Talk:Human/Archive 6

message: I'm adding a new subsection to the Spiritual section, Humanism, which was glaring in its absence.--FeloniousMonk 21:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was one phrase that I didn't understand; looking at it again today, I suddenly clicked — could you check it to make sure that I've understood correctly? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming you mean "religon... as factious as unitive." That was meant to reflect that just as religion unites, it also divides. --FeloniousMonk 16:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mel, you edited with this result: "Because collective spirituality often manifests as religion, the history of which is as fractious as it is unifying,...". You substituted something else for factious and unitive. But both of these were perfectly sound. Both have been around since the sixteenth century, and neither is obsolete. They constitute an apt pair of opposites, and were well used here. Your alternatives do not constitute quite such an apt pair. I suggest you check before making such alterations. --Noetica 00:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Humanism subsection

message: Culture is one the distinguishing characteristics of humans, or at least it was when I studied anthro. I find it strange that the article ignores it. I'll be looking into adding a section on culture and look forward to your assistance.--FeloniousMonk 21:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture

message: It is then our decision to maintain the Scientific Point of View and make sure we don't include ridiculous references to the spiritual perspective?  Tom Haws 14:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
*Remove ridiculous references, yes, but why remove all references?  The term 'spiritual' is being used very broadly in the article, so that it covers anything religious, philosophical — anything not biological, just about.  Some of that material belongs here, surely. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintaining SPOV 

message: I hate to make things more complicated, but as long as there is so much discussion on this page I thought I'd throw this in here too. The article states "Biologically, they are classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man)" which of course is what most people think of. But I've also frequently seen the word human used to refer to our extinct relatives in the genus Homo. One recent example is in the February 2005 issue of Scientific American, the cover story "The Littlest Human" is about Homo floresiensis. And right now the Wikinews box on the Main Page states "Scientists at Florida State University confirm that Homo floresiensis is a new species of Human through computer mapping of its brain", where "Human" links to Homo (genus). Merriam-Webster gives the (noun) definiton of human as "a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs". The American Heritage Dictionary  gives "1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. I realize this is a secondary, uncommon definition, but since it appears a well-established usage, I think it should be addressed. Perhaps just on the disambiguation page, or perhaps a sentence about how human normally refers to H. sapiens but can refer to any member of Homo and have a link to the Homo (genus) page. Just something very brief. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other species of humans? 

message: Rednblu, you seem to have deleted my question to you from the talk page, and moved it to my user talk page. It's fine to copy comments, but please don't delete them. I really would like to hear how you understand the sentence you quoted or paraphrased, and I do feel it's relevant to this discussion, so I'm restoring my comment below. SlimVirgin 20:51, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Rednblu, in case you missed it above, here is my response to you:
::Reporters have to be able to understand what they're quoting and paraphrasing, in order to judge whether or not they should quote or paraphrase it. So my question to you is: what do you understand by the following? "Mankind assuredly continues to evolve, both culturally and biologically.  The grave problem is whether the direction in which biological evolution is now proceeding is an acceptable one."  SlimVirgin 19:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:::* I hope it was okay to cut this discussion here to keep from interrupting the business on Talk:Human.  8))  This could be a very interesting conversation.  But it seems odd to me that you would ask that question in the context of considering ideas for a new section to the Human page.  It would seem that this is Wikipedia.  Hence, it would not matter what the frame of mind of the "reporter."  The only thing that would matter would be the quality and accuracy of the reporting.  If you are truly interested in pursuing the meaning of the Dobzhansky quote, then I apologize.  Does that make sense?  I would be glad to trade ideas with you.  But that trade of ideas would just be our trade of ideas and not very relevant to the Human page, would it?  What do you think?  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question