Talk:Human/to do

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the section on language statistics would be closer to the truth if you add the secondary speaker populations to the primary speaker populations of each language. In doing so you get the following (and I believe more accurate) list: (number of speakers in parentheses)

Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion) English (480 million) Spanish (320 million) Russian (285 million) French (265 million) Hindi/Urdu (250 million) Arabic (221 million) Portuguese (188 million) Bengali (185 million) Japanese (133 million) German (109 million)

Race and Ethnicity

So this part leaves one hanging, instead of discussing race and ethnicity, why does it prefer to talk about the origins of humans and not anything else about race and ethnicity. It first states that some humans may identify themselves with race or ethnicity, but it never really talks about it. Why is racism being mentioned here anyway?

Origin of Humans

I recently read that the earliest human skull identical to our own is about about 90,000 years old. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article. Also the article should explicitly state the age of our subspecies H. s. sapiens.

I disagree. This sub-species name no longer exists. It was used to distinguish us from homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Neanderthals are now thought to have been a different species - homo nealderthalensis, and we are homo sapiens Orlando098 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we are H. s. sapiens. There is at least one other subspeices: H. s. idaltu. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)