Talk:Human/Archive 15

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

General Dissention and Suggested Edits

Personally I feel that the inclusion of Emotion should be carefully considered. While Emotion is a part of human life, it can be argued that its signifigance is more mammalian than innately human. Furthermore, many would argue that emotion is socialised, that the idea of emotion can be reduced to a very few biological reactions and the list of taught reactions to social situations just elaboration on these biological reactions. Even this is open to contentious religious debate, as presently people can regard some emotions as of spiritual origin, and some emotions as debased.

While emotion is large in human life and human behavior, it might be better relegated to the subject of human behavior, rather than taking up any space in a discussion of humankind. We might as well discuss Human Behavior and Civilization so briefly too, if we discuss emotion bluntly and without qualifying statements.

In essence, I think the inclusion of emotion as a segment of this article is opening a philosophical kettle that isn't finished boiling yet, and to do Human Emotion justice, we would have to include so much of varying considerations and disputes that a short blurb wouldn't suffice, nor would it be helpful in describing humankind. I am considering deleting it and just may do so. Any such action may be reversed, at the discretion of other readers. (by anonymous antipath)

Firstly, please sign you "talk" edits with ~~~~ so we know who is talking. Secondly, I've reverted your removal of the "emotion" section. - UtherSRG 17:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
As to signing my talk edits... I see no reason to. As to reversing my removal, I urge you to actually discuss the reasons for keeping or removing it further. (revision: I am signing my statemetns as by "anonymous antipath" in this article discussion. apologies for my prior insistance on anonymity) (by anonymous antipath)
Might it be more effective to also mention credible and noteworthy studies on mammal and other animal capacity for emotion as it might pertain to human emotion? Emotion probably isn't solely a human trait, and most secular thought would have it a solely neural phenomenon, while other teachings would have that emotion is by varying extents of spiritual or organic source. Furthermore, emotion might not be regarded as a seperate sensation from any other neural process: differing inventories of emotions exist from culture to culture, and supposed properties of emotions differ too, even from person to person. As I stated earlier, emotion is a very tenuous and ethereal subject. (by anonymous antipath)
Also, why quote just a European writer on the subject, rather than other writers? Preference and bias are difficult to seperate from this issue, and it might be less biased to consider only what is considered sound and uncontraversial. Emotion has its own article, at any rate. To handle it briefly, without scrutiny nor discussion, in obvious discrimination against mentioning many strongly opposed outlooks, appears foolhardy and irrational. (by anonymous antipath)


Hey. A disturbing trend has been noticed in this article to prefer "philosophy of mind" and "psychology" to "neurology" and "psychiatry". The exploration of the human "mind" by us isn't so very important as our scientific exploration (although philosophy rather than any specific philosophy does deserve mention in the generalised ways that science and religion do). Also, no mention is made of scientific accomplishments of humankind, the supposed dates of the first civilizations, and the expansion of utilitarian domestication success (of guard animals, of mount animals, of herd animals) into non-utilitarian domestication (of "pets") for reason of sympathy and aesthetic. Also, our tendency to guess at far future situations, to second-guess our own future behavior and innovations, is different from the proclivity of predators and prey of wilderness tactics.

Should I ashamedly suggest that the article Human is to split into two seperate categories, Human Physiology and Culture, or to become a summarization of these plus Science and History? (above two paragraphs by anonymous antipath)[edit: also by anonymous antipath, who is almost always exhausted]

Good recent edits

I want to thank everyone, and especially users banno & goethean for their agreeable edits recently to both the article and the talk page. Things are really turning around on human! Sam Spade 18:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Sam. Banno

Hot Potatoes - Religions etc

Who honestly think that "humans are mainly characterised by their inferiority to the gods, sometimes reflected in a hierarchical society ruled by dynasties that claim divine descent." applies any less to monotheism than to polytheism? Except for the "gods" for "God", I grant. Religion is a hot button issue, yes it's true. But surely someone, anyone, can do better than that. Why not just use the first complete sentence of the polytheism article as a summary? Some harmony between related articles.

Overall I find the human article to be very heavily opinionated. And the discussion page reflects that. Why not leave the battles in their respective articles devoted to emotion, religion, polygamy etc?


DrCore Sep 02, 2005

Shorten

Yes, the article does need shortening. but removing a whole section without discussion is absurd. I've cut most of it back in, considerably shortening the religion section, cutting much out of the other sections. The following seems to me to be not needed:

Although many species are social, forming groups based on genetic ties, affection, self-defense, or shared food gathering and distribution, humans are distinguished by the variety and complexity of the institutions that they form, both for individual and group survival and for the preservation and development of technology and knowledge. Group identity and acceptance can exert a powerful influence on individual behaviour, yet humans are also able to form and adapt to new groups. An individual may develop strong feelings of loyalty towards such groups. Sociology is the science that describes the interaction of human beings, while cultural anthropology describes different human societies. The human individual often develops a particularly strong attachment to a small group, typically including his closest biological relatives: his mother, father, and siblings. A similarly strong attachment may be forged with a small group of equals, resulting in peer groups of individuals of similar age, typically of the size of ten to twenty individuals, possibly related to the optimal size of a hunting party. Group dynamics and peer pressure may substantially influence the behaviour of group members. (See also Asch conformity experiments.) Larger groups of humans can be unified by notions of common ancestry (tribes, ethnicities, nations) or common geographical location and material interests (states), which are often further divided into social classes and hierarchical structures. A tribe may consist of a few hundred individuals, while the largest modern state, China, contains over a billion. Violent conflicts between states are called wars. Loyalty to a larger group of this type is called nationalism or patriotism. In extreme cases, feelings of loyalty towards an institution or authority can become pathological, leading to mass hysteria or fascism. (See also Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment.)

Banno 02:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I also find it to be POV. Sam Spade 15:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monism, dualism and pluralism

This section could be cut back considerable as well. Banno 02:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, this section was recently overhauled and drastically improved, by myself as well as Mel Etitis. If reductions need to be made, please focus on the older and larger sections, like Classification and evolution, Life cycle, or Habitat. Frankly i don't see this article getting shorter tho, the 32k size restriction is no longer in force, and this article more so than any other will always be prone to growth. Sam Spade 15:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heck, if you look at the todo list, its still calling for more expansion ;) Sam Spade 15:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Banno that this section needs to be cut back considerably. We need a short mention on Monism and Dualism in balance with other subsections. I also think that the likeness of Adi Shankara adds no value to the article. I have removed it. ALso note that the entry on Monism is narrowly focused on the Hindu aspects of Monism only. See Monism ≈ jossi ≈ June 29, 2005 14:47 (UTC)

If you think the article is too big, a good first step would be to change the todo list. Then we should look for large sections which can be merged elsewhere, or made into spin off articles. But deleting an image and two paragraphs of information regarding the goal of being for billions of people? Not an acceptable compromise. I left your reference to atheistic monism, despite certain objections I have to it, but I frankly cannot understand how you could think that Adi Shankara and his dialectic's are anything other than directly applicable to the subject of being human, particularly on the english wiki. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 29 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There is already an article on Monism and another on Adi Shankara. In this article we need just need a summary on Monism, Pluralism, etc., with wiki links to apropriate articles. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ June 29, 2005 15:37 (UTC)

"Types of Monism include: Physicalism or materialism, which holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental can be reduced to the physical, Idealism or phenomenalism, which holds the converse, and Neutral monism, which holds that both the mental and the physical can be reduced to some sort of third substance, or energy"

That is simply inaccurate, and particularly POV in substitution of Shankara's argument. Reverting my compromise, rather than creating another, was disrespectful in my view, btw. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 29 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)
Regardless, I have to agree with jossi, the monism, dualism and pluralism takes up a disproportionate amount of the article's real estate. As it is, as a sub-heading of the topic of Consciousness, the monism, dualism and pluralism bits imply that they are sum of most thinking on that topic, a fact not reflected in the Consciousness main article. Some careful pruning would seem to be in order. FeloniousMonk 29 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)

There are profound difficulties with the section. The main section contains unnecessary links (consciousness, one, combination), but does not link to Monism, Dualism & Pluralism! Unlike Ontology, Epistemology is not a branch of metaphysics. The list of opinions about essences is interesting, but is only an excuse for a bunch of links, providing no material. It could be re-worded into an explanation of the various ideas.

The subsection on Monism is too short in comparison to dualism - they should be of around equal length. It does not mention materialism.

The section on Dualism is curious. No links to Descartes, but a link to Spinoza? Why? There are no links to Cartesian dualism; in fact, that paragraph could be removed to make this section a similar length to Monism.

The pluralism sun-section says nothing useful, again it is just a set of links.

But the main problem is conceptual. Genuine distinctions and conceptual problems are hidden in the present structure. For instance, the distinction mind/body/soul is hidden in this section; it really has little to do with the dualism/monism debate, yet someone looking at this article would presume that they are related. At the least, an explanation of why mind/body/soul is placed in this section would be useful. But the same goes for ID, Ego, and Superego; for animal, human and God and so on. These are important to the discussion of consciousness, but are only in a superficial way related to the monism/dualism/pluralism discussion.

This section simply does not fit in well with the remainder of the article. Banno July 3, 2005 20:17 (UTC)

From the article:

Property dualism asserts that, rather than two kinds of substance, there are two kinds of property

What, mine and yours? Real estate and personal property? ;-) Banno July 3, 2005 20:23 (UTC)

I agree. IMO it was doing well until recent edits. I'll see what I can do. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 3 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)

I'll see if I can shorten it now, can you, Banno, or others, work on making other suggested improvements in style and flow? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 3 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
Sam, I think the basic structure flawed. I've edited it so as to reflect what I think should appear in that place in the article, in the process considerable shortening it. Usually one should C&P such a removal to talk, but knowing that you are a competent user, I'll leave it out; if you wish to move any material that you think is essential, and that I have left out, please just take it from the history. Banno July 4, 2005 09:27 (UTC)
I can accept the current version. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 4 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

Pending tasks

From the task box:

  • Write section on pursuit of happiness?
  • Settle issues relating to religion and spirituality

The first is perhaps symptomatic of U.S bias. The second can be done right after we establish world peace and freedom from oppression.

Now the task list looks more manageable. Banno July 3, 2005 19:51 (UTC)

I should hope that the goal of happiness (hedonism) is more than just an american pursuit! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 4 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

polyandry

In some cultures it may be acceptable for a man to have many wives, while in others bigamy or polygamy is frowned upon.

vrs.

In some cultures it may be acceptable for a man to have many wives (polygyny); in a few others, a woman may have many husbands (polyandry); in many others, bigamy or polygamy is entirely frowned upon.

I think the first is better for this article. The second exagerates the occurance of polyandry (to my knowledge a total of 1 culture practices this, a tiny tribe in india) as well as the unpopularity of bigamy (it and polygamy are popular thruout the third world, and have inroads and historical context in western nations as well). ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 4 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)


Do you dispute the information in the polyandry article, which lists several different societies in which polyandry is known to occur? (For one thing, the polyandry practiced in several regions of Tibet is much, much better known and studied than the Indian tribe you mention.)
Now, I do think that the current version of the article - In some cultures it may be acceptable for a man to have many wives (polygyny) or in other cultures for a woman may have many husbands (polyandry) - is misleading, in that it implies that both forms are equally prevalent. However, the original statement - In some cultures it may be acceptable for a man to have many wives, while in others bigamy or polygamy is frowned upon is at least equally misleading; it implies that for a society to accept polyandry is so out of the question as to not be worth mentioning, which is simply untrue. Those societies are certainly rare, but by no means unknown.
I do also agree that we shouldn't overstate the unpopularity of polygyny; the polygamy article notes that polygynous societies outnumber monogamous ones by about four to one, even though most people today probably live in monogamous societies. 68.226.239.73
I made the last edit, and cut out mass strings of words, my reasoning is very simple: "Who cares?" And what I mean by that is we don't need to specify what is more frequent than others. First off, the statistics are hard to corrleate. Secondly, the majority is monogomy and that is clearly staed, third, readers are not stupid. Without the claim "these numbers are equal" they will CLICK ON THE WIKILINKS AND FIGURE IT OUT THEMSELVES.
Our primary duty here is to have a readable well written article. I do not think by not putting in the words "But this is not to say that wikipedia thinks that pologyandry is equally common as pologamy, nor do we endorse any of these societal norms." is needed. While thats not exactly what your criticisms are, that is rather close to what they amount too.
In summary, this is my argument: Readers aren't stupid.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)

And my argument "who cares about this?" This is a big article on a broad subject. To be frank, sheep shagging occurs more often than pologyandry, shall we find a way to mention that too? There simply isn't a need for this to be mentioned in this article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

That's true, there's no particular need to mention it. There's also no need to specify polygyny as though it were somehow the only possible form of polygamy. The current edit reflects this by not getting into gender breakdowns. Hope everyone can deal with that.
I also note that the article on polyandry lists several societies that consider it an acceptable practice, while the article on zoophilia lists no cultures that approve of "sheep-shagging." If you have breaking new evidence on the frequency of one of these phenomena, you may want to bring it up with those articles. :) 68.226.239.73
Actually, human sexuality is intresting and encyclopedic. I don't know of another species that has such varied sexual practices, or such a division of cultures. For that matter, I don't know of another species with culture >.> Mating habits (sexuality) is important in all species. Tells us how they mate. The fact that the majority of humans move in primarly monogamous patterns is intresting, but even more intresting the amount that breaks from the species norm.--Tznkai 6 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

Not a bad edit. I made another, have a look. As far as all this wacky sex stuff, I'd prefer we just use a broad link, like alternative sexuality or paraphilia, rather than try listing them all ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Ahem. Polyandry often occurs in rural areas of Asia, inclusive of India. Fraternal polyandry is often considered permissible there, with two brothers marrying the same woman. However, I would wager that it's best to include polyandry as a possible permutation of human sexuality, a permutation which occurs, for whatever reason rarely.

The word "people"

What does this paragraph have to do with the article? I think it would better fit in the "people" article (though that is a disambiguation page) or perhaps on Wiktionary. It definitely strikes me as an oddity to see it in the "Homo sapiens" article. LjL 5 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

I agree. I deleted it It was put back. I encouage others to delete it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the "people" defintion section is only a definition. 4.250.168.117 07:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Monogamy

I am uncertain as to if the majority of people do indeed practice monagamy, and dubious about anyones ability to verify that. In my academic studies, I have seen rather striking evidence that extra-marital affairs are quite commonplace. There are also a large number of singles who play the field, as well as a hearty number of polygamists from Muslim and indiginous backgrounds. Additionally, if we are to take into account the historical perspective, everyone from Christians to Jews to pagans accross the map engaged in polygamy, pederasty, and who knows what else. How about we just leave the emphasis on monogamy where it is now? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

I think the sucess rate of monogomy is not quite the point. The social norm dictates that monogomy is the most ok, but in a simpler sence, imagining if we were little green men watching from outspace, the majoirty of human beings seem to break off into monogomous pairs. I remerber hearing evidence that even mate for life birds occasionally stray from "true" fidelity and monogomy, but they do still pair in one male one female. I think its worth noting anyway--Tznkai 6 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
The problem is, i don't agree that people usually do that. In your culture and mine perhaps, but over all? I'd have to see some mighty evidence. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
Well, I won't reinstate the edit since my edit summary said "I think this is reasonable" meaning I didn't feel it needed to be supported by a refrence. Since you do, I will not repost it until I have some refrences. As for most, I have very little doubt in my assertion. Approximatly one sixth of the world is Chinese, a fairly secular culture with historical marriage systems involving the transfer of a woman from one family to her husbands. The modern chinese system I believe even has laws against bigomy. Cultures influenced by abrahamic religions seem to be monogomous. Most populated countries are, what? India, Russia, US, Various parts of europe, China, all as I recall have monogomy as a social norm and as I mentioned as individual mating pairs. While I do not doubt that there is plenty of straying (oh gods there is) the primary association pattern is still monogomous. Will dig up refrences when I have time (hopefully within the week)--Tznkai 7 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do the same. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

Prior to colonialism, sexuality and gender varied greatly among Asians. Among the Bugis people, now part of the Indonesian nation, a third gender consisting of men dressed in women’s clothes-- akin to the Native-American Berdache--was accepted. The Minangkabao people, also now part of Indonesia, were a matrilineal society. Among the Chinese, polygamy was practiced. Everyone lived in families that were multi-generational. I do not mean to suggest that these arrangements are better, but the situation was more diverse and complex. Homogeneity came with the advent of colonialism and industrial capitalism—and abetted by Protestantism, Max Weber would say—so that today sexuality, and family and gender roles have become monogamous, patriarchal, single-generational, and exclusively heterosexual.

AMONG MANY PEOPLES OF THE WORLD, ESPECIALLY THE SOUTH CHINESE, POLYGAMY IS FREQUENTLY FOUND. THE PRACTICE HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE CHINESE CONCERN FOR HEIRS. If a man had no progeny his legal wife, he took another and a third if the second failed to come up to expectations...

Monogamy#Human_monogamy

The myth of monogamy

[1]

Some very intresting resources. Partiucualry martiabachelor which has a horrific format. The myth of monogomy is a great article. I think we need to clarify then if monogomy is defined as a pair-bonding (social monogomy) a primary system (mostly monogomous, with infedelity on the side), or an exclusive system (sex with only one mate, anything outside of that fails to qualify as monogomy. Finally then, which does the social norm refer to?--Tznkai 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I think were on a fast train to some rather brilliant and fascinating original research. Sex being such a.. sexy subject, we could probably even get a research grant. My guess is that since nearly every culture has its own ideosyncratic sexual mores and taboo's, human being probably have very few concrete instincts and objective, non-cultural behaviours on the subject. Obviously the pursuit of intercourse and intimacy, and the desire to protect and nurture ones offspring must be there, or we'd never have gotten so far as we have, but.. beyond that? I'd love to see an impressive, comprehensive study done on the subject, but despite my research (I'm a psyche major, w alot of interest in sociology) I am unaware of one. My thought is to leave the article vague on the subject, or cite some of little research avalable. Maybe I'll put it in the running for my masters thesis ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
The mention that monogomy is the majority probably isn't as important as noting that sexuality seems to be responsive to both social norms and biology. Think we can find a refrence to back that statement up?--Tznkai 7 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
Absolutely, and we won't need one unless someone disputes it, which I certainly won't. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 7 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Here are a couple of links [2],[3]. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia covering sex subjects is that the average contributor is a twenty year old male. Sam, think of the difference between now and your first contributions to wikipedia. Now add thirty years. Humans. Monogomous? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah. 4.250.168.117 07:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Humans are faithful to their spouse, loyal to their government, believe in their religion, honest to their friends, trustworthy to their business partners, and pray for peace to their God in Heaven. Really. Would I lie to you? 4.250.168.117 07:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Confused

I do not see the reason to include the Emotion portion of the Human article. Really. It's kinda extraneous, and doesn't make as much sense in position as "Civilization" or "Behavior" or even "Favorite Sports". I do believe it deserves a reason to keep it or throw it away. The reason to throw it away is that as put, it's not really a part of a generalized view of the human organism in the breadth that is being attempted here. -- anonymous

I just got to this article and I saw that their's a banner for this article stating that it isn't neutral. Then I read through most of the article. I don't see what the problem is, if someone could point it out to me, that would be great, thanks!--Moosh88 07:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

One group of editors believe that the article should contain a great deal of material on religion (and, more vaguely, "spirituality"); others disagree. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Moosh88 has a point - it is not at all clear why the POV banner is there. Whoever placed it should state the reason clearly in a separate section in talk. Banno 12:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Concerns over the inclusion of "spiritual" outlook and "science of mind" might indeed be resolved through consideration of critical articles describing Scientology, a faith that focuses on spiritual interpetation of human psychology (of course many a faith does), and aggressive tactics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Controversy_and_criticism

Virtually the whole Talk page and its archives constitute an explanation of the presence of the template. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else agrees w you mel. Could you please explain your self in detail, rather than advising us to review the archives (which I have more than read btw, I have experienced and contributed to ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait to get another response or two before I accept that no-one else agrees with me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, thanks for fixing my poor grammar - my original copy is the better. But I have to agree with Sam. It is clear that there are many issues in this article that are considered POV; the question is, which particular ones have elicited the present POV banner - unless we know this, we cannot fix 'em. So, that's three who want to know - Moosh88, Sam and myself.Banno 12:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, the standard of conduct for using the {{NPOV}} flag requires you list specific addressable fixable complaints. Telling everyone else to go on a scavenger hunt is unfair and disengenous.--Tznkai 13:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any major problems with the article. --goethean ॐ 14:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Anon's additions

I've reverted an anon editor's additions to the article on the grounds of inaccuracy and irrelevance (some one, some the other, some both). He or she has put them back with an edit summary demanding that I supply sources mdash; this involves and odd understanding of the burden of proof. Could we have sources for the additions? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

From what I see the anon is deleting statements and asking for you to provide a citation for them. You appear to be restoring the statements without citation. Am I missing something here? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sam is right. Mel has confused himself. I deleted what I consider to be in error. Mel restored. I asked for sources. Mel wrote the above. Sam wrote the above. I am writing this. 4.250.33.21 03:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't appear to be confused, I was confused (with another article which i was editing at the same time). Could the anon give the reasons for disagreeing with the excised sections, given that some of them, at least, are widely agreed upon by scientists (especially that concerning obesity)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, regardless of his reasoning, I would like to see the citations. Since this is widely agreed upon by scientists, they shouldn't be hard to find. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You say "widely agreed upon by scientists". I disagree and shouldn't have to take your word for it. If you are right then Sam is right in saying "shouldn't be hard to find". This is exactly the "burden of proof" you refered to earlier. Cite sources, please. This is not a "prove water is wet" request (altho if someone honestly believed there was a wetability issue based on the temperature and pressure of the water sample in question, a cite would be useful). If a source for a claim is requested and not found, maybe the claim isn't true after all and shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Many times, I have thought one thing, tried to prove it, and proved the opposite to myself. 4.250.168.141 01:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Which is one of the benefits of reviewing research and books of reference... you have the joy of discovering you are wrong, and changing your mind (sometimes ;) I've certainly had it happen. In any case, lets have a look at the claims:
  • The loss of hair in early humans was complemented by the darkening of human skin color.
  • While the darkening of skin among humans in the tropics is likely the result of natural selection, it is less definite that the lightening of skin (e.g., among Europeans) is the result of selection.
  • On average, women have slightly lighter skin than men.
  • Humans are also more likely than other primates to suffer from obesity because of poor diet and lack of exercise.
The first sounds possible, but unlikely (you obviously havn't seen me in my shorts). The second is clearly conjecture, but could also be cited. The third I have actually heard before, regarding african american women, but I am unsure of its accuracy (my guess is that lighter skinned women are better appreciated by the media, and thus we see more of them). And the last... thats pure POV. You could cite someone saying it, but its certainly not something the narrative can claim. Sure, we're more likely to be obese than the average wild lemur, but how about the orang I saw at the zoo? He was well out of my weight class, and didn't appear to be getting much excersize either, despite his fancy climbing equipment and swinging tyre ;) The way fatness is percieved is largely circumstantial, and it is perfectly valid to say we are fat because we are successful, and that other creatures starve due to their failings. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry not to return to this sooner (and not to have much to say yet either). One thing, though; citing a primate kept in a zoo can't be relevant to the passage in the text (any more than would citing human athletes, or prisoners of war working on the Burma Railway in World War II). I'll try to get back with something more substantial soon, though (even if it's only an admission that I'm wrong). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, my personal orang story is unworthy of the article namespace, as is the bit about me in my shorts XD I do appreciate your civility and admission of the possiblity of error, which I find heartening, considering it one of the finer traits of a wikipedian (and general debating opponant as well ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

For the first three claims about skin color, see Jablonski, Nina G., and George Chaplin. 2000. "The evolution of human skin coloration." Journal of Human Evolution 39: 57-106 [4] The abstract of that paper says:
The earliest members of the hominid lineage probably had a mostly unpigmented or lightly pigmented integument covered with dark black hair, similar to that of the modern chimpanzee. The evolution of a naked, darkly pigmented integument occurred early in the evolution of the genus Homo. ... As hominids migrated outside of the tropics, varying degrees of depigmentation evolved in order to permit UVB-induced synthesis of previtamin D3. The lighter color of female skin may be required to permit synthesis of the relatively higher amounts of vitamin D3 necessary during pregnancy and lactation.
The article goes on to discuss each of these claims in detail, with references. The Wikipedia article on human skin color has a discussion of the Jablonski & Chaplin paper and other research on the subject.
I don't know of any evidence to support the claim about obesity. Gdr 20:46:56, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

Wow, thanx, good looking out! Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

rv to last edit by RV

Hey Mel Etitis, I'd appreciate a bit more explanation than the above for a revert like [5]. Actually, no amount of explanation would have been sufficient, since it was not a place to revert, but rather to discuss and edit towards compromise. Careful with those guns, the wikipedia is not a place to shoot first, and ask questions never, esp. in regards to reverting multiple editors in their non-vandalism edits. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

We've been though this before, which was why I didn't bother explaining. You know full well that different pantheists have all sorts of beliefs about the nature of human beings in relation to god or the world; your change was tendentious and PoV. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed nothing to the description of pantheism, rather I restored the concensus version hammered out months ago, which you alone periodically revert. That said, you also reverted spelling correctuons and a variety of other info. Please show more concern for the group editing process. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. Could you point me to the place where this consensus was reached? "Months ago" isn't terribly useful. I'd also be interested in diffs for my periodic reversions.
  2. In any case, what does consensus have to do with the truth (and we are committed to getting things right — or do you think that the process is more important than the result)? The simple fact, verifiable from numerous sources, is that the description that you inserted: "Pantheism holds that human beings, as spiritual beings interwoven into a spiritual universe, are a part of God, who is completely immanent" is true only of some varieties of pantheism, and even then over-simplified when applied to most of them. The reason for the oversimplification is pretty obvious, of course. Discussion of religion, and of pantheism in particular, is out of place in this article, but in order to try to make it look otherwise you try to describe pantheism in a way that makes human beings central to it (which is itself a distortion). Your own views then distort the picture further by making "spirituality" (that fuzzy term) central in a way that many if not most pantheists don't.
  3. My revert also removed the almost incomprehensible: "However, in the stretch of human discourse on emotion, the case of pleasance or unpleasance of any emotion is often brought to question, or even question the existence of emotion as a distinct and important sensation" and the slightly clearer but still peculiar: "leading to the categorization of sexual interest as accepted norm, taboo, marginally allowed behavior, or a neutral seeming variant (see alternative sexuality)." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

While it's only my opinion, here is my opinion: Mel's edits are better than Sam's in this instance here on Human and Sam's edit is better than the one Mel prefers in the currently frozen Racialism article. WAS 4.250 15:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, lets look them over:

I obviously prefer the first, but I even more strongly disagree with reverting multiple editors making multiple non-vandalism edits to different sections. Reverting my correction of Omar Khayyám was not a proper usage of the revert function, by any stretch. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 20:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hindu monotheism

It's not at all clear, as a recent edit claimed, that Hinduism was originally monotheistic. Some people interpret parts of the Veda as being monotheistic, but this usually involves taking certain parts out of context, confusing monism with monotheism, or reading monotheism into what's actually there (I'm often reminded of von Däniken seeing spacemen in Inca carvings, etc.). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

you are being nice, Mel, it is in fact very clear that the Vedas are an archetypical model of polytheism. If the Vedic religion isn't a polytheistic religion, I have my doubts there has ever been one at all. Ideas of pantheism arise with the Vedanta. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I should've used the talk page before making changes.. since obviously there are folks in discussion that are knowledgable in this area. Also, I have to admit that I don't know the isms and the vedas as well. Firtly, Mel Etitis comment "confusing monism with monotheism" is taken into account in the line where there is a clarification that monotheism is present in the form of monism in Hinduism. Secondly, Upanishads are a part of the Vedas and has not only pantheism but verses that speak clearly of monism (verses about a 'One'). Also vedanta includes Advaita, and Vishista advaita which are monistic. Thirdly, why does the article on human need to be concerned with the history of development of Hinduism. Monism is atleast as old as the Upanishads or Adi Shankaracharya and is an intergral part of Hinduism today. Why the misleading sentence? I don't think we need to mention 'later development' to negate any acheivements of Hinduism or need to atleast mention the age of the concept. To give some background, I am reacting against negative asides given with positive things said about Hinduism. --Pranathi 20:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
if you check out the articles you just linked to yourself, you will learn that the Upanishads are not a part of the Vedas. They are shruti, but that's not the same. They are part of Vedanta. We can find a different wording from 'later development' if you think that it sounds dismissive, but we may not equate Vedas and Vedanta. 20:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I was going by the division of each Veda, into the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas, and the Upanishads. See the 'four books..' in Veda. But they are all not the same age as the Samhitas - the main portion- and may be why they are sometimes classified separately. More confusion is added by classifying advaita and such along with the Upanishads as Vedanta, where they are really derivatives of vedanta (Upanishads), the more I think about it.(Either the articles are contradicory/incorrect or there are different ways of looking at it) Also, see 'views of the vedas' in Veda for monism in samhitas also. But I am digressing.. My initial thoughts are to take out the 'later developments' or to add the age (will have to be an estimate and IMO is unnecessary to main article) as an aside. Any other suggestions? --Pranathi 23:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I see. well frankly I don't see any reason to mention the Upanishads here at all. this is the Human article, not the Mind article, and not the Monism article. Since the Mind section here is supposed to summarize the Mind article, you would expect something alont the lines of
The mind is the term most commonly used to describe the higher functions of the human brain, particularly those of which humans are subjectively conscious, such as personality, thought, reason, memory, intelligence and emotion. Although other species of animals share some of these mental capacities, the term is usually used only in relation to humans. It is also used in relation to postulated supernatural beings to which human-like qualities are ascribed, as in the expression "the mind of God."

(the Mind lead). It is simply weird (and a violation of the "principle of least surprise") that the Human article should start rambling about 8th century Hindu philosophers and scriptures suddenly. Note that Shankara or the Upanishads are mentioned nowhere at all on the Mind article. Why people would try to feature him here, prominently, without bothering to improve the Mind article first, I don't know. As for "Vedas", no you cannot call the Brahmanas "part of the Veda" just because it is associated with a Veda. As for "Monistic currents in the Samhitas", I am prepared to speculate that there are early beginnings, but that's very much in the eye of the beholder, and the Human article is certainly not a place for philological discussion of ancient Indian texts. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that further explanation is irrelevant to main article. I will remove the 'later developed' phrase shortly. --Pranathi 22:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)