Talk:Human/Archive 9

message: The premise of this discussion is a bit off, IMO. We are not talking about a religious POV, but the fact that the summary of an article on Human beings, cannot include biological information only. Is it not that a summary of an article requires, well, a summary of the article, with the main points as developed further down? If we move away from a contentious religious vs. secular debate, I am sure we can have a summary that we can all be proud of both as editors, and as human beings. In pursuing NPOV, a would second SlimVirgin proposal to refrain from opinion and provide a couple of good citations of "human beings more than just animals with complex brains", that we could place on the summary alongside the biological definitions.  --Zappaz 01:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this at all, largely because it strikes me as being very vague.  First, Why does the sentence fail to 'honour' history & reality?  Secondly, in what way is the existing choice of words poor?  thirdly, your proposed alternative, aside from its slightly purple use of 'ponder', has nothing to do with what a human being is, and instead talks in a portentous way about what some of them have thought about.  In fact, of course, precious few human beings have 'pondered' about most of those things, at least not in any sustained way.  They've either swallowed what religions have told them, or have simply got on with everyday life with no thought for all that stuff. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It fails to honor history and reality, becuse the search for meaning is an integral part of being human as reflected in narratives from every culture and civilization. Maybe my choice of words was "purple". I wanted to make a point of the difference on tone, between "considerably controversial" to something that addresses the issue more widely.  --Zappaz 16:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not about a "religious" POV

message: I'm putting these here because I'm not sure where else they should go.  Please comment below "nitpicks", I think that'll make for the cleanest discussion. Neurophyre 20:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Justifications for intro compromise 6

message: I haven't been attending this article deliberatively enough, and I would like to become more involved again.  What is the current status, vis-a-vis controversies being resolved etc.?  Is it OK to be bold again?  I must saw I was disturbed to see this at the top:
:This article is about humans of the last 30,000 years. For other uses, see Human (disambiguation).
Is 70% of the history of Homo sapiens off-limits now?--Pharos 09:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is shameful. Perhaps Homo sapiens should be spun off to deal with prehistorical humans? grendel|khan 22:37, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
I believe that in discussing the view of Humans in Christianity at least some mention should be made of the concept of soul, and "in the image of God". However I don't know how this fits with the other Monotheistic religions, which we seem to have lumped together. Any objections if I just edit it in? DJ Clayworth 16:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've been away... 

message: *Humans are living beings.
*Humans are inhabitants of earth.
*Humans are the only beings on earth that build fires.
*Humans are the only beings on earth that produce clothing.
*Humans are the only beings on earth that are capable of learning to read and write. [But the vast majority of humans who have lived have not done so.Pharos]
*Humans are the only known beings who practice religion
*Humans are the only known beings who practice philosophy
*Humans are the only known beings who compose music.
*Humans are the only known beings who practice science.
*Humans are the only known beings who practice medicine.
*Humans are the only known beings who practice law.
*Humans are the only beings on earth that cook and spice their food.
*Humans are the only beings on earth that devise machines [is this a fact?].
*Human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees and bonobos, which means that humans are genetically more similar to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to gorillas. 
**Just a short commentary here. Human and mice are 80% similar to each other genetically, however 99% of the genes we share are very similar.  Read e.g. the article Mouse clues to human genetics, published by BBC News. The original report was published in Nature.
***But this is disputed by some who argue that chimpanzees and gorillas may share a more recent common ancestor, with the gorilla line simply experiencing more rapid genetic change since then.Pharos
**Perhaps, but this says nothing about the degree of similarity, only about its origin. --Eleassar777 17:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Common knowledge facts