Talk:Human/Archive 24

message: What is the problem with describing people as type of ape? TimVickers 04:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is verifiable information backed by two references, why do you describe it as POV? Do you think we need better-quality references to support this statement? TimVickers 04:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a peer-reviewed reference to replace one of the original webpage references. Hopefully that deals with your concern. TimVickers 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you saying we should or shouldn't say ape then Killer? As fopr Sir James, what do you say we should say instead? This has been debated to death and I think the consensus last time I checked was to say ape, which is accurate from all the sources I've seen. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 07:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Primate. Ape is mentioned, and linked, later in the intro. See this for a debate about the intro held in mid 2006. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you can find a reliable source to support an addition of verifiable information then you are of course free to add to this article. However, personal opinion does not belong in an encyclopaedia, even if several other people share this opinion. If you do not think this information is accurate, guidance is provided on this page Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Hope this helps. TimVickers 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems like an obvious example of WP:NPOV's undue weight clause- there is nothing wrong with calling humans apes in this context- it is the prevailing viewpoint and is backed up by multiple reliable sources. Heck, even Linaeus classified humans as apes and he was a creationist. JoshuaZ 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Edit summary glitched: Apes is already in the sentence, later. Primates has the last known consensus, and is accurate. Please make your case for the double use of apes and omission of primates, please. Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer hominid or hominoid, the scientific term that means the same thing as ape, a superfamily that includes the great apes and gibbons. The word ape is rather imprecise, colloquial term that roughly means the same thing as hominoid, but conjures up the image of non-human apes to lay people. JPotter 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no other logical classification for humans than that of an ape. If humans are not apes, then what would they be? Benosaurus 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with "apes"?

message: It's not that I disagree with this article reading as if an alien life form wrote it, although it's pretty funny. I find it hard to understand that a human could describe things about themselves as much as any other animal - our lives are stuck in the first person so it's pretty hard to describe ourselves. If this article contained everything humans can do or do compared to other animals it would be unnaturally long (mainly because we're the most irrational things on the planet).82.18.180.58 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism reverted. TimVickers 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to sound too negative or whatever, but this article sounds absolutely awful. I don't think it's just that it's odd to hear about humans in the third person (although the first person plural might still be a bit better). If you get a normal encyclopedia and look up human, it doesn't sound anywhere near as goofy. Cereal Box Conspiracy 03:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Any suggestions for improvement? TimVickers 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, aside from various other considerations on so called Human uniqueness, there has already been significant discussion of this matter in the past. The fact is, there are so many different spiritual and philosophical definitions of Human's that trying to combine them all into a coverall section would either result in an unencyclopedic, messy linkfest, or violation of one of Wiki's non-negotiable policies. However, as there is a general scientific agreement on what Human's are, that is the primary one highlighted. Also, there is no such thing as a "higher" animal in biology, anything more than there is a "higher" colour in art. Lord Patrick 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the Britannica lead to their "Human being" article. Human beings - a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings display a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. Exactly the same style as ours. TimVickers 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just like an alien