Talk:Human/Archive 23

message: I find the emphasis placed on the "epidemic" proportions of obesity in some countries to be very skewed. I'm pretty sure that far more people are starving and malnourished than are obese; yet, starvation is only mentioned in passing. As this is not the "Humans in the Western world" article, I think that the problem of starvation and malnutrition is far more severe, important, and prevalent than that of obesity, and should accordingly get more article space. Thoughts? --Ashenai 22:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree.  Obesity is a problem for maybe 5% of the world's population. Fishhead64 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well a recent study, which got plenty of headlines suggests the opposite, with ~1bn obese and ~800 million starving. However they are approximately equal (especially as the measure of obesity is debatable) so should recieve approximatley equal amounts of treatment.Jameskeates 12:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A slight correction; According to this: , it's ~1bn overweight with ~300 million obese. TimTim 14:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added material on starvation. TimVickers 16:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue emphasis on [[obesity]] 

message: Per Silence's q, above - what about taking on the Love and Sexuality section? IMHO, sexual reproduction is a Biological thing, not a Motivation and emotion thing. Well, motivation... why is that section Motivation and emotion? Could we come up with a better title? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: :"generally, most humans can survive for over two months without food, but at most between ten to fourteen days without water"
My understanding is 10-14 days without food and 3-4 days without water. JPotter 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobby Sands the IRA hunger striker lived on a water only diet from March 1st before he finally died on May 5th 1981. At the end of the day much depends on you starting condition.  This was Sands' second hunger strike. Certainly a cite for that two month figure would be appropriate. David D. (Talk) 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't rely on isolated cases, like a certain hunger striker, because the more important stat is the average length of time a normal human can survive without food or water, not the maximum length of time for an exceptionally fit or otherwise unusual human. References seem to indicate that the correct length of time the average human can survive without water is 3 days, and the length of time the average human can survive without food is 3 weeks. -Silence 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just an example that 10-14 days might be on the low side. The imortant thing, that was noted by JPotter in his edit, is that this is a variable number depending on many factors. David D. (Talk) 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surely this can't be right 

message: #romantic beliefs that humans are special animals Humans have gone to the moon. This is real, not romantic.
#What animals are is defined in part by what humans are and what "mechanical" is is defined in part by what computers are. The world is not black and white. Leaving out grey is not a virtue.
#There's no such thing as a "non-homo-sapiens body" robot
#Your main error is not in your contrasting of biological and nonbiological, it's in your assumption that this contrast is equatable with a contrast between the terms human and Homo sapiens. The word "human" is not a nonbiological term, anymore than the word "dog" is: the taxonomic classification of a species is just a different way of categorizing and referencing species, not a "more biological" or "less biological" way. I failed to communicate. You are addressing aspects of my failure to communicate and not the substance of what I an trying to discuss. I apologize for my inarticulateness.
#All species are equally transitional. false
#Humans are animals. Not "roughly animal" I agree. Again, I failed to communicate successfully.
#like "faster-than-light travel" :) (but with even less scientific basis). I could just as easily argue that dolphins are partway in the process of evolving into beings of spirit: such claims are invariably meaningless, unsubstantiated and arbitrary. You misunderstand me so completely a reply seems pointless, but I don't believe in spirits or souls and there is no physics problem with a technological singularity.
#There is no real transition. The distinction between living and nonliving structures is largely a matter of convention, not empirical science: organic compound explains why it is not really meaningful to try to distinguish between "organic molecules" and "inorganic molecules". Only in retrospect, and from a selective perspective, can we call RNA a "transition molecule". Nonsense.
#And yet PCs will never "evolve beyond their hardware" PCs are evolving faster than organic life forms
#DNA and thoughts have absolutely nothing to do with each other. False.
#You have never observed a mind without a body, so you have no basis for assuming dualism here. You completely misunderstand me.
#"Creator of the future"? What is this, a cult pamphlet? Do you believe you can make a choice that affects the future? Is it a cult to suggest your mind can help create your future? Are you trolling me or misunderstanding me?
#First you argued that people lose their legal "human rights" when they have no mind because No. No. No. all the stuff after the "because" is garbage. Brain dead people are not legally alive anymore. it's a fact. I'm not arguing from theory. I'm stating observable fact.
#Please refrain from incivility: if someone tells you that something you said is highly offensive, it is extremely inappropriate and irresponsible of you to respond with "be responsible for your own emotions". There is a great difference between an offensive/infammatory word and an idea. You may not censor  ideas under the principl of civility.
#Biology is a field of study, not a "point of view" the two are not exclusive. WAS 4.250 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: :1. romantic beliefs that humans are special animals Humans have gone to the moon. This is real, not romantic.
Yes, but just because we are more advanced in ways other animals are not does not make us “special”. For example, dogs are more advanced in hearing than us.
:3. There's no such thing as a "non-homo-sapiens body" robot
Robots don't strictly appear to be human, they can look like anything.
:7. like "faster-than-light travel" :) (but with even less scientific basis). I could just as easily argue that dolphins are partway in the process of evolving into beings of spirit: such claims are invariably meaningless, unsubstantiated and arbitrary. You misunderstand me so completely a reply seems pointless, but I don't believe in spirits or souls and there is no physics problem with a technological singularity.
Then can you elaborate‽
:9. And yet PCs will never "evolve beyond their hardware" PCs are evolving faster than organic life forms
No, a PC (or a more general term, computer) can never “evolve”. They may make a newer and better computer but a Windows 95 will never “evolve” into Windows 98.
:11. You have never observed a mind without a body, so you have no basis for assuming dualism here. You completely misunderstand me.
Once again, can you elaborate your meaning so we can?
:12. "Creator of the future"? What is this, a cult pamphlet? Do you believe you can make a choice that affects the future? Is it a cult to suggest your mind can help create your future? Are you trolling me or misunderstanding me?
It seems a lot of people are misunderstanding you, maybe you should make things more clearer.
:13. First you argued that people lose their legal "human rights" when they have no mind because No. No. No. all the stuff after the "because" is garbage. Brain dead people are not legally alive anymore. it's a fact. I'm not arguing from theory. I'm stating observable fact.
They are alive, regardless of their rights or abilities. A vegetable person is still a human, and so is a dead person. We don't say dinosaurs are not dinosuars because they're dead
:15. Biology is a field of study, not a "point of view" the two are not exclusive. WAS 4.250 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm…

message: (I don't know why we're really into odd, terse subsection titles now, but I guess I'll join in on the fun!)
1. "romantic beliefs that humans are special animals Humans have gone to the moon. This is real, not romantic."
:* I think his point was not that humans aren't unusual—humans have done a great many remarkable and unique things. What we're disputing is that these things make humans somehow "more than animals" or "non-animals", which is patently untrue for the same reason that the platypus is not "more than an animal". Being an animal is an either/or proposition, not a matter of degrees.
2. "There's no such thing as a "non-homo-sapiens body" robot"
:* I think you missed the point here, too. Robots aren't Homo sapiens, but they're equally not humans, regardless of their mental capacity. He wasn't saying that there is no such thing as a body that's non-human (cats have bodies too, after all!), he was saying that there is no such thing as a human body that isn't a Homo sapiens body. Thus your distinction between the two words is your own fabrication.
4. "Your main error is not in your contrasting of biological and nonbiological, it's in your assumption that this contrast is equatable with a contrast between the terms human and Homo sapiens. I failed to communicate. You are addressing aspects of my failure to communicate and not the substance of what I an trying to discuss. I apologize for my inarticulateness."
:* Really? I thought I'd addressed the very core of your message, considering that the thread you made was titled "Why I distinguish between 'homo sapien' and 'human'". So do you distinguish between them, or not?
5. "All species are equally transitional. false"
:* You are deeply mistaken. Please read up on the topic. Under modern evolutionary theory, all species are equally "transitional", from an objective perspective: they are all just as much in the process of evolving, just as quickly and just as much, and every species that produces offspring can be considered a "transitional species". Ideas of only certain organisms being transitional are profoundly outmoded and outdated in modern biology.
9. "And yet PCs will never "evolve beyond their hardware" PCs are evolving faster than organic life forms"
:* And yet PCs will never "evolve beyond their hardware". Thank you for cementing my point. Your assumption that humans will somehow move beyond their "hardware" (i.e. their brains) as the "next step" in their development is based purely in speculation.
12. ""Creator of the future"? What is this, a cult pamphlet? Do you believe you can make a choice that affects the future?"
:* Do you believe that anyone can make a choice that doesn't affect the future? Or that affects the past? Your statement is quasi-mystical rhetoric.
13. "First you argued that people lose their legal "human rights" when they have no mind because No. No. No. all the stuff after the "because" is garbage. Brain dead people are not legally alive anymore. it's a fact. I'm not arguing from theory. I'm stating observable fact."
:* But the key word is "legally". We were not discussing law, we were discussing biology. Law does not define biology. Therefore your repeated allusions to human rights "ending" when someone's brain dies are a complete (and now cyclic) non sequitur.
14. "Please refrain from incivility: if someone tells you that something you said is highly offensive, it is extremely inappropriate and irresponsible of you to respond with "be responsible for your own emotions". There is a great difference between an offensive/infammatory word and an idea. You may not censor  ideas under the principl of civility."
:* I didn't ask you to censor your idea, I asked you not to attack people who are offended when you make dramatic statements like "braindead people are not human beings". Such disagreements are inevitable, and should be handled in a civil tone. You are, in affect, trying to censor their valid reactions to your claims. Writing off genuine concerns as just being the fault of the concerned is dismissive and rude.
15. "Biology is a field of study, not a "point of view" the two are not exclusive."
:*Perhaps, but they are distinct, so don't conflate the two. Speaking of a "biological point of view" is about as silly as speaking of a "mathematical point of view", after all. -Silence 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article already overemphasizes too much the cultural aspects of humans, which describes an extremely small aspect of what it means to be human. A human is primarily an animal, and even if you strip off all the art, culture, language, etc, a human doesn't become any lesser human. Besides there are so many articles to talk about these aspects on wikipedia, and in such a limited space, you anyway cannot do any justice to these vast topics. deeptrivia (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: Losing human rights in no way imply that a person is no longer a human, nor does any law stripping a person off human rights says as much. There were no human rights until very recently. In their history of millions of years, humans have invented the notion of human rights only a hundred or so years ago. And still this concept doesn't enjoy universal acceptance, despite the UN declaration. So are you saying that humans came into existence only a hundred years ago? deeptrivia (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article adequately dealt with the historical point of view of the word/concept of "human" I could refer you to it for a rebuttle. WAS 4.250 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Woof

message: the 2 refs give diferent numbers. is it 98.4% or 96% or is it disputed? someone find out.
... humans have approximately 20,000–25,000 genes and share 98.4% of their DNA with their closest living evolutionary relatives, the two species of chimpanzees.[7]...
... in fact, chimpanzee and human DNA is 96% identical.[13] ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.94.200.9 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 21 June 2006  (UTC)
:The most widespread number seems to be 98.4%, so I recommend sticking with that. Which number one uses depends on what, specifically, one is measuring. We may want to provide a link to this page in order to clear up any potential confusion, as it explains the source of the various percentages. -Silence 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans chimp gene inconsistency 

message: Perhaps some combination of the below two ideas would be useful. WAS 4.250 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Connectivity and organization

message: *How about none of them? They're all really, really awful ideas. If we have to use one of them, then, obviously, the footer is the only one that wouldn't harm the article, so go with that. But I'm disappointed that we have to waste more time and space on templates, when we should be worrying about the contents of the article. -Silence 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A see also footer

message: The relatively unique labor during childbirth is mentioned but not why - the relatively large head size due to a relatively large brain.  I have replaced this.
I also rewrote some of the next sentence - it said childbirth is a "dangerous ordeal, in remote, underdeveloped regions".  Remote?  Where is Rio de Janeiro remote from, the person writing that sentence?  And where is that person from?  I rewrote that. Ruy Lopez 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  large head and childbirth 

message: Yeah, i know, wikipedia is not cencored and what more, but i would still prefere to not get a dick in my face every time i get to this page...--Striver 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. This page is for discussing the article's contents, not general Wikipedia policy; moving discussion to User talk:Striver. Also, please remember not to feed the trolls, guys.  -Silence 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with User:Striver's complaint, but I find User:Silence's personal attacks on Striver and his removal of Striver's comments to be contemptible. User:Silence's actions and haughty attitude should be condemned. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. — goethean ॐ 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who got deleted here in silences edit, i have no complaint.  It was starting to get off topic with respect to which picture is appropriate.  i have to agree i do not think Striver is a troll, although i can see how his choice of wording could be taken that way. David D. (Talk) 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's understandable. Those adhering to the majority opinion often overlook it when other opinions are silenced. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Striver was silenced, his intial point "i would still prefere to not get a dick in my face every time i get to this page" was not censored, it was the juvenile, unconstructive comments that came after that were removed by Silence. David D. (Talk) 16:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose that is human nature, like Zidane being hailed as a hero in France, whats up with that?  But i digress. What did you think of the criteria silence laid out for the picture above? i think we will need a customised picture as there is nothing suitable in commons.  Until that time i am happy to stay with the pioneer photo.  It's hardly pornographic and has some history associated with it, not just a random drawing. David D. (Talk) 16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Which picture are you proposing? David D. (Talk) 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for any proposing, the current image is perfectly fine. Wikipedia is not censored, and besides the image is a simple  illustration of the human male and female body.  I do not understand Striver's concearns, and I also do not see how that image of the donkey with an erect penis is explicit.  What's so insulting about penis, breast, and vagina?  Most of us have at least one of these.  Dionyseus 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, does that mean you would support the donkey pic in the donkey article to demostrate that part of the animals anatomy? --Striver 01:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The drawing is not pornographic in nature, and is on the Pioneer Plaque making it quite appropriate for display on wikipedia, since it is on display for the universe. RussS 17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I am rather sure that this is wrong.  Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 is correct.  But I am very skeptical that Linnaeus named a subspecies.  Technically we need to find who first used H. s. sapiens for anatomically modern human and credit that person or persons with the trinomial name while giving Linnaeus credit for Homo and H. sapiens.  Anyone with documentation, one way or the other, please speak up.  MichaelSH 00:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to The Paleobiology Database, Linnaeus is responsible for the Primates designation, but it's got no information on either Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens, unfortunately, though it's a great resource for the origin of many other taxonomic names. -Silence 08:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Taxonomicon, it is indeed Homo sapiens sapiens Linnaeus, 1758. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 19:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homo sapiens sapiens is an autonym since the subspecies idaltu was described. Mgiganteus1 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Homo sapiens sapiens'' Linnaeus, 1758

message: When I read the article, it seemed that it was aimed at a non-human. Should it be changed? 0L1 21:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you mean. The article shouldn't seem to be written by a complete alien to humans, as that will just look silly, but it also shouldn't allude to the author's humanity, as Wikipedia (like all encyclopedias) must avoid self-references. If you could provide an example of a passage or sentence that struck you as strange, or that you would reword in a different way? -Silence 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience 

message: I still don't see the difference between the Homo sapiens idaltu, and the Cro-Magnons. Are the Cro-Magnons essentially early modern-day humans? And what about the idaltu? I've looked at representational images of each, and they all look like modern day humans to me. What is the difference? Are they of the same species/subspecies as us? The article seems to indicate that Cro-Magnons are early humans. So which would be the closest relative/species/sub-species to modern day man (that ever lived); would this be the floriensis, cro-magnon, neanderthals, or the idaltu; in which of our closest relatives are the most "intelligent"? 165.196.149.50 19:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference 

message: :<War is a concept seemingly unique to humans.>
Apparently the above statement is wrong.  See Wrangham & Peterson, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (1996).  To make the above statement conform to empirical evidence, perhaps you must define "war" in a distorted way--or perhaps you must adopt a strange definition of "unique"--or maybe even a non-traditional definiton of "human."  In any case, surely you should find and cite a reputable scholar who would support such a strange idea as "War is a concept seemingly unique to humans."  --Rednblu 06:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conventional dictionary definition of war is "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties"; since non-humans lack nations, states, and arms, non-humans by definition do not participate in wars. However, other, broader definitions of war do allow for wars between members of other species, though war is usually applied to non-humans only in a poetic or allegorical fashion. However, I do agree that the statement you singled out is a poor one: if war is unique to humans, it's only because it's so by definition (in which case we should point out what aspects of war makes it unique), and "seemingly unique" is strange wording indeed. Moreover, it is indeed very correct to point out strong similarities between humans and non-humans in this, and many other, areas, so using such loaded terminology may cloud that informational end. Don't get hung up on word usage; use a synonym if necessary. -Silence 06:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good advice, it seems to me.  A citation to a reputable scholar would help us here.  --Rednblu 06:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is far too much a lesson in semantics resting on the definition of war as a "conflict between nations". Does that exclude human tribes, or non-human tribes or insectile nests, that engage in protracted conflict? Better to just drop the sentence I think. Jefffire 12:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would it not be fair to say that war is a form of *conflict* unique to humans?
Lostsocks 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that depends on what you define as "parties". Two ant colonies can be defined as two opposing parties, and ant colonies fight all the time, even using advanced field tactics besides simple wave-attacks. Warfare does extend to other species, if you use a loose interpretation of the term "war". The Gonz 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  In addition, chimpanzee males patrol the boundaries of their group's territory, and raid other groups, sometimes killing members of the attacked group. If one group of chimpanzees manages to weaken another group by such raids, they will take over all or part of the weakened group's territory. Sounds a lot like war to me. -- Donald Albury 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "War" unique to humans?  Apparently not. 

message: From Talk:Person
"A human being is a member of the genetic species Homo sapiens" -- Two different senses of "is" are possible here: (1) "Is" of time (what situation currently exists) ("My dog is eating") or (2) "Logical is", independent of time ("A dog is a mammal."). In sense (1), a human being is [currently] a member of the genetic species Homo sapiens; however in sense (2), should all members of genus Homo be included as human beings or not? "Neanderthals were human beings", "Homo erectus were human beings." -- I suspect that this has been discussed here before, but I've skimmed this page and didn't see this specific issue (species sapiens vs genus Homo as the definition of "human being"). -- 201.50.123.251 14:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human being" = species sapiens or genus Homo? 

message: This article does not answer (I spend half a minut scanning it) a very important questions: how old humans (homo sapiens - redirectts here) is. This information should be in lead!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important info ommitted 

message: How come there's a bunch of self glorifing, egocentric, flattering stuff. And the destruction of the planet is buried somewhere. For example, it was found that the Chernobyl disaster effects were beneficial to the environment.--Pixel ;-) 00:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beneficial to diversity does not necessarily mean beneficial to the environment. I suppose there is a short term and long term perspective here but it is a complex issue. David D. (Talk) 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that is purely an indication of the population size and breeding rate. Why do you view it as indescent? Possibly because you consider that humans are destroying their environment? With that in mind, the secure issue could well be needing an update in the future, however, there is a policy that wikipedia is not a crystall ball. David D. (Talk) 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans and the environment 

message: I have moved the following paragrpah here from the article page because it s unsourced, and a citation has been requested for more than a month. Do not re-insert it in the article without citing a source.
:Although most humans recognize that variances occur within a species, it is often a point of dispute as to what these differences entail, their importance, and whether discrimination based on race (racism) is acceptable. Some societies have placed a great deal of emphasis on race, while others have not.
-- Donald Albury 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race and ethnicity statement 

message: I think that to make this article complete, it is necessary to recognize alternate theories for the origin of man, including Creationism.  However, I also think that the section should include the origin theories of the Hindu, Buddhist, Norse, Greek, Zoroastrian, Mayan, ... ...etc.  I see it as the same as acknowledging the etymology of certain words.  We should acknowledge the huge variety of different "origin of species" theories.  ..While maintaining that Evolution is the only theory supported by evidence and research.
-- Trajan 01:34, 20 September 2006
:You mean something like this:
:::Some of the chief questions and issues religions are concerned with include life after death (commonly involving belief in an afterlife), the origin of life (the source of a variety of origin beliefs), the nature of the universe (religious cosmology) and its ultimate fate (eschatology), and what is moral or immoral. A common source in religions for answers to these questions are transcendent divine beings such as deities or a singular God, although not all religions are theistic—many are nontheistic or ambiguous on the topic, particularly among the Eastern religions.
:How do you think this could be improved? David D. (Talk) 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "Alternate Origins" 

message: The average healthy North Americam male 21  years old is now over 6"-2" or 185 cm  and weights about 191 lbs or 87 kg (athletic built).
The average healthy  (excluding anorexiacs) North Americam female 21 years old is now over 5"- 9" or 175 cm  and weights about 150 lbs or 67 kg (athletic built).
It is related to different nutrition which is now  making  changes in healthy US style of life.
So the data  about average North American male and female looks like just a little distorted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.251.246 (talk • contribs) 
:Do you have a citation for these observations? David D. (Talk) 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd like to see the citation, too, considering that I just heard on the news (yesterday) that the Dutch have surpassed North Americans as the tallest people (on average) at 6'0" for males (I think females were 5'8", but I honestly don't remember). - FlyingOrca 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dutch being the tallest in the world is true, do a news search for "Dutch tallest" or "Dutch" and you will find the article. Dutch men average at a little over 6 feet and females average at almost 5'7". Considering the Dutch are now the world's tallest people, I can't see how the North American average can be higher.Gotmesomepants 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: North American women taller than 5'9", are you serious?? The average height for American women cannot possibly be higher than 5'5".  Dionyseus 10:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It all depends on the standard deviation.  You can have many obese people and still have a low average. Anyone got some stats? David D. (Talk) 15:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North American

message: To me, this passage does not make sense:
"A minority believes they are an anatomically herbivorous species, and have started using agriculture (non-animal based) foodstuffs only recently.[19] Another minority believes that anatomically, they are primarily carnivorous, many members of which have begun consuming food of animal origin.[20]"
Some people believe that we are anatomically herbivorous, who have started using non-animal food only recently. This is backwards. If we were anatomically herbivorous, we would eat non-animal food by default, and only start eating animal food in the recent past. The next sentance is also backwards. I have changed it, if my reading of it is incorrect, well, change it back I guess Harley peters 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the minority of people who believe that humans are herbivores or carnivores is so exceedingly small that I'm not even sure they warrant a mention on the top-level Human article. There is more consensus for the fact that humans are omnivores than there is for dozens and dozens of other things stated as facts in this article. NPOV policy requires that we not give undue weight or exposure to extremely outside-of-the-mainstream perspectives, especially in an article as general as this one; it would be like starting the life-cycle section off by mentioning "Most people believe that the human life cycle is similar to that of other placental mammals. However, a minority believes that humans are immortal." In this case, mentions of such views would be better-placed in an article like Omnivore or Diet (nutrition). -Silence 15:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  herbivorous vs canivorous 

message: Centimeters is spelled wrong. And The Difference between Homo Sapeins Sapeins and Homo Sapiens is that H.S. Sapiens is the speices and sub speices.Homo Sapiens is just the spieces.
Amanda J. Rowe 18:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mispelled word 

message: I agree with Striver I don't want to see that , because I just want The info for my report.It's completely disturbing. for more information adout this go to Dicussion 12 Picture
         Amanda J. Rowe 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 2 

message: Accoarding to Wik's strange convention, common names of species should be capitalized.  So, what about "humans"? Kdammers 03:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where have you seen this convention written, is this in the mannual of style section? I have noticed it too but correct it when I have seen it. There is no good reason to do this. David D. (Talk) 05:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  capping 

message: Have there been any fossil Homo sapiens sapiens discovered in Southeast Asia so far? When did they live? From which which ancestors did they evolve?
:This page is for discussing the article, not for general questions, but look at Java Man and Homo floresiensis. -- Donald Albury 19:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossi Southeast Asian humans 

message: "Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through religion, science, philosophy and mythology. " - This phrase is inaccurate - religion does not actually explain nor manipulate natural phenomena, and in any case the parts of religion which were postulated in order to 'explain' things such as lighting would come under mythology.  Therefore surely 'religion' is unnecessary in this sentence?  Retsudo 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the Bible much? Genesis 1:1 - hey, it's an explanation of natural phenomena. And "mythology" and "religion" are not mutually exclusive. --Yath 20:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Retsudo, the article says "seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena", not "explaining and manipulating natural phenomena". It makes no assertions about the efficacy of religion or mythology in either of these endeavors; it merely points out their sociological function. -Silence 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe "religion" should be changed to "some religion". The way this phrase is worded, it makes one think that humans made up all religions because they wanted to come up with a way to explain natural phenomena.Gotmesomepants 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena 

message: Chernobyl disaster effects#Effect on the natural world
I'm proposing to include a section on the isue.The destruction of the environment i mean.If Chernobyll is beter now with radiation and no humans,than with humans and no radiation,then shurely the destruction of the environment deserves a section.--Pixel ;-) 18:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The morality or inevitability of humanity's effect on the world shouldn't determine whether it is notable enough to be included. Maybe a link to the Holocene_extinction_event article is in order? Ashmoo 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans,more toxic than radioactive waste 

message: ===2.6. Philosophy and self-reflection===
There are many thing wrong with the rest of the text. I fixed it by rewriting the first paragraph and removing the last. The text has an attitude of antihumanism, antiphilosophy, authoritarianism and nihilism. It prevents understading by derouting the subject with an overly complicated text, it suggests that philosophy is a futile hobby, where people think more than is necessairy and make things too complicated. It favors the dictated form of action where things are what they are and not to be questioned. It puts quantitative and qualitative, and observational and hypothetical in a line of better and worse and dispises speculative as a form of prejudice, which has nothing to do with reality. It suggests that hypothetical has only a speculative value. Please rewrite this. Teemu Ruskeepää 08:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I found your version to imply that philosophy is like science, and I think that is a bit of a stretch. Yes, science arose out of natural philosophy, but science and philosophy deal with different fields of inquiry that only partly overlap. As for the last paragraph, it is unsourced like too much else in this article, and it may well belong somewhere else in WP other than this article, but I think we need to discuss that. -- Donald Albury 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I going to let other people react to you comments, to avoid being enslaved by you. Let them add to the contradiction started by myself. Do you know what a capitalism or a hegemony mean? I'm talking about the way you claim the reasons for your will to discuss here to be different than what they really are. You're trying to prove your superiority over me and the rest of the Internet by going into your type of conversation, which you have designed from the beginning to be beneficial only to yourself. The best proof of your agenda is that you are defending a definition of philosophy, which represents only the schools of thoughts of authoritarianism and nihilism. Capitalism is the social situation, where one class has permanently more power because they possess the means. Others can't even start to have as much as the capitalists always have. .) Teemu Ruskeepää 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. Society and culture 

message: There are many thing wrong with the rest of the text. I fixed it by rewriting the first paragraph and removing the last. The text has an attitude of antihumanism, antiphilosophy, authoritarianism and nihilism. It prevents understading by derouting the subject with an overly complicated text, it suggests that philosophy is a futile hobby, where people think more than is necessairy and make things too complicated. It favors the dictated form of action where things are what they are and not to be questioned. It puts quantitative and qualitative, and observational and hypothetical in a line of better and worse and dispises speculative as a form of prejudice, which has nothing to do with reality. It suggests that hypothetical has only a speculative value. Please rewrite this. Teemu Ruskeepää 08:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I found your version to imply that philosophy is like science, and I think that is a bit of a stretch. Yes, science arose out of natural philosophy, but science and philosophy deal with different fields of inquiry that only partly overlap. As for the last paragraph, it is unsourced like too much else in this article, and it may well belong somewhere else in WP other than this article, but I think we need to discuss that. -- Donald Albury 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I going to let other people react to you comments, to avoid being enslaved by you. Let them add to the contradiction started by myself. Do you know what a capitalism or a hegemony mean? I'm talking about the way you claim the reasons for your will to discuss here to be different than what they really are. You're trying to prove your superiority over me and the rest of the Internet by going into your type of conversation, which you have designed from the beginning to be beneficial only to yourself. The best proof of your agenda is that you are defending a definition of philosophy, which represents only the schools of thoughts of authoritarianism and nihilism. Capitalism is the social situation, where one class has permanently more power because they possess the means. Others can't even start to have as much as the capitalists always have. .) Teemu Ruskeepää 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2.6. Philosophy and self-reflection

message: These two terms seem to be used interchangeably in the article, I think the most common usage is "developing country" as even highly developed countries can be relatively unindustrialized if they depend heavily on agriculture for industry. Can I standardise this as "developed/developing" in the article? TimVickers 16:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Developing country]] versus [[unindustrialized country]]

message: As someone who enjoys Wikipedia, but is often rather critical of it, I just wanted to say this struck me as a very good article. Obviously, judging from the talk page here, people are still arguing about parts of it, and the article probably could indeed be improved, but I really think this is still a great example of what Wikipedia can be... I find it far better than a lot of the so-called "feature articles". So, congrats everybody. :) 69.175.141.106 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: Hi all,
I have promoted this article to good article status. Apart from the good ideas in the FARC nomination. Some other things you might want to look at:
* "and among the oldest, there are 53 men for every 100 women" doesn't explain what the "oldest" age bracket is.
* Habitat and population gives no indication of when human settlements started to emerge.
* The discussion of the afterlife in the last paragraph of Life cycle would be better left to Spirituality and religion.
* Wikilinks are being used excessively.
* The Government and politics section essentially defines some key terms related to the section topic, but does not adequately relate it to the article's subject (humans).
* The War section also does not adequately discuss the relationship between the section topic and the article's subject.
* Citations drop off towards the end of the article.
* The article is very long (63 kB).
Cedars 07:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotion to good article

message: May I call a person a primate? A tetrapod? A reptile? 72.194.116.63 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans are primates 

message: Hello,
Below is a reconstructed, exhaustive, scientific classification of human, that I have made solely by following links.
Taxon                  	Name
Domain                 	Eukaryota
Kingdom                	Animalia
Subkingdom             	Eumetazoa
(unranked) (why?)      	Bilateria
Superphylum            	Deuterostomia
Phylum                 	Chordata
(unranked) (why?)      	Craniata
Subphylum              	Vertebrata
Infraphylum            	Gnathostomata
Microphylum            	Eugnathostomata
(unranked) (why?)      	Teleostomi
Superclass             	Osteichthyes
Class                  	Sarcopterygii
Subclass               	Tetrapodomorpha
Superclass (Yes, again)	Tetrapoda
(unranked) (why?)      	Amniota
Class (yes, again)     	Synapsida
(unranked) (why?)      	Mammaliaformes
Class (yes, once again)	Mammalia
Subclass               	Theria
Subclass (yes, again)  	Eutheria
Infraclass             	Epitheria
Superorder             	Euarchontoglires
Superorder (yes, again)	Euarchonta
Order                  	Primates
Suborder               	Haplorrhin
Parvorder              	Catarrhini
Superfamily            	Hominoidea
Family                 	Hominidae
Subfamily              	Homininae
Tribe                  	Hominini
Subtribe               	Hominina
Genus                  	Homo
Species                	Homo sapiens
Subspecies             	Homo sapiens sapiens
As you can see, this is a bit inconsistent. Could someone tell me what is wrong? Some Wikipedia information are incorrect here, but which ones? Thank you.David Latapie (✒ | @) 20:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are written by many different editors who usually do not coordinate between themselves. They are drawing on many different sources, which often do not agree on details of classification. The whole classification business is an attempt to fit a messy natural process into a neat but arbitrary framework, and how a given authority does so depends on many factors, including what new knowledge or interpretation of knowledge has turned up since the last attempt to classify. It is therefore not surprising that sources may differ in the details of classification. An article about a given taxon must cite sources that are relevant to that taxon, and so articles may differ in details of classification because the sources used for the articles differ in those details. It is not the place of Wikipedia to reconcile such differences, as that would call for original research. -- Donald Albury 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the ambiguity comes from trying to shoehorn modern cladistic taxonomy (arbitrarily many levels, ideally one for each binary split in the tree of life) into  the traditional Linnean kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species system (seven levels, not necessarily monophyletic). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.180.19.132 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was suspecting something like this. Thank you.David Latapie (✒ | @) 22:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion with scientific classification