Talk:Human/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Intro

As you'll see in the archives, it's been observed that not one credible or neutral encyclopedia defines human in spiritual terms or makes the claim that humans define themselves in spiritual terms in its intro. Nor is this a major theme in scholarly primary writings in anthropology as I've shown in the archives. But it is in theology and spiritual writings. Not being a major scholarly POV it does not belong in the intro. I, and I believe SV and likely Mel Etitis as well still object to that distinction being made. I'm rewriting that sentence. Again. FeloniousMonk 09:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopaedia of anthropology then? Is this article only about the anthropology of humans? Should we perhaps change the title? Some people do indeed hold the view that humans can and should be defined in "spiritual" terms. Very much so. No scientist will say, for instance, that God made man in His own image, but many, many millions, billions of people will say that that is a fact. Man alive! Most people will eat cows, pigs and sheep because they feel they lack something "spiritual". They distinguish man from beast in precisely those terms. I don't share their view. I don't say they're right. But I think it is entirely wrong to exclude it from an NPOV encyclopaedia, which, it has to be noted, is what this is and the "credible and 'neutral'" encyclopaedias you refer to are generally not. It is besides the point how the latter define humans by the way. Wikipedia is not merely a rewrite of Britannica but, I hope, something much more glorious, an inclusive summation of human views and human knowledge.Grace Note 09:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well said Grace Note. Why can't the summary simply state that some humans believe in a devine origin or higher power without naming any religions? And why should Wikipedia be the same as "everyone" else. I think it can be better. Again, you know where I stand personnally on religion. I don't particularly believe in it. But many of our readers do. Wjbean 12:50, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
I think what we have here is a question of aesthetics, rather than npov policy. i think that the intro would abide by npov with or without the sentence in question, for the good reasons stated by both sides. on the side of SV, FM, and ME, encyclopedias do in fact generally take their approach. on the side of Grace Note and WJBean et. al., we're not most encyclopedias, and the sentence is true, accurate, and relevent. Since (i believe) this is more a question of aesthetics then policy, perhaps we should simply take a vote and let the majority rule? Ungtss 13:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Is this an encyclopaedia of anthropology then?' Knowing that anthrolopolgy is the study of humanity - The scientific and humanistic study of man's present and past biological, linguistic, social, and cultural variations. - I'd have to say that is exactly what we are writing at this article. What is it you'd have us write about instead?
To that end, that many people do indeed believe that humans possess a soul is insufficient justification for alleging that humans are defined in spiritual terms is so central to understanding the topic of 'human' that it absolutely must be part of the article's opening sentence. An equally significant number of people also believe that humans possess chi, which they belief is a form of energy necessary for life. Should these beliefs be considered central to understanding what it is to be 'human' as well? If not, why not these but spirituality?
The fact remains that no other encyclopedia or primary anthropological text defines human thusly in its primary definition on the topic 'human.' I spent a number of evenings at the libraries of UC Berkeley verifying this fact. My research included, but was not limited to, the following significant and largely objective publications: the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, World Book Encyclopedia, Nelson's Encyclopaedia, and lastly, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Considering this, and that no one has yet provided a compelling justification for why wikipedia should should be the only putatively neutral and objective encyclopedia that makes defining human in spiritual terms central to its article, it is my position that despite there being large number of people who hold spiritual views, defining 'human' in spiritual terms is not a common academic or scholarly distinction and hence does not warrant mention in the first sentence of the intro, but is more appropriate to the Culture subsection of the article. I'm willing to reconsider my position if someone can provide even one neutral and significant encyclopedia that makes the position that 'humans are defined in spiritual terms' part of its article's intro and central to its primary definition. FeloniousMonk 04:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I tentatively suggest, again, that this issue is not one of may or may not, but of should or should not. you're absolutely right, FM. not even the catholic encyclopedia defines humans as spiritual in the intro -- it defines us as "rational animals." At the same time, there is no requirement that wikipedia limit itself to the practices of other encyclopedias. in fact, i can identify no wikipedia policy that would preclude the intro in question. it is attributed, it is accurate, and it is relevent. it is therefore not against the rules, although it may be qualitatively inferior to a version you might suggest. perhaps, then, to advance your case for an intro that does not refer to spirituality, you'd clarify why you think such an intro is inferior on the merits? Ungtss 04:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What is it you'd have us write about instead? I'm working on the "sum of all human knowledge". That includes views from outside science so far as I'm concerned. As for scholarliness, Pope John Paul II was something of a scholar and it was his belief that we were human on account of possessing souls. Of course, he didn't work for Britannica, so we probably should disregard his views.
To that end, that many people do indeed believe that humans possess a soul is insufficient justification for alleging that humans are defined in spiritual terms is so central to understanding the topic of 'human' that it absolutely must be part of the article's opening sentence. No. People do not just believe humans possess a soul. They believe that humans are not animals as such, because they possess a soul. They define them precisely in spiritual terms.
Your argument has boiled down to "other encyclopaedias don't do it". The stuff about other encyclopaedias leaves me entirely cold for the reasons I gave, which you have not addressed because you simply repeated your views again. I understand that you hold strong views and don't want to change them. That's not a problem. But you won't listen to others' views or seek compromise and that really is. Grace Note 05:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They believe that humans are not animals as such, because they possess a soul. They define them precisely in spiritual terms. The wp style guide states that the intro should a concise paragraph defining the topic. Defining the topic is not the same as a list of how disparate POVs define the topic. Hence what my argument actually boils down to is the only necessary and meaningful standard of evaluation for identifying the particular aspects of human for the purpose of defining the topic in the opening sentences is a strict correspondence to reality, not the number of people who adhere to a particular POV. That "other encyclopaedias don't do it" only reinforces my point. Claiming that that was my point was a red herring. Also, precisely how is talking past my point instead of addressing it not doing exactly what you accuse me of: "you won't listen to others' views or seek compromise"? Mine is a valid point that does not lose its gravitas just because you do not find it compelling. So it's not so much that I have strong views that I'm inflexible on as much as it is that you're ignoring a valid point. As for whether or not I'm actually not willing listen to other's views or seek compromise, as I said before, I'm willing to reconsider my position if someone can provide even one reference source that states what we are here in the intro, and I've not been editing the article against consensus, so your criticism is misplaced. FeloniousMonk 06:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vote no for a vote! I believe we should try to work out a consensus and not try to silence one another with votes. Both sides have given ground and worked for a compromise. Let's try to encompass objections. If it comes to "No, I will not give in. It's no sentence for me, period", that is the point where we have to consider our options. Don't tell me we're at that point because I don't believe that the editors you named are the sort who won't consider compromise (in fact, my apologies to the other two if I didn't see their doing the same, I saw SV say she didn't like the sentence but would not oppose its inclusion).Grace Note 03:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i share your sentiments. it appeared to me at the time i wrote the above that we'd reached the "point of no resolution" you were describing, and indeed, the battle over that sentence has been raging for weeks. ideally, of course, we'd all work together to find solutions that are agreeable all around. this course of action would require us all to take a deep breath, suck up our own pov, keep the rules in mind, and think creatively. Ungtss 03:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creations

I added a little bit extra to the beliefs about creation bit. There are many beliefs about creation and I think we can readily be a bit more inclusive by saying that people believe in creation by God and other superhuman beings. The Murri people here in Brisbane, for instance, believe that their ancestors dreamt the world. They might well turn out to be right, so why exclude them? Grace Note 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He he, right-o ~!
Sam Spade 06:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this sentence about the Murri people also be included in the section about religion? --Eleassar777 07:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can include anything you like but I'm not sure that including a great deal about creation myths is a good idea. Murri beliefs are more or less covered by animism, I think.Grace Note 07:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. I personally like this first sentence. It mentions the spiritual aspect at the very beginning without expounding upon that aspect. It does not add a great deal to the summary, but is inclusive. Also, humans are the ones defining themselves, which seems a bit conceited :o) but is also quite factual. Wjbean 13:06, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

heights of human activity

i'd like to propose that the intro would benefit from a brief sentence linking some of the heights of human activity. i think this because there are (at least) three aspects to humanity -- what we're made of (biology), what we think of ourselves (self-reflection), and what we do. and maybe it's my humanism leaking through, but i think humans are capable of doing some cool things that we'd do well to note in the intro. my draft sentence is this:

As a result of the capacities for language, abstract reasoning, and self-reflection, humans have the ability to engage in a number of activities, including science, philosophy, religion, art, medicine, and law.

by no means do i intend this as a final edit. I just thought it was a start. any thoughts? Ungtss 15:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Language and introspection

"Humans are distinguished from the other primates by ... a highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection." - 1) didn't a gorilla learn sign language? 2) Is speech, 3)language, 4)introspection, 5)abstract reasoning caused by a highly developed brain? Dwarf Kirlston 22:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the "language" bit because it is not closely defined here and it's easy for a reader to a/ do what you did and be led to think "hang on, haven't chimps learned sign language" and b/ think "hang on, don't bees and dolphins have 'languages'". With the sign language thing, it can be argued that chimps can't manipulate signs to create new meaning, which is distinctive of "language" as a human activity, but can only use them concretely. We can't ask a chimp how it interprets "want banana" and it can't easily explain with its very limited vocabulary what it is trying to express. Whether other animals have "languages" is purely a question of how you define "language". Some communicate but it would be more accurate to say they have "codes". Their codes are not generative, tend to express concrete meanings (bees, which have a complicated code, are only giving messages about food in simple terms; they don't, so far as we know, discuss philosophy).
So the answer is that "language" in this sense means the code humans use to communicate. It's incredibly difficult to define in terms that are neutral for all codes. Linguists argue over the definition day and night.
As for the second half, those things are taken to be results of our developed brain. Animals with less developed brains can be and have been shown not to employ abstract reasoning. Whether they are introspective is another matter, because, of course, they don't have the means we do to express it. Grace Note 23:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I saw a documentary once where a chimpanzee invented the word "firebottle" for a cigarette lighter. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
ITYMTS, "was report to have invented". It didn't invent it in front of your eyes. I'm very sceptical of that sort of claim. However, if you can source it, we can certainly take out the bit about abstract reasoning and language if you like ;-)Grace Note 01:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, s/he invented in on-camera. She was shown a cigarette lighter, asked what it was, didn't know, looked at it, saw what it did, and after lots of head scratching, pointed to the sign for fire and then to the sign for bottle. And later on kept asking for the firebottle. It was a very moving thing to watch. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I can't find a reference for firebottle, but here's one [1] (pdf) where there are other examples, including one from 1981 of a chimp who called a cigarette lighter either a match bottle or bottle match. Also, I know that chimps have taught human sign language to their children and some creativity has been noted there too. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'm very sceptical. One doesn't know whether the chimp was primed. I'm not saying it's not possible. I don't know. I know that cuing is controversial though and isn't a question that can be settled by one paper (especially since your guy generally dismisses Terrace without evidence). I'd be perfectly happy to see the part about our being distinguished from the other primates on account of our capacity for language etc taken out though. I don't think it's very accurate. We certainly use a richer language than other animals, including primates, but whether that is purely a result of the difference in our brain would have to be questionable. The bit about introspection is, as I noted, a bit dodgy because apes' not having written theses on philosophy might be a result of their lack of language rather than any lack of introspection. Who knows what apes think about themselves?Grace Note 02:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree about apes and introspection. "Humans are distinguished from the other primates by an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and by a highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection." Because of "distinguished from," we imply that apes aren't introspective. So how about:

Humans are bipedal primates with an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, a highly developed brain, and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions about any distinction from other animals. Like it. You need an "and" before "a highly developed" though. Grace Note 02:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have bipedal primate in the previous sentence, which I hadn't noticed, so the tweaked sentence is now: "Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain and consequent capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:52, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

taxonomy external link removed

I'm removing this link from the intro paragraph. The taxonomy it links to is significantly outdated. Folks can follow primate or any of the other wikilinks that preceeded the external link for more up-to-date classification information. - UtherSRG 21:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Is it really out of date? The reason I included the link is so that people could see which system I was referring to, because a difficulty I had when trying to write that sentence was in finding the most up-to-date classification (or most widely accepted). I thought that one would be okay because it's from a university. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tree shrews haven't been considered primates for several years now. Also, although tarsiersare prosimians, they are haplorrines and so more related to monkeys than they are to lemurs. Go to primate for the tree here on Wikipedia. - UtherSRG 21:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I had a look at Primate and Hominid and see you wrote quite a bit of the latter (I didn't look to see who wrote the first). They're both very good so I'm happy that you should edit those bits as you see fit. Thanks for improving it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - UtherSRG 22:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

multiple supreme beings

I reverted GraceNote's edit. There are some religions that believe in multiple dieties - aka supreme beings. - UtherSRG 22:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Name one. You are confusing "deity" with "supreme being". Take Greek mythology as your example. Hermes is a deity. Aphrodite is a deity. Zeus is the supreme being. Please leave my edit alone unless you can come up with a convincing rationale for changing it.Grace Note 23:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hinduism. --Goethean 23:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hinduism has deities and a supreme being. The deities are a reflection of the supreme being.Grace Note 23:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Drops it* --Goethean 00:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GraceNote, UtherG - Please do not enter into an edit war on this... Please note that this is only an intro, and as such brevity is of the essence. Let's keep it sweet and simple and let the other subsections develop and present all these issues. --Zappaz 23:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy trumps brevity. And I don't see the anti-religion folks bending over backwards to limit their verbiage. On the contrary. --Goethean 23:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think "let's keep it short and sweet" is a poor reason to exclude beliefs that you don't share. I added four words. I'm not going to edit-war over it. That's the last thing I want. I'm going to walk away. I gave good reason for my edit and explained it. I'll leave it to the other editors on this page to weigh our positions and decide. Grace Note 23:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ironic, that's exactly what I've just said about my point. FeloniousMonk 07:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note has both ancient Greek religion and Hinduism wrong, I'm afraid. In Greek religion, Zeus was certainly not a supreme being; there's a confusion here between being a leader of (or the most powerful of) the gods and being supreme in a wider sense (and Zeus wasn't even the first of the gods, much less a creator). Hinduism is far too complex to be described simply — indeed, it is often pointed out that it's a mistake to call Hinduism a religion, as it's actually a collection of related religions. Some Hindu schools refer to something that lies beyond or above the gods, suually referred to as Brahman, but this isn't a supreme being in the sense used above; it's neither personal nr even clearly an individual. Attempts by Christians, Muslims, and others trying to create or impose a syncretic religion, have tried to push Hinduism into a sort of disguised monotheism (and that has had an effect on some Hindu schools of thought), but those are external influences.

Besides, what about the Manichaeans (the religion, not the Christian 'heresy'), or Shinto? What about henotheistic or kathenotheistic religions?

On the other hand, if what is meant by 'supreme being' is something like Aquinas' or Descartes' maximally great or maximally perfect being, then there can only be one of those (as many writers, most notable Spinoza) have pointed out. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you who have what I suggested wrong and you have done so by persuasive definition. I did not suggest that either of Zeus or Brahman could be equated with the Christian god. I said they were "supreme beings". They illustrate, in fact, two different concepts of "supreme being" from the Christian one, which is, of course, why I chose them. I do not for one instant describe Zeus as a supreme being in the same sense that Allah is. He is though supreme among the Greek gods -- their leader. Brahman is a supreme being in a very real sense. He is the paramount being. He is often translated as "God" into English, by Hindus as well as non-Hindus. Yes, he cannot be conceived as a personal god in the way that Allah is. Far from it. What about Manichaeans? If you're actually trying to add something by namedropping them, maybe you'd enlighten us by telling us what you mean by it and how you feel it should be reflected in the text. The Manichees did not have a supreme being, so far as I know, but rather two competing forces, neither of which could establish supremacy. My understanding of henotheism is that it describes the Greek system but is sometimes applied to those forms of Christianity and Islam etc in which saints are worshipped and demons feared. I don't know what kathenotheistic religions are and I'm afraid my Greek fails me in that regard so I can't guess.

What about Shinto? Sorry, I just don't get your point. It certainly does not have a collection of supreme beings if that's what you're suggesting.Grace Note 00:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, I wasn't getting involved in the question of what should go into the article; I don't think that gods, etc., should be in there at all — we have a multitude of articles on religions of all sorts. the attempt to shoehorn them in here is the (perplexing) result of the besieging of this article by a number of PoV-pushing editors. As has been pointed out many times, other reputable reference works don't load their articles on "Human" with all that sort of thing, and for good reason.
With regard to Zeus, you shouldn't say "supreme being" if what you mean is "supreme member of a certain group (such as Greek gods)". That would allow me to say that I'm a supreme being if I'm the President of my local stamp-collecting club. Moreover, I'm unaware of Zeus ever being called the (or a) supreme being by the Greeks, nor Brahman by Hindus (except, perhaps, when trying to explain the concept to non-Hindus).
The accusation of name-dropping is rather bad-tempered and unfair. And, on your approach to Zeus, each Manichaean being can be called supreme (because it's the supreme good or the supreme bad being).
Henotheism is the belief in a multiplicity of gods, but the worship of only one (the Greeks weren't, but in fact the Manichaeans were henotheists (the limiting case), with a multiplicity of two). The one worshipped god might be picked out because it is seen as being especially powerful or important, and this is sometimes labelled monolatry; some Christian sects take this view of the Trinity, holding that only God the Father should be worshipped, Jesus and the Holy Spirit being distinct and lesser gods. On the other hand, different cultures might be seen as having each its own god, so that though other gods exist, they are worshipped each by members of their own peoples (as appears to have been the case at one stage of early Judaism). The distinction between the two versions of henotheism isn’t very clear-cut, as most people consider their own culture superior to others, and in the same way are very likely to hold that their culture’s god is more powerful or important than other gods. Kathenotheism is a similar sort of belief, but rather than worshipping one god throughout their lives, believers worship different gods at different times or in different places. Thus kathenotheism is a sort of serial henotheism.
On a number of dictioary definitions at which I've loked (to find common usage, rather than philosophical or theological usage), 'supreme being' is definied as something like 'most exalted being', which would mean that in both henotheism and kathenotheism there would be multiple supremem beings, either in parallel or serially — either most exalted by different groups, or by the same group at different times.
The reference to Shinto was that it's another case where there's no single supreme being, but a set of different gods and goddesses. Using the loose notion of 'supreme being' (as with your application of it to Zeus, or the even looser application to any deity), Shinto has a set of supreme beings.
But I did finish by making what I take was your point: that 'supreme being' in its normal (Abrahamic) religious acceptation can only apply to one being, as a simple matter of logic. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've just looked at the Wikipedia article on henotheism. It makes a number of mistakes, I'm afraid (and note that its claim that the ancient Greeks saw Zeus as the supreme being is based on a second-century C.E. Roman writer...). Its reference to Plato and Plotinus is also misleading. The article could do with a general overhaul. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Genetic similarity numbers

Not sure why my change from 98.5 to 95% genetic similarity to chimpanzees was reverted without even a counter-cite, but here is a more specific one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12368483 I'm open to counter-evidence, but as far as I can tell, the number to now use should be 95, not 98.5. Turnstep 13:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Turnstep, I did link to a source for the 98.5 per cent in the article [2]. Another reference here [3] (see below for extract); and here [4] (pdf) is a paper about the chimp genome project that says we differ by 1.2 per cent.

The 98.5 percent difference between humans and nonhuman primates is based on differences between the two genomes' sequences of the letters A, T, C and G, which stand for the nucleotides adenine, cytosine, thymine and guanine. When researchers sequence the DNA of a genome, they use a machine like Applied Biosystems' ABI Prism 3700 to determine the order of the nucleotides. The letters form base pairs (A always binds to T and C always binds to G) that link together to form the rungs on the ladder of the DNA double helix. [5]

I've seen the following paper cited often but don't have a link to it: Fujiyama, A. et al. (2002) "Construction and analysis of a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map. Science 295, 131-134.
Here's a general paper on comparative genome research [6]. I'm going to e-mail the National Human Genome Research Institute to ask about the percentage. It may take a few days to get an answer though. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I work at the NHGRI :) (but not on the chimp sequencing project). Although the chimp sequencing is done, the final comparison is not, but I think it will come out in the next few months, which should give us a better similarity number (depending on how one defined similar, of course). However, the most *recent* results still seem to indicate 95%, not 98.5%. If you look solely at proteins, the percentage is lower still. (As an aside, I am not attributing any importance to these percentages, I just want them to be as accurate as possible)

Feel free to email, though, they may already have a non-released number. If you don't hear back, let me know, I can do some investigating from this end. Turnstep 20:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you work there, Turnstep. In providing these links, I've been selling snow to the Innuit to some extent. :-) On one of the NHGRI articles I found discussing the chimp sequencing project, there was a name given in case anyone wanted more information, so I'm going to e-mail him and ask what the latest view is, and whether he can supply a reference. I gained the impression that, as you indicate, no importance should be attached to the percentage as such, but you're right that it should be accurate and well-sourced. If I don't hear back within a few days, I'll let you know. I find that organizations tend to be very responsive to Wikipedia requests, however. People like to help us. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I also meant to add: Turnstep, if you have expertise in this area, feel free to change it back to 95 per cent. I didn't realize that when I reverted you. If the NHGRI says anything else, we can always update it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! We don't normally say to editors: "The evidence that we have says this, but if you have expertiese, feel free to change it". Isn't that what Wikipedia:No original research is saying:

"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). They must also cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify).

I don't want to get too heavy on this, especially as this is a minor point, and I'm sure that Turnstep is what he says he is — but it would set a dangerous precedent (for the sort of thing I'm thinking of, see the first part of Talk:Atheism/dashes). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What can I say, indeed we don't take experts on their word. But in this case, the information is verifiable, or will be, in very short order. Worst case we could like even ask for lab notes ;-) . Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (but use common sense) seems to apply here, since it's common sense if someone has empirically checked this, that that will be the correct number then.
On a separate note, it'd be wierd but cool if labs were to start regularly using wikipedia to establish priority. Though some discussion as to what goes and doesn't go might be in order there. :-) Kim Bruning 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No worries, I'd like to see the number changed based on the link I submitted, not on who I claim to be or where I claim to work. :) Also, although I have experience with a few genomes, the chimpanzee is not one of them. I only mentioned my working for the NHGRI in the first place because I found it amusing that SlimVirgin was going to email them. In short, I'd like to see it changed to 95% if there are no current objections, but we can certainly wait a few days for a more official response. Turnstep 14:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I agree about expertise and original research, but Turnstep supplied a reference, and his expertise lay in being able to judge that it was a source worth citing, whereas I, with no expertise, was finding it hard to judge the quality of the sources I looked at. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough; I was replying to another point further up the page, glanced through this discussion, and tripped over your comment at the end. I should have checked what was going on more carefully, rather than rattling off my response. (The link that I supplied will give you an idea of the sort of experience I've had that makes me a touch sensitive on this isse.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No problem, Mel. You mean your link about dashes? I've always managed to steer clear of the m dash/n dash controversy, but perhaps it's time to wade in. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 15:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)