Talk:Human/Archive 19

message: The human race "Mugshots" picture is of a very poor quality. In fact, this picture depicts criminals.  They just look weird. Do they represent their races properly? You must be kidding! Also, FBI in the context of the human race? Do you think it's appropriate? KGB maybe also, as reflecting another "universal" side of the human race? 
Enough rhetorical questions! In my opinion, the picture is to be removed.  What do you think? --67.49.208.202 05:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. I'm sure there are pictures in wikimedia etc.  We could start linking them on here to select those of interest to everyone. David D. (Talk) 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also think it's an excellent idea. Although, I can see controversy erupting over what is counted as a race and what isn't. At least with the FBI shots, it shows what one human group (the FBI) considers what is and isn't a race. Ashmoo 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Possibly we just replicate the FBI shot with regard to race and gender.  Then it should be objective. David D. (Talk) 07:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this a joke? Somehow I doubt the FBI are the all time experts on racial types and that average people here couldn't replicate the image with better pictures. What we have now is a picture of a bunch of slags and rapists, we should be using every excuse we can to get rid of that thing from the article. --Deglr6328 10:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I removed the offensive image, and will keep removing it if any of you put it back in.  I feel very strongly about this. 
If you have any problems, post to my talk page.--BorisFromStockdale 05:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Read Wikipedia:consensus. Sam Spade 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race Pictures 

message: Why was the picture of criminals put to this article again? i replaced with a more specific and better picture!, it contained all 5 human racial divisions. And no it was not copyrighted.
This picture is more correct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Races_all.JPG
now, the RaceMugshots.jpg picture does not contain, Bushmen or Australians. and it also has Hispanic whic is a cultural catergory not a race. Digitalseal 19:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up 2 threads, please. See also User_talk:Sam_Spade#why_did_you_replace_my_picture.3F. Sam Spade 21:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I replaced an incorrect picture! 

message: Someone used the following edit summary to refute using ago instead of BC or BCE "RV: "ago" is conversational, a dating system is precise and enyclopedic".  This is not a valid since the dates being quoted are in the region of +/- 10% values maybe even worse.  In this case conversational style is appropriate due to the huge margins of error. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ago" is indeed somewhat conversational, and is chiefly used in Wikipedia in abbreviations like "mya" (million years ago). If the date is approximate, the accepted style is to use "c." (standing for circa) to show that clearly. It is also extremely unusual to use "10,000 years BCE" as opposed to just "10,000 BCE". I'd recommend the following phrasing: "The most widely accepted view in the anthropological community is that the human species originated in the African savanna between around 100,000 and 200,000 BCE, colonised the rest of the Old World and Oceania by c. 40,000 BCE, and finally colonised the Americas by c. 10,000 BCE." -Silence 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "BCE" is indicating a specific year (or range of years), just as 2006 CE indicates a specific year. Using "ago" indicates a more nebulous time in the past. "Mya" or "mega annum" are the preferred for time periods of a larger magnitude, and "ago" is a part of "mya". I agree with using "ago" in preferrence to "BCE", but would prefer the more scientific "tya" or "kilo annum". - UtherSRG (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great rule of thumb.  Ago is handy, appropriate, and comprehensible.  Thanks for not pushing "tya" or "kilo annum".  Whew! :-D. Tom Haws 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ago

message: This article is in danger of losing its featured status. With that in mind, perhaps you'd care to see the version as it was when featured here, or the diff between then and now. It may be helpful. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's certainly degenerated into an abysmal quagmire of pseudophilosophy.  Jim62sch 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason that the article is in danger of losing its featured status is that it was never good enough to be featured in the first place. Someone who didn't know that would be confused by the above statement--after all, the diff shows many improvements. A better statement might be "this article is in danger of earning its featured status". --Yath 03:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point being that the issues raised during its RFA and the FARC have been addressed, and might be further improved, rather than the article being edited in a different direction to its detriment. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article version

message: You people have made a mess out of my first featured article. I hope that responsible editors will soon resume editing according to consensus, and with the articles best interest in mind. Sad as it is to say, I would not oppose a revert to the featured version at this juncture. Sam Spade 13:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, a little more specificity re "you people" might be nice -- not everyone has been counterproductive.  In any case, the article has become too long, and certain recently added items are of dubious value, so I do understand your frustration.  However, you might want to check out WP:OWN.  I'm willing to help get this thing back under control, but you'll need to keep your frustration at a low simmer (much harder said than done, I know).  If you want my help, let me know (you can look up my article edit history to see if you think I can help).  Jim62sch 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would oppose such a reversion. The article has steadily improved since it achieved its featured status. Granted, it's still weak in many areas, but there is positive momentum and a lot of interest in the article right now, and there is no reason to throw a wrench into the gears. --Yath 23:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that, in order to avoid edit war, changes should be discussed on this page before being made. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yath, are you serious?  The intro sucks, the article is too long and very disjointed, it lacks a "single voice", etc.  The only positive thing I can say about it right now is that it's better than the Latin version.  Jim62sch 22:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Goethean: the once change you reverted was made by a person who commented here three days ago, not two weeks ago. :)  Jim62sch 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm? I reverted FeloniousMonk, who has not particpated in the debate. — goethean ॐ 22:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See below.  What you reverted was by Killer Chihuahua ( item reverted) Jim62sch 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: ::::Human beings are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes.  However, humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. 
::::Like all primates, humans are inherently social; however the memetic ability of humans to learn via instruction rather than by imitation, and hence to share ideas, creates a developmental niche that they alone occupy.  Thus, they create complex social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups ranging from nations down to families. Humans are currently the only animals on earth who build fires or clothe themselves.  This trait of trying to understand and manipulate the world  has led to the development of technology and science. Social norms, Beliefs, myths, rituals and  values have each played a role in forming humanity's culture.
::::Human curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relationship between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view, while spiritual perspectives hold that destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Religious perspectives emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits.  Philosophy attempts to fathom the depths of all these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings.
At the very beginning of this discussion on the introduction I mentioned that "we need to address both secular and spiritual and preferably so elegantly that it will stand unchallenged." Are we getting close?  there seems to be less input from Goethean, Sam and Tom  over the last few days. That does not bode well. David D. (Talk) 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it not bode well?  Jim62sch 01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that no input or endorsement could mean revert wars. David D. (Talk) 02:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Kommt Zeit, kommt Rat.  Jim62sch 19:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Another tweak. Jim62sch 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working version (as of 16:00 8th Feb)