Talk:Human/Archive 14

message: The proposal to delete the fourth paragraph of the intro is being debated prior to unfreezing the article.  I believe there is consensus for:
#there is already an article on Human nature
#this is an introduction to THIS article and this paragraph does not reflect the content that exists in the subsection on human nature
#the paragraph contents are contentious and debateable and controversial
#concerns such as User:Goethean/Human and Silversmith's are better dealt in depth at Human nature but whose elements can be listed here in Human as the intro to Human should be an intro to its contents
#"Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy,"  and any other A causes B is debateable, so the intro saying A and B are part of human culture is not contentious thus better for the intro than saying A causes B in the intro.
#the history of the debates around this introduction including the comments just made by others indicates material other than listing elements of human nature/culture are better off elsewhere.
So do we have a concensus to delete paragraph four of the intro (contents possibly going to human nature and beefing up paragraph three in the intro with a list of elements of human nature/culture (religion (not specific ones),  beliefs (not specific ones), metaphysics (you get the ides), etc that are named in the subsection of Human labeled human nature (this is an into to THIS article). Note that if X is proper to refer to in the subsection of human nature, then it could then be added to the list of elements on paragraph 3. A mere list can not possibly be as contentious as saying Item A in the list causes Item B or that Item A is a subset of Item B. 4.250.27.140 17:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: This talk page has a lot of archives. I think we need a discussion about what to do when the number of archives reaches 20. Georgia guy 00:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I think I agree with Banno here. This dispute has gone on for too long. How long has has the article been frozen, for goodness' sake? Versions 3 and 5 are definitely the best - I can't believe some of the other rubbish has even been considered. Sort this out quickly.
I see Sam Spade has given up on this - frankly, I don't blame him. --Mark J 08:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really, a mess 

message: This article has been protected for quite a while.  I'm unprotecting because I think you're all acting pretty grown up and deserve to be trusted to edit the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: :This article is about humans of the last 30,000 years. For other uses, see Human (disambiguation).
This should be removed. Firstly, it serves no purpose. Secondly, both the physical and genetic evidence shows that Australian Aboriginals split from the Eurasian population over 40,000, and probably about 70,000 BP. There is therefore a racist connotation. Banno 09:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
hehehehe... whats a BP? Seriously tho, someone needs to fix up primitive / primitivism so as to effectively discuss tribal / primitive humans, such as the bushmen. Sam Spade 21:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time-frame