religious"? 1, on what do you base that assumption? 2, who are you talking about?

Re: David's comment: You're right about the lack of response; I've been looking and mulling over the suggestions. I've waffled a little on the split (see above) so clearly I'm still considering pros and cons. The one thing that's really looking outstanding is the Human template Goeth is putting together - that will tie all the articles together better than anything else could possibly do and really eases my concerns about a POV split happening. Excellent work on that front, Goethean! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"non-religious" I don't know about many of the other editors backgrounds, but I am what would generally be classified as an orthodox jew. To call the editors who disagree with you "non-religious" borders on WP:NPA, seems like a WP:AGF problem, and indicates a general lack of willingness to see the possible validity of other editors problems. JoshuaZ 20:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just a label for you all that's shorter than "editors who tend to oppose lengthy spiritual text in the introduction to the human article". No offense intended. I assumed that it happened to be true. (At certain points in the article's evolution, I think that it was true.) — goethean ॐ 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

...and indicates a general lack of willingness to see the possible validity of other editors problems

Oh spare me. There's plenty of that on both sides. — goethean ॐ 20:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the two sides? Why must it always be two sides? Why are dichotomies so appealing, given that life is a polychotomy? •Jim62sch• 00:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The two sides are pathological skepticism and NPOV. Sam Spade 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that there are many sides -- multiple religious and spiritual perspectives, and the mainstream scientific viewpoint (over which there is some, but not complete, agreement -- and that NPOV would merely attribute claims to the various perspectives that hold them, instead of asserting or implying that one perspctive is factual and the others fictional. — goethean ॐ 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, Sam. Nice to see that you've taken nothing from the RFC.

Goethean, obviously many sides was my point, and yet in your argument you revert to a dichotomy -- "multiple religious and spiritual perspectives" all fall in the same category, and are opposed by (surprise) science.

Of interest whence belief •Jim62sch• 01:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Curiosity

'[Curiosity]...has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.'

That seems like a bit of a reach- I don't know about fish or bacteria, but plenty of animals have distinct personalities. I have not seen any evidence of 'self-reflection' taking place with my friends' cats, but they all of quite distinct personalities.

Why does the second paragraph say that human beings are especially notable for trying to understand and alter their environment? Our relative ability to do both is notable, but how can we know what other creatures desire? That is not a verifiable statement.

If no one objects, I'm going to change that section to be a bit more grounded. MilesVorkosigan 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. David D. (Talk) 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that our ability to understand and alter our environment and the demonstration of such ability is pretty obvious. We cannot assert the intentions or desires of other creatures, but surely we can assert their actions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Were you agreeing or disagreeing? :) MilesVorkosigan 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Miles, make your case here before screwing with the article. Besides, you throw a hissy about alleged OR, but what is this, "but plenty of animals have distinct personalities. I have not seen any evidence of 'self-reflection' taking place with my friends' cats, but they all of quite distinct personalities"? If you're going to debate the content you need to do a much better job than that. •Jim62sch• 00:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Miles. The "logical progression" can work in other directions. Putting it as a one-dimentional, unidirectional progression is only one way of looking at it. Some other POVs are that it works in the opposite direction, or that the different factors may play off of each other in a more organic, non-linear manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll note that I didn't put my comment about other animals' personality in the article, of course. It is OR- Just as the current article's claim that curiosity leads to the development of personality. This claim is also, as far as I can see, unverifiable. Do we have any sources for claiming that only humans are curious, only humans change their environments, or that only humans have different personalities? How would you go about constructing an experiment to prove this? MilesVorkosigan 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I think instead of the anatomy drawing of a human we should have an actual photo of a human. Since that's how it is for most animal articles. --FlareNUKE 09:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There are several photos of people in the article itself. The use of the NASA plaque was discussed previously at #Human image, but no consensus was reached for a replacement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the previous discussion is (1) that it concerned itself far too much with artistic, fancy, impressionistic images to start the article with and not enough with the type of basic, simple image that's actually needed; and (2) that it assumed that the only way to avoid demonstrating a bias with the image at the top of the article is to represent every possible type of human that exists. This is obviously a poor method for NPOV for the simple reason that it's impossible to represent every variety of human: going out of our way to represent humans of all different races, for example, would just present the ideas that (A) the only important difference between groups of humans is their race (which also assumes that races even exist), whereas other distinctions such as age, profession, personality, hairstyle, religion, wealth, sex, etc. are more trivial and don't need to be clearly denoted in an introductory image (and the same problem would arise for any other false "diversity" we went out of our way to demonstrate in the first image, for no real purpose except arbitrary, loathsome Political Correctness), and (B) it's extremely common to see people from all different walks of life interacting, more so than it is to see people of a certain culture, skin color, age group, social class, etc. grouping together (when the opposite is the truth, and many parts of the world still remain relatively homogenous, and were even more so in the past; if they weren't, racial and ethnic groupings never could have arisen to begin with!).

Furthermore, such a diverse image would necessitate a crowd-shot, which would mean that the image would either have to be very large (completely unfeasible with our current page layout) or very difficult to see (which would make the image useless!). Rather than trying to pack as many different walks of life into a single image as possible, which will just leave Wikipedia more open to accusations of discrimination and POV bias than it would have been (since it'll be all the more obvious where we didn't include a certain type of person!), we should strive for a very basic, well-composed, illustrative image of a human being. We only need 2 or 3 humans at most in the image for the same reason we don't need a huge crowd of distinct primates at the top of the primate page, or a vast sum of different parrot species at the top of the parrot page: because what matters isn't representing the entire variety in a single image (which is far too difficult to do, and can only mislead our readers in any case), but rather to represent a (relatively, but not overwhelmingly) typical human so people get the general idea and can then proceed further into the article to learn more information and see more images (which should be very different from the top image so as to provide maximum overall information; we should strive for diversity and a wealth of different types of people in an overall article more than for diversity in every single image, even for the lead image).

The current image is acceptable, but it is not ideal. The reason it is not ideal is: (1) it is a drawing, rather than a photograph, and this is an image about humans, not about line-art or artistic representations of humans, making a stylized artistic illustration a very strange choice for the top of the article; (2) it is an iconic image in its own right, making it a better choice to start an article about the NASA program it was made for than about the very general topic of humanity (for the same reason we wouldn't have Vitruvian Man at the top of the article); (3) it is so crudely-drawn that it misses out on a large number of important details about humans, such as skin and hair coloration and texture, and even the genitalia, which the image is partly unusual for showing, are very poorly-represented and would be useless representations for anyone who isn't already familiar with human anatomy; (4) it represents two naked humans, even though humans are usually clothed, and indeed being clothed is one of the most distinctive and immediately noteworthy aspects of the appearance of human beings (an image of a naked human would be more appropriate in the "anatomy" section); (5) the image would be much more valuable if the humans were doing something distinctive and interesting in the image, like communicating or using tools, rather than just generically standing there; and (6) although I just made an argument about diversity not being something we should obsess over for the top article, the image is a little too simplistic to be very useful: although we should certainly have images of both male and female humans, having at least one human who isn't in the same age group at the others would be beneficial, and some other differences wouldn't be harmful either, since it would provide more information in a smaller place. But, again, don't go overboard.

So, for all those reasons, the image isn't ideal. But it's also not bad: it certainly does the job, at least for the present. So, I don't feel there's any major rush to replace it; we should just keep in mind that at some point we could probably get a better image to go there, if one conveniently arises, and for now perhaps discuss what we'd ideally be looking for so we don't miss a future opportunity. -Silence 11:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested alternative? Because none has "conveniently arisen" for me. I looked and the best alternatives I could find were "artistic, fancy, impressionistic images". KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said not one line above your comment, there's obviously not currently an image that meets our requirements, so let's wait until one arises or can be found. Your comment makes no sense in context. -Silence 20:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is not ideal, and if we find something better, I will not object to replace it. 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in a way, it is a good picture as it displays a bias regarding an assumption that an alien species would realize that the raised hand was a greeting, not a threatening gesture. Additionally, Silence, I don't quite see how KC's comment was out of context, and your comment was, to me, unnecessary. •Jim62sch• 20:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean a raised hand isn't a threat? Now you tell me...JoshuaZ 20:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No really. It's supposed to be "highdee-ho good neighbor". Honest. I raise my hand and swear. •Jim62sch• 23:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

I request that the NPOV tag be returned to the article. Defining human beings in exclusively biological terms — as the first sentence of this article does — is not neutral. — goethean ॐ 14:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you object to the Sun article's first sentence defining it in "exclusively atronomical terms?" Or the Elephant article's first sentence defining it in "exclusively biological terms?" Or perhaps the Water article's first sentence defining it in "exclusively chemical terms?" Yes, there are other systems of classification that humans can be grouped into; yes there is more to "human" than just the biological components; but is there any other aspect of humans that could be put into the first sentence which is agreed upon by everyone? So far, to the best of my knowledge, no one editting this article has disputed whether or not humans actually are bipedal primates — a statement which can't be made about very many other sentences in the article; what would you suggest we replace it with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avedomni (talk • contribs).

I would disagree with placement of the NPOV tag. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

...yes there is more to "human" than just the biological components...

Then it puzzles me that you would endorse an intro that implies the opposite. The old compromise intro ("Humans or human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms.") did not do so. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How many people need to make the same argument in different ways? The only things all humans have in common are the biological. Not all humans are social (see hermits, anarchists, etc) nor are all spiritual (see atheists, totalitarians of certain ideologies, etc). I'm afraid I just can't see the dificulty in comprehending this simple fact. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have understood your point from the very beginning, and have found it lacking in relevance and coherence. How many people possess this or that characteristic is not the point. The point is that some humans believe that we are primarily biological. Others do not. Many Christians believe that all humans have a soul. What we are not talking about is how spiritual or unspiritual a person is. That makes as little sense in this context as asking how biological or unbiological one is. What we are talking about is that fact that some people believe that all humans are spiritual beings, and others believe that all humans are biological entities. The debate has not been decided one way or the other. Since according to the NPOV policy, Wikipedia documents controversies rather than taking a side on them, this article should not assert the primacy of human biology over human sociology or human spirituality. — goethean ॐ 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure you'd know relevance or coherence. BTW, the point has been made by myriad editors, I assume then you find us all to be incoherent, or non-comprehending? Funny. •Jim62sch• 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

goethean you wrote:

"What we are talking about is that fact that some people believe that all humans are spiritual beings, and others believe that all humans are biological entities".

Certainly I don't dispute this, but i still have a problem seeing this as a dichotomy. Whether one is spiritual or not, one has a body. I think i have asked this before back in the archives, if i remember rightly, Sam suggested that humans may not have a body. Can you explain this to me again? This seems like an extreme minority view that questions reality itself.

The question is not whether we have a body, but whether we are primarily or exclusively the body. My point is that Wikipedia should not assert this as a matter of fact, but rather as a matter of opinion. — goethean ॐ 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Second you write: "Since according to the NPOV policy, Wikipedia documents controversies rather than taking a side on them, this article should not assert the primacy of human biology over human sociology or human spirituality". The introduction discuses all these aspects of humans so i don't understand how it is POV. Bearing in mind we should not be elaborating on these concepts in the introduction i really don't see how that first sentence can make the whole introduction POV. This seems to be your main objection, if i'm understanding you correctly. David D. (Talk) 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence defines the subject. Yes, this is my main objection. — goethean ॐ 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sam below that the discussions are moot since we are moving towards a Human series. Did you write the Human/Draft article? To me, it's first sentence appears to be similar to the one you don't like in this article. Just out of interest, why is that one appropriate and the one discussed here not appropriate? David D. (Talk) 03:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands needs a dispute header, but I thought we had all agreed to splitting the content of this article into homo sapiens and Humanity, with Human as the disambig? Sam Spade 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on that project, but I haven't made much progress yet. I just moved the drafts to Human/Draft, Homo sapiens/Draft, and Humanity/Draft. I had three articles in mind, but I have so little left at Human that two (as you outline) might be better. — goethean ॐ 23:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the old introduction was terrible; the current introduction, even with an NPOV tag, would be preferable in my mind to that version. That humans are bipedal mammals is basic, fundamental, and obviously true (by definition), and is an appropriate way to begin the article. Yet I would not necessarily be opposed to including beliefs that only some people hold, provided they are appropriately qualified. Perhaps something like "Many humans believe that they possess a non-material component known as a soul. Some believe that other animals do not possess souls and consider the soul to be the defining feature of being human." Of course, this would need referencing and correction to reflect what people's beliefs actually are. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There really is no need for the NPOV tag -- ironically, it is being defended by two editors with very clear POV's. •Jim62sch• 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have nothing else to offer than this ad hominem attack? I don't think my POV is clear at all. Name a specific issue in the article, and ask me my stance. I insist my position regarding content is driven not the promotion of my personal beliefs, but rather is based on neutrality, balance and citations. Do you offer yourself up to such a rigorous inspection? Do you deny that you have been promoting a skeptical POV here? Sam Spade 23:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read any of the comments at your RFC lately? If so, what do you have to say about them? FeloniousMonk 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How about you go read my replies there, and focus on the matter at hand here. Sam Spade 08:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we're both focusing on the matter at hand here, Sam. Your accusations of personal attacks are laughable at best. Noting irony is not a PA, it is noting irony -- yep, it really is that simple. And yes, as the RfC notes your attempts to push your POV on this page, it is quite relevant to this page.

Second, what is this "skeptical POV" you rant on about other than an oxymoronic neologism, a paradox, a contradiction in terms? "Skeptical" comes from the Greek word ςκεπτικος (skepticos), which means "thoughtful, inquiring" -- the antithesis of POV. Obviously, to you, this process of thinking, of inquiring, of refusing to accept things on blind, mindless faith alone is not merely anathema, but also bad. This view, to me, would be the absurdist view, a viewpoint driven by fear of knowledge -- for knowledge, driven by thought and inquiry and inspection and the gathering of data, unfettered by the constraints of mythology, destroys mystery and is thus "uncomfortable" to those who revel in the warm, menticidal embrace of those mysteries. •Jim62sch• 15:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There really is no need for the NPOV tag -- ironically, it is being defended by two editors with very clear POV's. --User:Jim62sch 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has a point of view, even those who lack the requisite self-knowledge to realize that fact. — goethean ॐ 14:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? Well hush my puppies. I think that, if one reads what I wrote, one will note that I said that the term "Skeptical POV" is an oxymoron. Nowhere did I write that there are people without POV's. Perhaps you might wish to read through it again with due diligence and deliberation. •Jim62sch• 17:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of image

From top-left, "human" in English, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Hebrew, Greek and Arabic.

Silence, can you explain the removal of this image? I think that it is a nice addition, and it was there during the FA status. If you think that it is not useful, it would be nice if you first ask other editors. And, please keep your reply short and to the point. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 11:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

- Short and to the point: it's a useless gimmick. -Silence 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I always liked the image and would prefer to see it restored. — Knowledge Seeker দ 11:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I also like the image. I've restored it for now, as it seems that Silence is the only one who would prefer not to have it. --Ashenai 11:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's the guy of the new infobox. I think the image is not AMAZING, but it ain't THAT bad... There are some other images in this article that are truly AWFUL, and I think you should get rid of them first ; ) By doing so, the article will look much better and maybe it'll regain its FA status again. Right now, the images of the article are... not attractive?

I'll begin with the fetus. Nothing against good old Leonardo, but I think a diagram showing at least four stages of a fetus growing inside the womb and maybe the mother giving birth would be more "encyclopedic" than this draw.

I don't like the Inuit woman either, but ok, we have to keep the multicultural stuff, don't we? Maybe a more COLORFUL image would help. This goes for the skeleton, the two young girls and so on. My white toilet has more color than the first six images of the article. : D

The fruits... ok, it's a nice pic, but I think it's just not human enough to make it to the article. How about a HUMAN eating fruit, or any other food? ; )

The brain is ok, but the "human face" showing the "senses" is by far the UGLIEST and SCARIEST thing I've ever seen. And guess what? It's in... BLACK AND WHITE! Yippie!

Adam is not too bad, but I would prefer the Mona Lisa or something like that.

Now we come to Tio Paquete, which is the SECOND UGLIEST thing I've ever seen! How about a PIC of someone with a cute smiling? Or at least a happy face hahaha...

The kiss... black and white... that's a rock, they aren't humans... how about a PIC of a couple sharing a nice french kiss?

Now, a SCULPTURE of a man meditating... A MAN, not a ROCK doing yoga would be better. (I have nothing against paintings or sculptures, but this is the HUMAN article, not the ART article.)

The largest religious gathering is interesting. Plato and Aristotle is excellent. The thinker is good (if you remove the man meditating... having both images is a little redundant). The astronaut is great.

That was the most visually attractive part in the article.

The bomb... it's black and white, but I guess it's an important pic. And if someone changes the pics above with some more colorful ones, it'll be ok.

The Chichicastenango image is not very clear in its purpose... You can't see the trading directly from the picture. I would hardly notice that the image has something to do with trading without the note under it. A trading ship, currency, a stand on a modern supermarket or something like that would be better.

Finally, how about getting the images in a STRICT "left, right, left, right, left" order? That would look nice... : D

Now, if you agree with me, please don't come and say "I agree"... do something! Look for better, nicer pics... we can make this an excellent article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.137.125.244 (talk • contribs).

I tend to agree with the "gimmick" characterization, and vote "weak remove". There are enough images already, and the image doesn't illustrate speech, but writing systems. It won't hurt to have one less image, and I suggest that an image of the vocal tract would be more to the point. dab (ᛏ) 19:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

'heto-panubutiosis' edit

I deleted the following edit from the article page because I got no hits on Google for 'heto-panubutiosis':

...but some diseases like heto-panubutiosis makes it impossible for these people to lose weight. This is a diseases that infects the intestines, keeping them from functioning properly. (i.e for people with this it is impossible for them to relieve themselfs of their own solid waste products.)

This one will require a good solid set of sources to be allowed back into the article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Support removal of this trivia, if not pure invention, strongly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pure invention. That's pseudo-greek and besides, "it is impossible for them to relieve themselfs [sic]"! Right. Because excrement is the only way to loose body mass. Ig0774 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be proper

To have African looking people as the picture for Homo Sapiens, them being first.

--Vehgah 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

~~Not to mention the majority~~ - do you have an image to suggest? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no specfic image suggestion, but perhaps someone that is Nilotic.

--Vehgah 05:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Having a bad week, apparently. Asians are the majority. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sentience

I don't wish to open up a complicated discussion, but I would like to explain my removal of "As of 2006, humans are the only beings known to be sentient." If this statement is to be included, it should specify known to whom (with a citation, preferably), since both scientific perspectives and many religious perspectives appear to consider other animals to be sentient as well. Certainly according to the definition (Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary), it seems quite apparent to me that we're not the only sentient creatures around. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Our own article on Sentience fails to assert that only humans are sentient. There's a reason for that: there is simply no reasonable evidence for the claim that a three-month old human baby is sentient while an adult dog, chimpanzee, or dolphin isn't. --Ashenai 21:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't homo latin for person not man?

Its been a while since I studied latin but thought man was just a common preconception.

we should rather say that English man properly means homo, but is mostly used in the restricted sense of vir. dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought homo is a prefix for different. --FlareNUKE 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of removal

I removed the following text from Human#Terminology: "(though terms such as 'man' for humankind are in a sense pejorative, given women's statistical majority in the population of Homo sapiens on earth)". I find the speculation dubious, and would require sourcing at least. Thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I support your removal. Getting into reasons behind different word usages is a very big subject and doesn't belong in this article. We should just report what words people use/have used here, and leave the mankind/humankind debate for another article. Ashmoo 05:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So do you think referring to all human beings as "mankind" is proper? Where exactly does the debate belong? Or maybe your just afraid to confront the issue... JuniorMuruin 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What I think is not relevant here. The debate itself should not take place on Wikipedia, unless there is discussion on an article's talk page regarding usage of the collective noun in that article, or unless some broader discussions on style usage within Wikipedia are taking place. To document the debate itself, an article like gender-neutral language would be an appropriate place. Note that the article is for documenting the debate and opinions with cited references, not for discussing our own. Please feel free to ask me further questions on my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

One of the last sentences in the intro reads that humans are one of the few species who have sex for fun. The next sentence starts with "This natural curiosity..." and it seems ambiguous - does it refer to the previous sentence?

No, it does not. The "sex for fun" sentence was inserted between the two sentences about "natural curiosity" in this edit. The page is so delicate. I have wondered how I could fix the flaw that you bring to our attention without losing the tight impact and insightfulness of the previous editors. Any ideas? --Rednblu 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- "for fun" is not a valid teleological category anyway. "Fun" is nature's way of telling you that you are doing something right. Sex might be "fun" for lots of reasons, including because it affects your status within the group etc., but the most frequently cited reason why it is "fun" for men in particular is that the "fun", and especially the "love" is intended to tie males to females, so that males have an incentive to stick around and feed females when they could just impregnate them and go back to their bachelor group without bothering to invest in family-building. My point is that "Sex is fun" might be a valid (although not necessarily universally valid) subjective description, but certainly "fun" isn't in any meaningful way a "reason" why people have sex. dab (ᛏ) 15:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  - !! Good points! --Rednblu 16:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Manipulative ... participative....

It seems to me that the following sentence:

Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythology.

which is right near the top of "Human" - is terribly flawed!

The problem is that although humans seek to explain and manipulate the world around them, the very idea that Religion or Philosophy are also attempts to "manipulate" reeks of irreligiousity... to fix this it's simple to add (or participate) so that manipulation isn't the sine qua non. It seems to me that WINKI is the place where this should be gotten Right!

Phillip 14:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They are attempts to explain. See the "explain or manipulate" in the sentence? And what is WINKI? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are saying that Religion itself! is an attempt to explain... this is absurd! You cannot explain Religion as an explanation of anything, only as a (possibly wrongly) belief that one Participates (somehow) with what is holy. I hope that helps explain my position on this and I do enjoy getting to know what it is that you think that you mean... I am still not happy with the sentence, nor - need I say - with your explanation. When one goes into a church, one is not going into a 'school' - these need to be kept somewhat separate, I believe > though you'll certainly find a lot of dogmatic types in either abode...

Any neutral anthropologist recognizes the attractive power of religion to be its power to explain. [17] Science of course developed a better approach to explaining--better by recognizing the empirical fact that God, where ever she is nowadays, has never been observed to intervene. Nevertheless, people are drawn to religion because, at the stage of intellectual development in which they find religion to be important for them, religion explains 1) how they got here and 2) why humans find it so hard to be as good as they want to be. Would you agree? --Rednblu 20:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a neutral anthropologist, my background is philosophy (so perhaps this page is out of my league..) > Philosophically speaking I guess I'd have to disagree and Even MORE so, that God doesn't intervene (hasn't been observed to) is really quite shocking to me: Didn't he send his only begotten Son to save mankind? Isn't this quite central to Christianity? - At least to my understanding of it -> if you assume that all of this is mythologizing, and the only things that exist are things that you can dissect under a microscope or peer at through a telescope... then since Christ doesn't show up very well either with unaided human vision, microscope or telescope, then perhaps this is your gist >> mine is that this is a matter that has to be viewed from within and for me the Heart and Mind are not Dis-Connected (or rather they tend to be and this CAN BE a problem... > One HAS Knowledge >> One IS religious (having religion is fraut with Bush, a sophist right from the get-go... >> this is what I'd say in answer to your query >> see Erich Fromm fine work on the difference between Having & Being - If you are interested in what's behind my fundamental objection evident in all of the above. yours Phillip 14:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) ps: thanks for entering into discussion on this, I'm new at the game and think that Human may be a good place to begin...

<<The idea that humans may also make tools of themselves (through meditation, prayer, and various rituals) to better reflect the spiritual foundation by participating in its Being ...>>

I suggest that you might work up the citations for this edit on this TalkPage first. Is this idea written and clarified in some book by a recognized expert on what human is? We need the citation. --Rednblu 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it currently reads like trolling. It definitely needs work.

The idea that humans may also make tools of themselves (through meditation, prayer, and various rituals) to better reflect the spiritual foundation by participating in its Being - not that the desire is to manipulate Being - this may be recognized as a cutting issue in dividing those who lump mythology along with religion and those whose philosophy find such a merger as fraught with prejudice.

Is this a joke or a typo? ("make tools of themselves") Is this meaningful? (participating in its Being ) Isn't this POV? ("cutting issue in dividing those who lump") David D. (Talk) 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean it as a joke; it's curious to me that you don't see the other side of the coin. As regards 'citations' I did mention Erich Fromm (famous Psychologist/HUMANIST) who has a book called "To Have or To BE" ... and a lot of other books too. What I find to be a joke is the sentence that I was trying to fix which put Religion as either (take your choice) manipulation of spiritual things or explanantion of them; so- probably explanation... This leads one to have to say that going into a temple is another way of going to school,to learn about spiritual things... which may have a little truth but I think is fundamentally flawed. Obviously, here we don't care about my personal views (which is fine by me) but about the truth... Of course, truth is known within, not through a telescope or a microscope.

Now, I will either have to go get some quote from Fromm or perhaps somebody will remark that there is a good point in all of this - since (as I indicated)the way the sentence now has been reverted back to read means pretty much that religion is mythology - and this is the crass nonsense that I don't like... being a mere human. Phillip 20:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by the other side of the coin? I think we could be at odds here with respect to the interpretation of the phrase. "The idea that humans may also make tools of themselves" reads to me as if you wrote ( and this is the polite version) "humans make idiots of themselves" (see Tool_(slang)). Surely you didn't mean this? i think it needs work to remove this unintended phrase as well as making it less POV. David D. (Talk) 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people do make idiots of themselves; there are churches that have a good reason to exist and there are also terrorist cells full of people who go to prayers 5 times a day... In either event, they are opening themselves to something: Goodness in the 1st instance and pure evil in the 2nd.. I hope that this helps; it seems that 'particpation' is voted out from a friendly fellow (see below) so, I'll rest my case... sorry if you found me to be POV. Phillip 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it helps, are you saying here that you did mean to the "tool" in the slang sense? I don't mind if you have a POV (we all do) its just that the use of "lump" is not appropriate for the article. There must be better ways to write the above to make it more clear. Why do you want to give up before you have started? David D. (Talk) 04:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your query, 1st, I only would want to give up if it seemed that I had little to no chance... which is somewhat open at this point; 2ndly: as regards "tool" - I actually was using it as it "was there" - ie: right in the paragraph under comment > that we humans make tools of fire, sticks and stones, etc so as to "manipulate" our environment >>>> BUT ALSO, because Plato uses the metaphor of 'tools' in his investigation into sophistry > that, namely, Sophists make tools of themselves to pursue what they "suppose" is in their interest.... so there were 2 reasons for the tool metaphor, neither of which anyone seemed to have understood >> and I guess I should also mention that phrases such as "sharpen your wits" seem to imply that one's capactities can be improved (spiritual as well as material) through a litte hard work! 3rdly: AS Regards the word "LUMP" - it is derisive, I agree, but that's just my point, the sentence [paragraph] under discussion LUMPS > Science, Philos, Religion & MYTHOLOGY - ALL together as if this made a bit of sense!!!! which was my core objection. I hope this is a bit clearer and I will check back tomorrow to see if continued debate is worthwhile or if the level of discourse seems non-conducive to further debate.... thanks for your encouragement to not give up without at least a little bit of explanantion(s). Phillip 15:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Phillip, that religion and spirituality are nothing but mythology is a piece of dogma that is assumed and enforced on the article by all participants. My attempts to relieve the article of this dogma were met with derision and repression. — goethean ॐ 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Info! - I was sort of getting this impression and have better things to do than try to confince the 'powers that be' that they're missing half the picture. Phillip 22:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We do not "seek to ... participate in nature". We particpate in nature (weather affects us, seasons affect us, etc) regardless of whether we seek to participate in these occurances or not. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You appear to me to be rather Heavy Handed !!! There is alot more than what you realize in your simply putting things back >> Do you realize that you've have just thrown out all of Ethical behavior!

Perhaps you should UNDERSTAND the above commentary thoroughly and discuss this issue for ONE or TWO days > there has been substantial commentary and it seems you haven't got a clue as to what this is discussion about...

I'm putting it BACK. Talk - & discuss, then change. ps: I know that we don't SEEK to participate in Nature, this is the explain and manipulate part, learn how to focus your mind... Phillip 17:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, we do actually seek to participate in natural phenomena QUITE a LOT, and naturally we participate in natural phenomena whether or not we are seeking to do so too > that is: I seek to get some dinner so that I participate in the natural state of digestion; it seems that you imply this as well with your use of "irregardless" above. Phillip 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

ps: I hope nobody changes things any more without understanding the problem > I guess some people don't see what's right there before them, me included, which is why I had to add this on to my earlier...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PhillipLundberg (talk • contribs).

A start---

Phillip your current favored version is the following:

Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate or -for the latter 3 choices- participate in natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythology

I agree with the editor that reverted your edits that using the phrase "latter three" is a bit confusing. Mentioned are "desire to understand", "desire to influence", "seeking to explain" and "seeking to manipulate". I have bolded what I think you are referring to with respect to the latter three. The reason I am confused is that the way I read this, explain and manipulate are the actions of "understand" and influence, consequently, referring to the latter three is an odd turn of phrase since there appear to be only two concepts being discussed. The version that is currently in place reads as follows.

Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain or manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythology.

Now that I read the current version, I agree that "explain and manipulate" is better. What I do not understand is the need to include participate. Is this not directly implied by the use of the words understand and influence? Is it possible to explain and manipulate without participating? It seems to be redundant. David D. (Talk) 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

NO, - wrongo > I tried to make it as clear as I possibly could with the awkward phrase, the "latter" three are Philos.,Religion & Mythology - the first of the 4 being,of course, Science >> hence you have totally missed my point too. Though, then to, to understand something,INDEED, we do need to 'participate' in it in an essential way, a way that goes beyond our narrow prejudices. Let me study this a bit more and see if I can't find a better start. Phillip 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well this is exactly why we need to use the talk page. What is obvious to some is as clear as mud to others. But a start IS a start ;) David D. (Talk) 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if people would now leave it alone, I'd be happy to call it much more than a start,

we could call it an End! - because it's now as clear as day - not that the sentence which lumps science, philos, religion and mythology cannot help but be murky as deepest night. Phillip 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We participate in nature whether or not we have religion, mythology, ethics, science, philosophy, or any understanding of nature. Nature happens; nature happens to us and to everything around us. We participate in nature no matter what. Saying that any of these, or any subset of these, exists so that we can participate in nature is groundless. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WOOPs > I guess that we don't have a start after all, at least not with UtherSRG who still hasn't at all understood what all of the Hullaballoo is about. You only can only understand the nature of Religion by participating in it - those who don't participate, have nothing but explanations, hence nothing genuinely meaningful. I have been trying over and over and over again to wake others up to the Root Flaw and I can hardly believe that an open minded person could read ALL of the above and still come out and say that we all participate in nature > NATURE OF WHAT ?? - this is the issue, the lumping of the sort of understanding that is always on the outside and exists in the anthropologist/scientist is quite different from the sort of understanding that exists in a mystic. I am beginning to see the point that that Goethe individual was dead-on and I have been simply wasting my time, it's too bad that along with the mystic, we also lose any participation in the 'good' as this, obviously is one thing to one person, something else to another and has now become totally relative to....[fill in the blank with your explanations, the ever-changing edits]. I have no intentions of fixing the problem and leave it for good, bye, Phillip 01:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A naive question...

A question from a newcomer to the Human article: why doesn't this article have featured status? It is cleanly, concisely and elegantly written, and provides some of the best coverage of a complex subject that I have seen on Wikipedia. Killdevil 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This article was a featured article, and lost that status. You can see why by following the links in the box at the top of this talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/m/Talk%7EHuman_Archive_22_6c09.html"

Category: Talk archives