Talk:Human/Archive 18

message: Banno, it is probably true that creationism doesn't deserve its own section, the text that is there doesn't really say much. I'd have no objection to having it deleted unless radically improved. However, I can't see the justification of lumping it together with the evolution section. The evolution text is quite a good description of human evolution and so plonking a few general comments about creationism on the end of it, seems to me to be confusing and inappropriate. Ashmoo 05:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea. Do it. Then we can work on particular issues with the existing text. Ashmoo 23:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution and Creation 

message: Surely this page violates POV rules? After all, most (if not all) of us editing are humans ourselves. How about the view of dogs towards humans? Geese don't really count, they treat us with indifference.
:Don't be so ruff on us.  Dogs are people too!!! >;-o)  — RDF talk 03:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will ask my beagle what she thinks and report back, is hse says anything that is NPOV :) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 05:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV status

message: the "Plato's cave" illustration doesn't make sense. The human figure seems to be contemplating its own blurred shadow, which isn't what the parable is about at all. Plus, the concept is not even mentioned in the text, so I'm wondering what the image is doing here at all. 08:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered the same, and wouldn't object if you deleted it. Sam Spade 14:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mee to... I will delete.≈ jossi fresco ≈ 15:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the cave

message: This website has alot of info which this page should offer, now that the template is gone. The world. Sam Spade 19:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA.gov

message: Sam Spade 12:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  humor 

message: User:JWSchmidt has suggested on my talk page that:
:A concept current within the scientific community is that human evolution occured in response to a need for long distance running. Humans are said to be one of a short list of animals with such a capacity.
in the intro be changed to:
:Current evidence indicates that bipedal locomotion appeared during human evolution before the large human brain. The origins of bipedal locomotion during human evolution and its role in human brain evolution are topics of on-going research.
or something similar. Thoughts?
Sam Spade 14:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some links, trying to cover tha same ground as before (introduces evolutionary origins of our species). --JWSchmidt 23:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Looking good! ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 03:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: What happened to the image of man & woman from Pionneer's plaque? It as been replaced with an image that IMO, is less recognizable and of less quality. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring back Pioneer.  The labels are very distracting. David D. (Talk) 19:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man/Woman image from Pioneer? 

message: Sam, I think this is ready to go. You should put it forward for the vote. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Applause) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't read Japanese... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article now?

message: I had no idea what that migration picture meant until you guys mentioned it. Thanks. Kid Apathy 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh, so ''that's'' what it is! 

message: *(cur) (last)  16:19, 25 October 2005 Goethean (revert to version with more links. pls discuss on talk.)
*(cur) (last)  16:15, 25 October 2005 Daycd (→Origins - remove Timeline of evolution of our species since there is already have a link to human evolution in the human evolution section.)
So here, as requested, is the discussion for the above revert. Personally I see no reason to have that link.  Even the human evolution page does not have the timeline, why is that?  Do we need a timeline that goes all the way back to the origin of life?  Why would it be a link in the culture section? That's just three things that struck me odd about the link off the bat.David D. (Talk) 04:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the human evolution page just have a timeline that go back in  early homo species. the Timeline of evolution of our species show what scince says about the origin of homo sapiens. i know a lot of people that want to see what science have to say about our origin, and i thing a lot o people want to see it .And as we do not originate as homo , i think its a good place to place that link . 
Mateus Zica 03:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is it better in the culture section compared to the biology section? David D. (Talk) 05:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also why do you use the Timeline of evolution of our species name when that is a redirect to Timeline of human evolution? David D. (Talk) 05:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: more links

message: This article is redirected from home sapiens. I would have expected
a discussion on the subspecies. I'm also a bit surprised that
"human" is equated to modern homo sapiens.
Mre5765 03:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference to homo sapiens subspecies? 

message: Just a shout-out to all your contributors who have made this an excellent page. --Dpr 03:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kudos

message: Congratulation for the FA status of this article. It'an awsome article. You won't find this kinf of informations anywhere else. I encourage to fix some of the objections in this already superb article.
I just want to address a bias I've found in the "Anatomy and physiology" section. Why did you include the average and median heights of North American only, and not on a worlwide scale, like in the "Life cycle" section.? CG 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe we have the world-wide info. Perhaps you can help find it? Sam Spade 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small bias 

message: There's quite a bit of repetition (not to mention other kinds of bloat) in the article, but it's especially noticeable in the Human#Human evolution section.  I've done some general tidying, but left that section, as it needs some thought. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Human#Human evolution]] 

message: I believe we should add this:
::Most sexologist, starting with the pioneer Alfred Kinsey and Sigmund Freud, believe based upon the human species close relatives' sexual habits such as the bonobo apes, and historical records (particularly the widespread ancient practices of paederasty) that the majority of homo sapiens are attracted to males and females, being inherently bisexual.
Its true. Any objections?
So far one user stated: "This is a one-sided point of view of sexologists of the like of Alfred Kinsey which ignores opponents which believe that most humans are in fact heterosexual."
:Which any reputable sexologist certainly doesn't believe that. The societies of ancient Greece and pre-modern Japan for an instance were fully bisexual. In fact the only socities that thought of it to be some type of a disease and thus unnatural were Christian and Jewish dominated. 70.57.85.74 20:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality

message: Bonobos are not mentioned as great apes.  They have become widely accepted by the scientific community as a distinct species and they should be included.  I would do so myself but seeing as this is such a revered page I thought I woudl leave it to the more exeperienced editors.  I also believe a bit more should be said about the Great Apre project and what it really means to be a human, but that is up for discussion.
:If i were you I'd just get stuck in and start editing.  It sounds like you know what you are talking about. And if people don't agree with the changes it can be discussed on the talk pages. I think you make some good points and look forward to see the edits.  David D. (Talk) 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Apes 

message: Why does the article use both "billion" and "thousand million" when describing population?
:"Thousand million" is a bit of a relic from times when both short-form and long-form were used in the anglophone world. A few decades ago British English used "billion" to mean e12 and "billiard" to mean e9. Now, it is generally accepted that "billion" means e9. "Thousand million" sounds rather condescending and over-simplistic. --Oldak Quill 15:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: billion vs thousand million?

message: I have rewritten the psychology part so that it more closesly (and a little too closely) reflects the main Psychology article. What used to be in here only mentioned Freud, ignoring the earlier research in psychology and his general rejection by modern psychology.
:dr.alf 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Human#Psychology and human ethology]]

message: I agree with Tznkai, every listing of the Abrahamic religions will be Judaism, Christianity, Islam, for both logical and historical reasons. dab (ᛏ) 16:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a discussion concerning this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Abrahamic religions. CG 21:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: J, C, I

message: Can you please explain the following comment which I removed for discussion?
: <<'(Note that Humans, while being the dominant species on Earth, are barely sentient).'>>
Aren't mammals generally sentient--having sense perceptions--when they are awake?  --Rednblu 08:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd explain it in terms of two things:
** Failure to grasp the definition of "sentient;"
** Pop misanthropy, or the popular wish to see humans as no higher than then other animals, or even lower;; Ungtss 02:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Welcome back, by the way, and Merry Christmas:).  Ungtss 02:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Good point.  But there is already an excellent page on War, is there not?  So your question asks:  What is essentially Human about war?  I would say that the cycle of war and apparent peace is the most human quality that we inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees.  The "phase transition" from 1) peaceful but serious competitions of masculine hierarchy to 2) killing war is uniquely Homo.  Wrangham and Peterson say it this way.  "Very few animals live in patrilineal, male-bonded communities wherein females routinely reduce the risks of inbreeding by moving to neighboring groups to mate. And only two animal species are known to do so with a system of intense, male-initiated territorial aggression, including lethal raiding into neighboring communities in search of vulnerable enemies to attack and kill. Out of four thousand mammals and ten million or more other animal species, this suite of behaviors is known only among chimpanzees and humans."   --Rednblu 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you sure?  Can you give me a citation to such an observation.  As far as I have seen, chimpanzee males in a raiding party retreat if there is more than one male that opposes them; the chimpanzee raiding team looks for an isolated male to beat up.  The result is usually fatal.  --Rednblu 19:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the citation.  --Rednblu 19:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are humans barely sentient? 

message: First person references such as "our senses", "affect us" and such are completely abhorrent, unprofessional and ugly. I will attempt to spot most of them and change them accordingly, but in the future, please be vigilant about excising all references in the first person. Thanks. -- Natalinasmpf 19:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  first person references