Talk:Human/Archive 3

message: I think a concise summary of the various POVs is:
#We are physical beings having a spiritual experience
#We are spiritual beings having a physical experience
#We are just physical beings
(Please someone tell me I'm wrong if there are other POVs that aren't in some way covered by these general POV classes.)
Inherent in all three POV classes is the parenthetical "(some of whom believe in the other two POVs)".  The only thing common in these is that we have a physical body, as I've said above in a reply to Tom. 
:Great.  Tom - Talk 18:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, but no.  You went from your POVs summary to suddenly dropping the second one again.  How is that you make that look so easy? :-) Tom - Talk 18:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. I wish I knew too. *grins* Could you point out in which part of this paragraph you think I dropped the second POV? what would you change to be more inclusive? - UtherSRG 18:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Full agreement. I've been busy at the other sections, but I haven't heard yet how well my proposed ToC structure is received. If we just fill in the present structure, the article will be quite long, but not unreasonably long (c.f. e.g. George W. Bush), the biology section making up for maybe 25-30%. The "religion" and "self reflection" sections could in principle go on forever, of course, and I do hope we will be able to agree on a bare minimum. Once we are there, we can begin "balanced exporting" i.e. moving material to "main articles" so that a balance between the section lengths is maintained. dab 14:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! - UtherSRG 15:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I think I agree with your summary, and mostly with how you think the article should be organized. Everyone agrees on the physical aspects, so those go upfront as being NPOV. The other positions might be lightly touched on, but should generally be placed in different articles, where appropriate. Kim Bruning 14:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: the third POV may even be superfluous, as even the most hardboiled secularist will acknowledge that spiritual experience, whatever that means, is being had by people, he will just chalk it up as abnormal neural activity. dab 14:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but it's there to show that there isn't a POV that says "We are just spiritual beings." - UtherSRG 15:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I specifically chose "experience" so that the POV classes (these aren't POVs, but classes of POVs) would be able to cover as much ground as possible with the fewest number of classes. I've numbered your additional suggestions and auto-numbered my originals. Your (1)&(4) and (2)&(5) are more specific than my 1. and 2. Your (3)&(6) could possibly qualify as a new class, where physical and spiritual are seen as equals. - UtherSRG 12:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I questioned "experience" as being something not intrinsic to a being.  For example, I may have a happy experience, but that may not make me a happy person.  Your classification would put those who believe spiritual experiences to be real (God spoke to me) with those who believe them to be unreal (God does not exist, so those who claim that God speaks to them are deluded or insane) in the same category.  JHCC 14:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The commonality that we agree that we are in a physical body. Your Constitution example isn't as valid as you make it out to be. It isn't a plant, although it was produced from several plants (to make the paper) and possible from animals as well (sepia for ink). If we wanted to talk about the evolution of the document, we'd be talking about the rewrites of the words; each rewrite being created on a (reasonably) identical piece of parchment. There is no POV that states that we are purely spiritual beings, with it also saying something about the physical bodies we inhabit (even JHCC's examples to the contrary recognize that our bodies have certain characteristics). - UtherSRG 12:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Points of view vary widely on whether humans are spiritual beings, physical beings, or any combination or continuum of the two.
Tom - Talk 19:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Hey! we have already the great "human beings are described in biological, spiritual and cultural terms". This covers all POVs discussed here, as long as it is taken to imply "differently by different people". I don't think we should stuff more than that into the lead section. There is the whole article body to make these points. Keep it simple! dab 10:54, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: the list is not "flawed" because "experience" is unclear, it is *great* precisely because of that. It is only thanks to this play of semantic fields that we can make true statements at all. "experience", like "have" can be used, and people can agree on sentences containing them, even if they have subly or radically different views on what the words really mean. If I say "I had a spiritual experience", it is an objective statement. If I say "God revealed himself to me" or "I have seen the common uncouscious" or "my neurotransmitters went berserk", it will be a controversial statement. dab 10:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! That was exactly the point I was making! - UtherSRG 12:17, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV roundup 

message: I have added a paragraph on adjectival use of human, as it's been on the todo list for some time. Please don't think I want to mess with the introduction, it can also be moved down to some paragraph, although it is customary to get this kind of word-use/dictionary stuff out of the way in the intro.
Now, it seems we have a problem. I searched english literature for the plural humans. It seems that in correct english, at least up to the early 20th century, human was not a noun at all, and humans is simply incorrect. The earliest occurrence of humans I could find are in Isaac Asimov, in science fiction stories involving robots, and possibly earlier attestations in very informal use "Gosh, Molly, we humans are a puny lot" and similar. I suspect there is a split of american and british english here, but humans sounded "science-ficticious" to me all the time. This may be the "encyclopedia that slashdot built" and we should consider if we really want the article to begin with this "uneducated" plural form. I don't want to be overly pedantic, but I think that an encyclopedia article, besides factual accuracy and NPOV does also have a responsibility towards correct language. If you think it's ridiculous to avoid humans as it's widely used, I think we should at least note that it's a recent term. dab 12:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of an adjective as a noun is nothing new, although the specific usage data for each such instance vary. Consider: "I have many balls. Some of them are red balls. I like all of the reds." or: "There are many beings. Some of them are human beings. I am a human." - UtherSRG 12:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: true. but even in your example, "I like all of the reds" is questionable style, compared to the more proper "I like all the red ones" (as is your "I am a human" compared to "I am human"). And actual occurrences in non-SF/Fantasy-literature seems to be always in rather informal context. Can I say "There are a lot of beings. Human beings and angelic beings; I like the humans better (meaning, I like the human ones better)"? This would still require that we start the article with "Human beings" and only later take up the adjective in the plural. I don't know. "human, humans" seems to be quite established, by now, maybe it is sufficient to add a note that we don't take responsibility if someone wants to use  the form in an english essay ;)  dab 12:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: hey, here is an afterthought: if it is common usage in biology to say "humans", while the form is frowned upon in "humanistic" circles, we could use this for disambiguation, like they did for Hebrew vs. Hebrews. dab 12:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. Perhaps. - UtherSRG 13:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: adjectival use

message: Hmm, not very detailed, here's taxo info for H.sapiens (from a random Swissprot OC field :-P). 
 OC   Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Euteleostomi;
 OC   Mammalia; Eutheria; Primates; Catarrhini; Hominidae; Homo.
Kim Bruning 12:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes? So? Your point is? And please sign your posts. - UtherSRG 12:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The taxonomy data presented might be a little old. I'm not going to change it until I figure out who thought them up though, I'd like to know the reasons for going with this layout before I'd propose to change it or not. Kim Bruning 12:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Ok. Your comment could have gone in another direction, and I get annoyed at non-signings. Ok. I'm the guy who keeps the Taxoboxes up-to-date for Primates (or at least, I'm the guy who created Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates), and I'm a participant in the revisioning of taxoboxes in general. Our general rule of thumb is to put  into the taxobox only the most pertinent info so that the box itself isn't so large that it overwhelms. So first, we start only with the basic taxon ranks (Kingdom, Phylum, etc.) and then add only those intermediary ranks that are needed to flesh out the description. In this case, adding the Homininae subfamily rank completed the listing to my satisfaction. I'm willing to add more if you think it's pertinent, but the listing as it stands can draw the reader in for a more indepth perusal. - UtherSRG 14:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah! So it's deliberate. Fair deal, won't propose changing it then. Hmm, though might be nice to have the full taxonomy stashed away someplace perhaps :-) . Kim Bruning 15:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with that is the fluidity of various points between the major rankings. The full taxonomy would have to list all the "holes" and "train wrecks" for where we have either no good data or too many conflicting understandings of the data we do have. For an example, take a look at Hominoidea. - UtherSRG 16:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox isn't too detailed

message: Ah - missed that bit.  Thanks, UtherSRG.  ClockworkTroll 02:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuppers! :) - UtherSRG 02:37, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I propose that we define a "scratch" area for this voting--where a scratch area is an area that can be edited by anybody and can be deleted after we have tried it to minimize the residual clutter to this page.  I further propose that part of this scratch area for this voting should be a rules section--a short statement of how we shall proceed with this "voting."  Accordingly, I will set out an example scratch area to see what you think. And feel free to edit the unsigned paragraphs in the following "scratch area."  ---Rednblu 15:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the vote could have waited a little bit. But note that it's only about finally settling where to put the taxobox, we are not even deciding between different wordings. In my opinion, the taxobox is a red herring that was distracting us far too long from the actual challenges of this article, and I'll be content to accept any of the proposed solutions. If you like, we could extend the voting period to two weeks (or longer). I think it's not unlikely that the emerging picture of votes will help to loosen the deadlock, without forcing anyone to swallow a completely unacceptable version dab 17:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could discuss UtherSRG's remarks above while the vote continues.  For example, I expect to change my votes as I learn more about the issues involved through what you and others bring to my attention.  dab's suggestion above gives me a week to shift my votes around. ---Rednblu 17:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I like.  And I agree and appreciate the comments of both of you.  Very insightful.  Tom 17:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote on the placement of the Taxobox 

message: ; Voting
Voting here shall be proportional voting, that is, everybody gets to vote "Support," "Object," or some other vote for each of the four options that dab suggested above, so everybody gets four votes.  The winner of the voting shall be the option that has the Highest score of (TotalSupportVotes minus TotalObjectVotes), where TotalSupportVotes is the count of votes that mean support.  These rules are guidelines.  And these rules are within the "Scratch Area" which means that any participant can edit these rules freely in an attempt to reach a consensus understanding that is better Human page than any of us individually could write for Human.
; Close of voting period
The voting period shall end at 24:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules for voting on the placement of the Taxobox 

message: ==== Support ====
# Support. This is the most likely reason a reader will be coming to this article, to find out about the physical human condition. - UtherSRG 15:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1: keep it at the top of [[Human]] 

message: # Support. This is the most likely reason a reader will be coming to this article, to find out about the physical human condition. - UtherSRG 15:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Object.  Putting the Taxobox at the top of Human clutters the introduction and inappropriately focuses on the Biology of humans.  ---Rednblu 15:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object 

message: # Comment. – at the moment, it seems that the taxobox and the Table of Contents will have roughly the same size. This would offer an additional possibility, as it were a compromise between options 1) and 2), namely placing the taxobox side-by-side with the ToC. This would save space, and while not presenting the status of the box as on a par with the lead section, it would still place it very prominently. dab 12:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: ==== Support ====
# Support.  For a balanced view, I think the Taxobox should appear on the Human page, but I think the Taxobox should not be at the top, because the Taxobox at the top makes the Biology part of human dominate the presentation too much.  ---Rednblu 15:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 2: move it to the biology section (at this point the first section after the intro) 

message: # Support.  For a balanced view, I think the Taxobox should appear on the Human page, but I think the Taxobox should not be at the top, because the Taxobox at the top makes the Biology part of human dominate the presentation too much.  ---Rednblu 15:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Object Let's keep this consistent with other articles on species of animals. Factitious 06:14, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
# Strongly object, need to be consistent with other animals. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object 

message: # Seeing page structure, if we really REALLY can't get option 1, then this is the fallback 2nd choice. Kim Bruning 21:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: ==== Support ====
# weakly support The summaries can indeed provide some "meat", and details are probably best covered in a comprehensive manner on separate pages. This would make it close to a disambiguation page, but with short summaries instead of just a list of links.
==== Object ====
# Object.  I think the Human page would be most useful if it provided summaries with some "meat," and I think the Taxobox is an important part of the "meat" that should be provided the reader in the Biology section of Human.  ---Rednblu 15:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 3: cut the biology section to a summary, move the full text to a separate [[Homo sapiens]] article, and move the taxobox there, too 

message: # Object.  I think the Human page would be most useful if it provided summaries with some "meat," and I think the Taxobox is an important part of the "meat" that should be provided the reader in the Biology section of Human.  ---Rednblu 15:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object 

message: ==== Support ====
# support, already because homo *means* human, we can hardly classify them as non-human. dab 16:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 4: same as above (taxobox to [[Homo sapiens]]), with more emphasis on extinct human subspecies, and the taxobox from [[Homo (genus)]] in the biology section. 

message: # support, already because homo *means* human, we can hardly classify them as non-human. dab 16:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Object strongly. This option divorces the biological aspect as far as possible from the cultural aspects of humanity and equating our biology with primitive states of being. - UtherSRG 16:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object 

message: # Comment. I understand that a "comment" is a wasted vote in not affecting the count of votes for Option 4.  In my opinion, the Homo (genus) page should be highlighted on the Human page if and only if there were substantial data on the "human" behavior of the extinct human subspecies.  But I don't think there is enough behavioral data :) to justify highlighting the Homo (genus)--except as part of the Biology section.  I will come back and change my votes later when I can look over the votes and reasons that everyone else makes and gives.  ---Rednblu 15:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: *Option 1 (taxobox on top) has 11 supporting and 6 objecting (score 5)
*Option 2 (taxobox to bio section) has 9 support and 1 objecting (score 8)
(not counting 'weak' votes, the result is 6:7) While this is not an overwhelmingly clear result, it is certainly justified to move the taxobox to the bio section for the time being. Does it also warrant the removal of the NPOV-warning? dab 11:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll outcome

message: [place after "Biology" heading, before "Physical Characteristics"]
Biologically, humans are defined as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens.  They are usually considered the only surviving species in the genus Homo.  In biology, humans are usually studied as one species among others, without special distinction.  The biological study of humans often extends to the psychological as well as the physical, but usually not to the spiritual or the religious.
:A reference to homo sapiens needs to stay in the intro, of course. In boldface, even, homo sapiens, if Homo sapiens is to be redirected here. mention of either homo (genus) or hominids is also desirable, lest biology  be under-represented... dab 09:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed to be moved to Biology

message: *I have moved "comparison to other species" from biology to self-reflection. This subsection reads much more like an essay than the rest of the biology stuff, and in the original "purely biological" article, it was the final paragraph. I think it fits much better into its present location, because its entire point is that these questions are "humanistic" rather than zoological. I have also slightly contracted it. The page now weighs 34k, and we should attempt to cut it down to maybe 32k maximum (this talk page is swollen to 169k again, time for another archive!)
*is "self-reflection" even a good title for the section? the word is slightly tautological but well attested (1E5 google hits).
dab 09:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-Reflection/Comparison to other species