Talk:Human/Archive 26

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basic_human_anatomy_labeled.jpg is used for the Human Anatomy article - maybe it'd be appropriate here, too? Soriak (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: These are not mentioned in the article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.172.240 (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so?  Almost all of wikipedia is about things created or done by humans - doesn't mean they all need to be mentioned in the article on humans.  If you want to read about global warming or pollution, maybe go read those articles? CraigWyllie (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Warming and Pollution

message: How did the cows get a nude Wikipedia photoshoot anyway? Our natural state seems to only exist as a cartoon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.92.84 (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Anatomy

message: It seems to me that this section of the article resembles a brief synposis of articles on economics, war, etc, rather than emphasizing what place they have within human behaviour and sociology. I think it needs to be rewritten to convey specifically how humans have evolved these concepts, and what differentiates them from other species in that regard.
Ie. "Because of their technological development, humans have developed far more complex and destructive ways of conflict than any other species..." Something like that.
Does anyone agree?--24.85.171.109 10:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Society

message: I've removed 'shock and awe' from the sentence "Techniques have nearly always included hand to hand combat, the use of ranged weapons, propaganda and ethnic cleansing.". The shock and awe page states this doctrine was written in 1996, so it can't have been included before. I might look into this paragraph further. Calamarain 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing two instances of 'always' and one of 'important' have made this paragraph more accurate. It also seems less negative (NPOV) to me. Calamarain 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War, shock and awe 

message: When I looked at this article, a section on "Destructive effects on the Environment" was written in a fairly harsh manner, and was also filled with typographical errors. I've tried to balance it out a little while still recognizing the inherent criticism. It could still use some more balance in terms of information, however.
:That seems to be a recent section. It needs a lot more thorough referencing. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to that, it is a loose collection of factoids and references to pop science works. It needs to be written in the same style as the rest of the article; anything that can be salvaged for other articles such as environmentalism, should be. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. What do you mean exacly by 'salvaging for the environmentalism article'? That the content in this paragraph shouldn't be here but in that article? Or do you mean that we can use text from the environmentalism article to improve this paragraph? I assume the first. Then, what article could be used to rewrite this paragraph? It seems to me it should be about the role of humans on earth (in the non religious sense) and the (mutual) influence of humans and the rest of nature. Human ecology perhaps is the right subject, but the that article is only about the science itself. Calamarain 09:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This section still seems to be written from the point of view of an envrionmentalist, and is not objective. D prime 08:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? -- Donald Albury 10:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone implies that humans have done large "damage" to the environment and that we should be condemed for it. The section is esentially a long list of referneces to environmentalist statements and ideas. Every fact sighted supports an environmentalist view point, and there is no indication of there being a controversy of the extent or moral status of human influence on the Earth until the last sentence, which seems to say "WELL, despie ALL these OBVIOUS reasons why environmentalism is THE BEST, it's still (some how!) controversial! Can you believe it?" We should remind ourselves that environmentalism is still a mere opinion, and although certain concrete facts such as that the Earth is warming are scientific consensus, environmentalist theory in general is still a controversial idea. I believe there is a section in Wikipedia's guidelines concerning sections or articles in which everything specifically is true, but is written in way which implies bias. I believe it is called weasel words. D prime 02:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What sourced material would you add to the section to balance it? What changes do you suggest in the wording of the section? While you could be bold and make changes to the section, I suggest discussing any major changes back here first. While I would call myself an environmentalist (of sorts), I haven't been involved in writing the section, and so am not attached to the particular form of the section. However, other editors who have spent more time on this article will want to participate in discussion of any major changes. -- Donald Albury 03:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Effect 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 24 inches, use 24 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 24 inches.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.  
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**it has been
**are considered
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armour (B) (American: armor), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), offense (A) (British: offence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), colonize (A) (British: colonise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), hemophilia (A) (British: haemophilia), cosy (B) (American: cozy), jewelry (A) (British: jewellery).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please provide citations for all of the s.[?]
Thanks, ffm ✎talk 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoreview 

message: Wouldn't it be better to use a photo of a human, instead of a drawing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.161.44 (talk) on 20:27, 30 May 2007
:You may note a lack of interest in this suggestion. This is because there have been numerous lengthly debates here about that very thing. Yet here we are with the drawing. Feel free to look back through the archives at all the discussion spent on this topic, and if you know of an image on Commons which addresses everyone's concerns, feel free to post a link here. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seemed good enough to be used by NASA on the Pioneer plaque. ffm ✎talk 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems with the wikipedia .svg image is the file format. There are better formats which are not as blobby. http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001623.jpg Might it be possible to use a .jpg format for the image? --Ancheta Wis 08:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It saves loading time, .jpg files are generally too big to look as good as vector based files Markthemac 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This svg is a terrible conversion, with much detail lost. You can't just run an automated SVG conversion and expect good results. —Pengo 05:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is not as good as the previous drawing. David D. (Talk) 12:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It actually annoys me quite a bit that the picture is of two whites. --82.183.224.40 12:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know they are white? If it was a color photo they certainly would not be white as Sagan goal was to have a blend all humanity in the drawings.  Whether he achived that goal or not I don't know but that is the reality of the goal.  If you have a better option then we could check it out?  It's not easy to find something completely neutral. David D. (Talk) 12:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of them have characteristics that I perceive as North European. I understand that neutrality is difficult, however I think it's tiresome that white is always the underlying norm on Wikipedia. --82.183.224.40 13:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic 

message: "From AD 1800 to 2000, the human population increased from one to six billion."
This is clearly an inaccuracy in the article and should be corrected.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.179.181  (talk • contribs) 11 June 2007 
: Sounds about right to me. What do you think it should be changed to?--Filll 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe anon thinks it should read "From 6030 BC to 2007 the human population increased from two to 6.6 billion"? <ducks> ... perhaps one billion to six billion would be clearer?? ... dave souza, talk 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be Changed 

message: We need to discuss the "see also" section, which currently contains two articles about fossils and one about history. Why should the article for "Human" primarily link to fossils, of all things? Wouldn't "see also" links to, say, Man, Woman, Race, People, and other such basic concepts related to "Human" be more appropriate? I mean, when I think about concepts related to "Human", list of fossil sites really isn't very high on the list. --Ashenai 09:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" section 

message: The discovery of evolution should be mentioned in this section because it makes evident our knowledge of conscious existence. We know where we came from and that is a major breakthrough for a species. We are aware of what we really are. --Antonio.sierra 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that the article has sections devoted to evolution, biology and culture is enough to get your idea across. There is also sentence in the first paragraph that says, "Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection," and there are little sentences peppered throughout the article that suggest this. B3nnic33 13:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the policy on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, ThundertamerS. This will hopefully answer your questions. Tim Vickers 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumyr, you're confusing the use of "theory" in conversation (which some use as a synonym for "hunch" or "guess") with scientific theory, which is much different. A theory in science is a logically consistent model for explaining a phenomenon that is testable. The "theory of evolution" aims to explain the phenonenon, just as the theory of gravity aims to explain why we stick to the ground. Would you make the argument that gravity hasn't been proven? Leebo T/C 19:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The existence of gravity may not be disputed anymore, but scientists' understanding of it continues to . . . er . . . evolve. In this sense, gravitational theory is not unlike evolutionary theory. Rivertorch (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and Technology - Evolution 

message: are there or have there ever been homo sapiens of a subspecies other than sapiens?
:See Human evolution. Tim Vickers 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: In the religion section, there are two images, both of Hinduism.  Should one be changed to represent another major religion?  There are also two Rodin sculptures in this article (The Kiss and The Thinker).  Should The Kiss be changed to another image representing love/sexuality? If so, does anyone have any ideas.  The market picture under economics is also very hard to make out.  Is there a better image that could be used? Calliopejen1 05:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the hinduism images, where are they? On the sculptures by Rodin, Why should it be changed? See WP:AINT. ffm 15:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  changing pictures? 

message: Is the paragraph on the Big Bang and Age of the Universe really relevant to the article on 'Human'. Science has discovered many things, why is this singled out for inclusion (in such a long winded fashion). I think it should be chopped or reduced to a single sentence. Ashmoo 10:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Science and Technology: Big Bang & Age of the Universe

message: Shouldn't we have a picture of a human or humans (perhaps images of people from several different races and of different age such as children or elderly people) rather than a black and white picture? Most animal articles use a photograph or at least a life-like colour illustration at the main image. The problem here of course is whether to have a clothed or naked human, but since most people wear clothes in their normal behavior I see no reason not to just have pictures of normal people; if a crab camouflages itself with algae and such debris in it's normal behavior I doubt a picture of it would be deemed unsatisfactory unless it was removed. Of course, an morphological and/or anatomical picture, but that could go further down (though we don't seem to have an anatomy section?) Richard001 09:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an old topic. See Talk:Human#Pic above. -- Donald Albury 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: This is not to be laughed at! Physicology needs editing and I'm only a chemist do i don't really into Phsicology.
 if you are a phsycologist it would be very good if you edit the page.
Hey idiot, psychology or physiology?, I didn't see an article combining the two eg. "physichology"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddieebo (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: physicology

message: "Humans are an eukaryotic species." Should it not be "Humans are a eukaryotic species", since 'eukaryote' is pronounced 'you-karyote'? Aristeaus 08:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: "Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion."
Shouldn't be mythology understood, in this context, as "ancient religion"? I think there's no reason to separate both here. What do you think? --Taraborn 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, since something like Beowulf is certainly mythology, but not really religious. Tim Vickers 22:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Distinction isn't between real and unreal beliefs, it's between differing elements of religion. Bible stories for instance make up the mythology of christianity, but they are by no means the whole of it, there's also baptism, confirmation, church, reciting the credo, or proselytising, none of which are rightly considered "mythology", but are all elements of various flavours of christianity.  – ornis⚙ 05:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythology and religion 

message: The phrase dharmic religions is an obscure neologism with almost only fringe sources using it and should be removed from articles that do not describe this theoriess or their main proponents. This is not just my personal crusade to reduce use of this phrase in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Dharmic_Religions. Andries 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is currently in AfD, which you started. You are also "raiding" the "what links here" list for that article, so your actions can be easily interpreted as a personal crusade. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the article is kept then the term is overused and is inappropriate here. Do you deny this? If you deny this then please show the many peer reviewed sources or even one scholarly book about the concept or classification of dharmic religions. If the term remain here then in this very basic unrelated article then the phrase must have many multiple scholarly treatments. Andries 21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AFD was triggered mainly because it was noticed that the phrase was overused in Wikipedia and in addition the article did not have reputable sources worth the name . Andries 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest I or JohnBodI file a Wikipedia:request for commment. Andries 21:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly no one will bother with this whilst the AfD is running. Johnbod 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AFD is hardly related. I admit that there is place in Wikipedia for rather obscure topics, but it should not be used in important articles such as these. Andries 22:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dharmic religions]]

message: This article sounds like Here, for it assumes that the reader is not human. Well, it does sound more encyclopedic like that, but still... Marlith T/C 02:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmmm....good point... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article switches from being said in a third person view to first person many times...one example is "We are also noted for our desire to understand and influence the world around them,". It needs to be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.107 (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are all Wikipedia editors human? Marlith T/C 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I have to say that I strongly dislike the use of the word "we" in the article.  It just comes off as unencyclopedic in tone...  it feels like the article is having a friendly chat with me, talking about all the things the two of us (that is, me and this wikipedia article) have in common as humans.  I would strongly opt to strip all usage of 'we' and similar constructs from the article on that basis...  it simply does not read in an encyclopedic tone. --Aquillion 08:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel inhuman reading this article, myself... but, of the two, I would choose a third-person viewpoint, since it does sound most encyclopedic. --Partymetroid 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think reading this article is cool. Makes me feel like a Klingon learning about the earthlings. Guldenat (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I am an alien learning about those humans and I must say that Time Lords, Vulcans and Romulans really are infinitely superior...DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article sounds odd 

message: Remove the stance "with only small minorities fully heterosexual or homosexual". You can compare the number of fully heterosexals with that of fully homosexuals only if you are a real (and read REAL) idiot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.34.226 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely sexuality is largely a programmed psycho-cultural behaviour. About 90% of human males are in the middle range - it is culture and internal logical paradigms that drive someone to either sexuality - but the overwhelming factors are usually aggression and socialization as children. In other words your flat wrong - babies don't have sexuality its a learned behaviour. - Lucien86 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: sexuality

message: There is no doubt that the human population continues to undergo evolution, a topic which has gained renewed interest when the new research was published. I added the section in the light of the overwhelming evidence supporting inherent differences and fertility between humans. Gold Nitrate 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please list these new research publications and discuss this controversial addition on the talk page. This section was overwhelmingly rejected last time you tried to put it in the article, so please explain what has changed. Tim Vickers 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the number of new sources. There has been such a remarkable change since September that the information is deemed far too important to be not included. Gold Nitrate 17:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first source is from a self-published website and does not deal with "dysgenics/eugenics", it seems closer to science fiction than genuine science. The only other new source is a newspaper story on the unpublished opinions of one man. This is not a reliable scientific source on human evolution. What new research publications have there been on "Dysgenics" since last time you tried to add this to the article? Tim Vickers 18:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Out of curiosity I did a PubMed search on "human evolution" - 915 hits, and a search on "Dysgenics" - 2 hits. So from the numbers of reliable publications we should devote a maximum of 0.2% of the attention we give to human evolution to discussing "Dysgenics". That means with 639 words in the section on Human evolution, we might consider giving Dysgenics 1.28 words. However, I'm open to arguments that this might be too much. Tim Vickers 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of which appears a discussion of the ethical questions for reproductive specialists, raised by deaf parents choosing to have deaf children, and the other... I have no idea, there's no abstract, do you have access to APA online tim? – ornis⚙ 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's true story that deaf parents choose to have deaf children. it's deaf culture that they have given sign language to deaf child. Edwtie 18:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not at home, I'll have a look at work on Monday if nobody else can get access. Tim Vickers 00:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was authored by Richard Lynn so I can guess the conclusion. The other issues to be considered here, is the validity of IQ testing as an actual measure of intelligence. The best you can say of that is that the notion is popular, but by no means the consensus position of the scientific community. – ornis⚙ 01:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Evolution

message: Some very primitive human being wrote:
"go around. and suck each others balls(:"
after the "Culture" subdivision. I couldn't fix it, as the page is protected.
Please correct. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.248.220 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help, fast 

message: While the Pioneer plaque featured at the top of the article is a widely recognized representation of the human form, it has a strong sexist undertone; the male genitals are drawn in full detail, while those of the female are ignored and marginilised. Additionally, the male is giving the greeting while the female is passive. --Nick, 9:47 EST, 9 December, 2007.
::While I think all of these points are very legitimate, I'd have to say the issue is fairly moot. Every human on this planet knows that we as people are usually clothed, but that clothing changes and is purely a societal standard. People in northern and southern latitudes tend to be clothed, those along the equator, historically, have only covered their genitals. So I think the picture should depict a nude man and woman, because if you strip us down to the basics that's what we look like.... nude. It would be great if many of the human cultures did not view nudity as being vulgar and taboo. Then it'd be as easy of getting two people to be photographed naked, but good luck making that happen.
::I support the Pioneer Plaque over other generated pictographs due to it's historical significance. If you think about it, this article doesn't necessitate any pictures of humans at all. We, who are reading and working on Wikipedia all know what a human being looks like, what a human looks like naked is a cultural issue between age, innocence/ignorance and society. So if we look at what diagrams we could use, what pictographs might be the most educational, or what pictographs have been used in the past then among the anatomical picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basic_human_anatomy_labeled.jpg, Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, and the Pioneer Plaque I think are great nominations.
::We as humans have already sent the picture into space, as a representation of who we are, and what we look like. Only another intelligent species would ever have a use or need to be enlightened. Sure it was the 1960's and people were even more guarded about sex and culture. But the pioneer plaque is iconic, not descriptive, but this article doesn't need a descriptive picture (you can find that under human anatomy), it needs an iconic picture to represent us. The bird has already flown from the cage, and when I look at the pioneer plaque it reminds that we have already let lose into space radio waves and satellites all the representation that will ever be truly significant, because we don't need pictures of us to know what we look like. If your going to think about what kind of picture should go up on the page, think first about who would need it, why would the picture itself be important, and why is it significant.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneer Plaque 

message: I'm not trying to make trouble. :-)  However I am interested in hearing what people think is the purpose of this article.  Anyone who would ever read it already knows at least a thousand times more about humans than is written in the article. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really true? I know the science stuff like the back of my hand but I found the humanties section to be an interesting read.  It's only an overview, what more could possibly be said without it bloating into an unworkable format? Do you have something in mind? David D. (Talk) 04:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the purpose of the article is to make us think about what being human is, or what is special about humans. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we special or just different? The mirror test is in there.  That narrows us down to six unique species.  David D. (Talk) 06:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The purpose of Wikipedia is to gather verifiable information into a free encyclopedia. By extension, the purpose of this article is to present verifiable information (from a neutral point of view) about humans. Saying that the purpose of the article should be about making people "think about what being human is, or what is special about humans" seems to me to be pursuing a point of view that is not necessarily neutral. We should present what can be verified from reliable sources, and let our readers decide how to use it. -- Donald Albury 12:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Information that is not specific to humans is better-suited to the articles on animals or mammals in general. There is no point in discussing internal fertilisation, thermoregulation, live birth, or common aspects in metabolism in a specific article on one species when these aspects of human structure and function apply to a wide variety of organisms.  Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree to a point. Such common information needs to be included when describing how humans differ, such as the degree of immaturity in human infants compared to other placental species. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite true, but where humans and other mammals are pretty much the same, that information does not belong in the human article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of article?

message: I reverted this edit because it inserted new information in such as a way as to make it look like it was from the source cited at the end of the sentence. 
I reverted this edit because it replaced the Pioneer plaque image against consensus without any discussion. 
The reversion of his last edit, moving an image from one side of the page to the other, was a by-product of reverting his earlier edits. -- Donald Albury 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of Bobisbob's edits 

message: Is it necessary to have an image depicting copulation explicitly (that too with a laptop computer on the bed!)? Such pictures may enhance articles like Love or sex but it seems redundant here. 198.62.10.11 (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to suggest another free image that you think would better illustrate the section? We'll be happy to talk about it, but I think there will be strong resistance to removing the current image without adding a better replacement. -- Donald Albury 13:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in Love and sexuality subsection 

message: (moved from top of page, customary to add new sections at bottom of talk pages)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Basic_human_anatomy_labeled.jpg is used for the Human Anatomy article - maybe it'd be appropriate here, too? Soriak (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: In the Physiology and genetics section, I just changed some text about skin color and UV radiation. Before anyone changes it back, please read the Jablonski article that is cited. It was previously used as a citation for a point that it was explicitly arguing against, namely that skin color is an adaptation to protect against UV radiation. -Fenevad (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin color, UV radiation, and Jablonski article 

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of 
January 1, 
2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.  
*This article needs a lot more inline cites.  I see whole sections without a single cite.
*The  tags need to be taken care of.  Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps Delist 

message: I know by now this link title may have some evolution,though an opinion of it may not be advisable,since when at a time i had tried this and now will be for sure my last attempt,it may appear that it realy does matter how long something is until it is coherent meaning a post in reference with it some things take time .
I had search for it on wikipedia though no foundation was of it i did though study some other links elsewhere concerning sciences and the likeings of researchings though again no real foundation the most capable research i had found was consisting of water and another was an organism type solution a solution here in my discription is the solutions that were being studied through the sciences,found it very interest though when i attempted to distribute my matter thought wich for some time i've allways had and well may not be a beleife for why i am in contravercy sort of anyway.
It is also in my question in why something that realy has'nt been formatted as a true exsistance and calculation would be a format towards the adversery of a lible or a slander who is being condemed if there is'nt a thing of sureness ,would then perhaps be me,if i was the attempt and an attempt was towards me i would then see it as a concerning thought and pehaps a calculation towards the effort,the studies continue through the help and concerns of those that may have some solid answer note the word some has now been protected as being a form of meaning study and or the aprenteces fact leading to i hope that was ok Thank You D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass 3:24 p.m. e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Seperation of Human Organism]]

message: This section needs to revised or, I would suggest, deleted. The problem is that, in discussing early human civilization's development of warfare and empire, the Western Hemisphere is ignored. Besides the bias of ignoring indigenous Americans, this creates a false impression that human history has proceeded along a single time line of progression. Such an observation ignores the rise and fall of empires through warfare and other means throughout human history. A more inclusive history would acknowledge the Meso-American and South American civilizations that flourished without substantial contact with the Eastern Hemisphere. Also, the citations from the Old World are misleading, in that they indicate a general trend toward the use of warfare and the rise of empires as emerging only at a certain point of human social and political evolution. In fact, there is ample evidence of warfare going back to paleolithic times, albeit with much more minimal social and political structure than would be seen later. Even in early historic times, evidence for the trend toward empires also goes back further to at least the Egyptians, Hittites and Akkadians. But to claim it started with any of these groups in the Old World is equally problematic. We don't know enough about other early civilizations -- the Harappans, the Uruk civiliation, the Minoans -- to understand whether the "empire" concept has strong roots in earlier times. As such, I recommend striking this entire discussion as too complicated and not really germane to the main entry in question.
Ftjrwrites (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human history section problematic and unnecessary 

message: A christmas day edit lost us half the LEAD and the job was completed with this edit here.  I have restored the LEAD as it was on 24th Dec. David D. (Talk) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing that. I was wondering how an article this size was ever a FA or GA with a small one paragraph lead. The deteted portion was certainly not original research, as the deleter claimed. Okiefromokla questions? 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I could see how it could be thought of as such since it was deleted while not part of the lead due to the confusion. It acts as more of a summary in the lead, which makes it ok. :P Okiefromokla questions? 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LEAD restored

message: Where is criticism? 70.89.165.91 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What criticism do you think should go here? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need to mention politicians. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Very good idea. This article is very human-focused. For crying out loud, it seems like it was written by humans! A "criticism of humans" section is definently needed. :P Okiefromokla questions? 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What criticism do you propose including? -- Donald Albury 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the Annon editor was being serious. Okiefromokla questions? 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fact that humans have become a serious threat to biodiversity is missing. In the future, the current extinction event will be seen in fossil records. --Vuo (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some of that in Habitat and population. Okiefromokla questions? 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hi - 20 or so somewhat major revisions to this article in one day is a lot. Can we agree to leave it alone for a bit, fix spelling mistakes and fine tune this prior to another major bunch of changes? And disucss the changes prior to making major ones? I glanced at these and they seem good for the most part, but they will require going over a bit more when there is time. /ThanksBob98133 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, a lot of thoes were mine ;) OK, understood. Its a fine article bty. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: a lot of revisions in one day!

message: elephants can paint?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs (talk • contribs) 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'd need to find a source stating that animals create art on their own for aesthetic purposes (versus being taught by humans, or versus a whale song or bird song). You can find all sorts of things (bird songs, rock formations, flowers) in nature that have aesthetically pleasing qualities, but I don't think many researchers would call a canary an "artist." OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of agree, but even the couple of references I've sited refer to the chimps or elephants as "artists". I'm not sure that creating art purely for aesthetic purposes is really a definition of art. That would leave folk art and much other art out. What you are saying is that if humans cannot define the purpose of a behavior as art, then it isn't. I only questioned this because it sounds like the same sort of exclusionary language like "only humans have language...thinking...art..." You could argue that animals don't think because they don't tell us what they are thinking, but that would be the same sort of narrow view that this article is appying to art. From what I've heard, the chimps who do art are fairly deliberate about it and do it as an activity separate from other activities. Bob98133 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that folk art is not created for aesthetic purposes? That seems pretty dismissive. Note that Jamie did not say "purely for aesthetic purposes"; you added the "purely".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalbury (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Admittedly, "for aesthetic purposes" is too narrow of a definition; provoking an emotional reaction (positive or negative) is another commonly cited purpose. Nonetheless, I think it's like saying, "hey, dogs have a language, they use their ears, tail, and posture to communicate."  I don't think any linguists would consider that to be a bona fide language. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's worth all the discussion. Someone recently has come out with computer analysis of dog sounds and determined that they use something like language; but you've re-stated my point when you say that a linguist would never agree - but because the linguist has prejudices about the meaning of language. Humans have prejudices about language, intelligence, and apparently art. It's not a big deal since it's a minor point in the article anyhow - I'm fine with it not being included, but thanks for the discussion.Bob98133 (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that any non-human animal has a 'language' is possible only by using a very loose definition of 'language'. Perhaps a better phrasing on art would be that only humans produce representational art. This avoids any question about whether the seemingly random images produced by a few confined animals are equivalent to abstract art produced by humans. -- Donald Albury 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: human art

message: The page is protected so I cannot edit this trivial minor mistake: the caption on the embryo photograph claims it is "A living human embryo at 5 weeks", however :Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg#Summary describes it as a "formalin-fixed specimen" and so it cannot be living, therefore "living" needs to be removed from the caption. 87.127.20.50 (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "living" is unnecessary anyway. I removed it. Thanks for bringing it up. Okiefromokla questions? 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embryo picture caption 

message: in the section 'life cycle', the second sentence has a "]" erroneously inserted after the word 'uterus'. i would change it myself but the page is protected.
:Thank you, I fixed this. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Got those, yes, they must be broken links. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: User:Ceoil removed dozens of links on the 8th. He seems to have botched the editing on a number of them.  -- Donald Albury 17:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  small typo 

message: What I'm trying to convey .. is difficult without ripping out half the text.  It argues that one point of validity of us being omnivores is the fact an all meat or all vegetarian diet leads to deficiencies, whilst yes there is a source cited for that, common sense would make anyone slightly curious dig a little deeper.  If we turn to Vitamin B12 we will see that folic acid is an equal substitute for B12.
:Most "B-12 deficient symptoms" are actually folate deficient symptoms, since they include all the effects of pernicious anemia and megaloblastosis, which are due to poor synthesis of DNA when the body does not have a proper supply of folic acid for the production of thymine. 
Then, gasp shock horror, if we turn to the folic acid article we then find ..
:Leafy vegetables such as spinach, turnip greens, lettuces, dried beans and peas, fortified cereal products, sunflower seeds and certain other fruits and vegetables are rich sources of folate.
So that kind of shoots a whole in that whole concept and makes Wiki look diki.  :(  Perhaps someone could think of a better way to structure it?  As a meatatarian I am well aware that vegetarian diets are vastly healthier, and I've read much compelling evidence that eating meat has horrible side effects and hell, I've even read extensively compelling evidence that we are not omnivores at all, but herbivores and like many herbivores have the capacity to consume flesh in times of starvation or need.  The arguments as to us being omnivores I've found are pretty piss weak, a simple look at the length of the GI tract of any other omnivores, or carnivores (whom have significantly extensively shorter and straighter GI tracts).
It's just kind of dissapointing that if I, as an avowed meatatarian to the point where I'd eat you, the reader, if it were legal just for farts and giggles, can concede we are herbivorous with optional omnivority given the evidence out there that the only argument put forward that we are omnivores is .. well, so flawed two clicks and you can see that it's impossible for there to be a deficiency.  :/  Jachin (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not too happy with my edit in the Diet section.

message: I'd like to request squeezing xenophobia into the psychology section of the human article... Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I find it a somewhat prominent psychological trait of humans and felt that I missed it's inclusion in the article. Anyone for? Anyone against? 217.209.222.7 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology addition: 

message: The text of mirror test does not agree with this article in the species it lists, there are more than six species and whether pigeons should be listed is highly disputed. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mirror test]] 

message: I was reading the diet section.  It seems there is clear bias there towards vegetarianism.  What it currently says is:
: However, properly planned vegetarian diets have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life,online copy available significantly reduce risks of major diseases, including cancer, promote a healthier body mass index, reduce excess body fat, (BBC story on paper ) and increase longevityKey, Timothy J, et al., 1999 "Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 516S-524S, September 1999 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516Shttp://www.llu.edu/news/today/july2601/llu.html, when compared with unplanned omnivorous diets.
and to me this is comparing apples to oranges.  The apples of a "planned vegetarian diet" to the "unplanned ombivorous diet".  Almost diametrically opposed I'd say.  If the same could be said about a planned omnivorus diet I'd say it's a valid comparison, but to me, this seems like it's strongly biased towards vegetarian diet. 
What I'd like to ask is if it would be considered bias if we provided similar statistics regarding a planned omnivorous diet versus an unplanned vegetarian diet?  Or am I missing something?  Jigme Datse (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's obviously an unfair comparison, but there's a point to it to, in that vegetarianism - if properly planned - can be just as healthy, if not healthier than a typical unplanned non-vegetarian diet at least.  Maybe if the sentence was trimmed down to reflect that, rather than it sounding like something lifted from some sort of vegetarianism promotional material, attempting to suggest vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet. --88.108.183.202 (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A properly planned omnivorous diet is what it is being compared to, not an unproperly planned one. Those are the findings of the American Dietetic Association, Dietations of Canada, and most recent major nutrtional research. The fact is sufficiently cited. Okiefromokla questions? 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but why must there be five sentences dedicated to the relative merits of a omnivorous vs vegetarian diet? does a majority or significant minority adhere to this alternative diet? only a cursory statement i think should be mentioned about it, otherwise its just undue weight.Rubico (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an alternative diet, is what they're getting at through deductive reasoning.  Recently at Oxcam, I believe it was, they released the 'cave man diet', and it was vegetarian apart from a once a month strip of meat of some random rodent caught. 122.107.42.146 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in Diet section 

message: I've looked through over half a dozen pages I expected would explain the effects of cranial expansion. The cranial expansion of humans have left marked contrast between us and apes, our closest extant primate relatives. By lengthening the duration of our postnatal skull development extraproportionally, it decreased the precociousness of the human infant. By increasing the amount of prenatal skull development extraportionally, it forced a widening of the hips in adult females. By pushing our whole face forward, it decreased snout length, or the distance between the lips and the proboscis supporting cranial aperture. This in turn increased the range of airflow positions lips and a tongue of a given length could articulate, helping vocalization, and forced a nose lengthening to prevent our smothering during meals or sleep and a convexing of the breasts in adult females to avoid smothering breastfeeding infants. By stretching our skulls thin, it made our skulls more susceptible to breakage, and increased our chances of brain damage. By stretching the anchor points of our jaw muscles forward, it decreased our jaw strength but increased our jaw dexterity. This in turn, decreased our potential range of our food sources and ability to inflict damge through biting but helped our ability to articulate vocalization. This isn't OR, but the part on breast convexing was only published in the last few years, by a breastfeeding anthropologist. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most direct consequences of cranial expansion 

message: Under Human#Diet, we reference a source, http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm , that writes the following three sentences within its abstract:
:This position paper reviews the current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients. Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.
Citing this source, we write the sentences:
:Properly planned vegetarian diets have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life,online copy available significantly reduce risks of major diseases, including cancer, promote a healthier body mass index, reduce excess body fat, (BBC story on paper ) and increase longevityKey, Timothy J, et al., 1999 "Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 70, No. 3, 516S-524S, September 1999 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516Shttp://www.llu.edu/news/today/july2601/llu.html, when compared with unplanned omnivorous diets.
In particular, I find suspect the clause:
:Properly planned vegetarian diets have been found to completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life,
I would accept:
:It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that properly planned vegetarian diets completely satisfy nutritional needs in every stage of life,
But the way we have it now, we rely on a position paper that treats this claim as a foregone conclusion in its abstract, as evidence for this claim that, no matter how true it is, is extraordinary. That's just not scholarly. It's just not cricket. ^_^ I propose the clause's change here because I assume it will hit some raw nerves, that may need time to adjust first. Besides, claiming a vegan diet is sufficient for every stage of life, including lactation, as the source does is nigh on oxymoronic. A vegan diet includes milk from no animal, so how can a breastfeeding infant be vegan? I only assume the intent would be that the infant receives a vegan diet with no milk and the mother lactates without breastfeeding. :)--Thecurran (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable source 

message: "These species share the same common ancestor." This is a silly thing to say about humans and chimpanzees, because all animals share the same common ancestor. (Plus "the same" is redundant with "common" here.) -Silence (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Possibly it is supposed to say that humans share a more recent common ancestor with chimps than with any other extant species (ie they are our species' closest surviving evolutionary relative). Though of course there are a plethora of extinct Hominina species with which we share a more recent common ancestor than we do with chimps. Alun (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Quick question, if humanscame from chips, why are their still chimps around?
~~CM~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corey manning (talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080220125442AA1sVcF Tim Vickers (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The same common ancestor? 

message: Why do we have sections on the history and habitat of humans before we've even explained what humans are? Surely "biology" should go first. (Especially since the justification for keeping the lead section of Human so sparse on biological details has always been that we jump so quickly into explaining those details in the first section, Biology.) -Silence (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page layout 

message: 1. Consistency
Future writers should bring consistency to use the British spelling of words or the American spelling of words.
e.g. behavior, behaviour
Keep these spelling conventions the same throughout the whole article.
2. Verifiability
A large portion of this article expresses opinions which don't correlate properly with citations, or include weasel words. When citing articles please accurately depict the content inside the article. If you have some great desire to express your opinion then find research or a researcher that backs up your opinion and cite that research or researcher. Please remember that this article is not a place for expressing your own opinions, but a reservoir for original research.
e.g. These are weasel words, in the article on emotion...
"Some people might define it as the..."
"Others define it as...."
Who says it? You say it? Your friends? A researcher? If it's generally accepted then it should not be hard to find the evidence and cite it.
-Dren (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: Human race redirects here, but there's no mention of the term in the article. Shouldn't there be? Richard001 (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? What is there to say, really? -Silence (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Human race

message: It should be a real naked human on the picture at the top. --212.247.27.141 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should certainly be a photograph rather than a drawing, yes. And there should certainly be photographs of humans both naked and clothed in the article; whether the image at the top of the article is naked (focusing on human biology) or clothed (acknowledging human culture and norms) is rather less important. Either way it would be more informative than a glorified cartoon. -Silence (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that allowed though?Arkkeeper (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well apprently wikipedia is not censered. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh... Good to know! :) Arkkeeper (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Real naked human

message: It is incorrect to say on the one hand modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago when later you say some believe modern humans came from the  Late Pleistocene.  Anatomically modern humans appeared 200,000 but truly modern man, with his special brain, probably did not show up until the Cro Magnon man era, 50,000 BCE or thereabouts.  Check out the references in Last Common Ancestor (Wiki).  Saying 200,000 - 50,000 for the birthday of modern man would be the balanced approach. 98.196.237.162 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. It's just an act of vandalism. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't. It's not correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It was vandalism. David D. (Talk) 08:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was serious. Except for a few isolated incidents all humans now live in a society of some sort. Should humans ever have a conservation status area? It seems rather useless. Syphon8 21:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It was certainly of a higher calibre than the usual nonsense.  –  ornis⚙ 08:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is a variable that is subject to change in the face of plagues, famines, killings, infertility and such, like in any other animal. Placing exceptions on humans to show less information instead of more would be the odd move. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our conservation status should be listed as Vermin in plague proportions.  :P 122.107.42.146 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Localized starvation and genocide, while horrific, clearly doesn't make humanity as a whole an endangered species. "Least Concern" is not meant to imply that everything is hunky-dory in the world or that no humans are suffering; it merely reflects the fact that human population is exceedingly high, growing, and widespread, making complete human extinction in the foreseeable future relatively (i.e., compared to other species) unlikely. However, while I think your argument is weak, I agree that we should make sure that this conservation status isn't original research. Even if IUCN doesn't apply a status to humans, does another legitimate organization do anything of the sort? -Silence (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: There are many species which can only be found in Iran or only be found in the United States. Those species would surely be dramatically more at risk of extinction than a global species like humans if Iran and the US became involved in a war. Yet I can't imagine every species native to Iran and the US being suddenly listed as endangered, or even near-threatened, based solely on politically-contingent speculation. The same applies to China. There are too many variables involved to predict the actual level of danger from such scenarios, or the scope of such danger (i.e., global vs. localized). This doesn't mean that humans are perfectly safe and secure, just that the future's too uncertain for such labels to be meaningful if we start letting hypothetical, rather than actual and ongoing, catastrophes influence conservation status: humans are not the only species that would have to be deemed "endangered" if we made assumptions about the likelihood of things like nuclear or biochemical warfare, and indeed humans are probably more likely to survive extinction in the short run than most other species currently alive. -Silence (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true for most animals, but most species are species of bacteria. However, the classification in terms of "conservation status" has always puzzled me as well. Perhaps we could simply omit it? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see the harm in having it there. Although I will find it funny if the need ever arises to list Humans anything other than "Not threatened," only because there would apparently be people worried about maintaining Wikipedia rather than working for the survival of humanity. Maybe it won't be too long. Until then, we should keep the status. It should be common sense. Okiefromokla questions? 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Obviously humans are LC, but that's my "original research". It is not up to Wikipedians to decide what conservation status to give. When the IUCN lists humans, then sure, but until then, no, they are not officially assessed. There should be no status listed. —Pengo 05:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a conservation status to the taxobox of the human article is only something you would do on April Fools Day. And besides, we'd surely be one of the hardest species to eradicate. Imagine you were actually given that task - can you even think of a way you could do it? Your only real option would be contriving some sort of massive global change that would upset all life on earth, like destroying the ozone layer or something (and I believe the PRC have beaten you to that one). 130.216.172.69 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation Status

message: Why have humans been listed as extinct in the wild? according to wikipedia's own extinct int he wild page that means that they can only be found in "captivity or as a naturalized population outside its historic range" it's simple to see that  humans are not in some type of alien zoo, so it can't be the first half of that, and humans are living on every continent of the earth, that would seem to suggest to me that we have expanded beyond our "historic range" am I wrong with this thougth? is there some reasoning to this status? 
Lyynn 00:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism. David D. (Talk) 08:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was serious. Except for a few isolated incidents all humans now live in a society of some sort. Should humans ever have a conservation status area? It seems rather useless. Syphon8 21:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It was certainly of a higher calibre than the usual nonsense.  –  ornis⚙ 08:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct in the Wild 

message: Why is there a conservation status for humans? Only humans update the Wiki anyway, its not like a gorilla will try to search "human" on the website. 72.205.55.209 (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a variable that is subject to change in the face of plagues, famines, killings, infertility and such, like in any other animal. Placing exceptions on humans to show less information instead of more would be the odd move. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Our conservation status should be listed as Vermin in plague proportions.  :P 122.107.42.146 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation Status?

message: First of all, the World Conservation Union has not given humans a classification.  The page Least_Concern says "Humans qualify for this category, although they have not been formally assessed by the IUCN for obvious reasons."  In other words, humans don't actually have an official status at all: somebody made it up.  Secondly, the categorization is offensive in the sense that it overlooks the starvation and genocide happening in the world and implies that the IUCN cares more about animals than about human beings.  I therefore strongly suggest it be deleted. MutantChair (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Localized starvation and genocide, while horrific, clearly doesn't make humanity as a whole an endangered species. "Least Concern" is not meant to imply that everything is hunky-dory in the world or that no humans are suffering; it merely reflects the fact that human population is exceedingly high, growing, and widespread, making complete human extinction in the foreseeable future relatively (i.e., compared to other species) unlikely. However, while I think your argument is weak, I agree that we should make sure that this conservation status isn't original research. Even if IUCN doesn't apply a status to humans, does another legitimate organization do anything of the sort? -Silence (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This Conservation Status stuff is nonsense

message: If the US attacks Iran, I think we should move the status to NT, and if they attack China, it should be moved to EN.  Canada-kawaii (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many species which can only be found in Iran or only be found in the United States. Those species would surely be dramatically more at risk of extinction than a global species like humans if Iran and the US became involved in a war. Yet I can't imagine every species native to Iran and the US being suddenly listed as endangered, or even near-threatened, based solely on politically-contingent speculation. The same applies to China. There are too many variables involved to predict the actual level of danger from such scenarios, or the scope of such danger (i.e., global vs. localized). This doesn't mean that humans are perfectly safe and secure, just that the future's too uncertain for such labels to be meaningful if we start letting hypothetical, rather than actual and ongoing, catastrophes influence conservation status: humans are not the only species that would have to be deemed "endangered" if we made assumptions about the likelihood of things like nuclear or biochemical warfare, and indeed humans are probably more likely to survive extinction in the short run than most other species currently alive. -Silence (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true for most animals, but most species are species of bacteria. However, the classification in terms of "conservation status" has always puzzled me as well. Perhaps we could simply omit it? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see the harm in having it there. Although I will find it funny if the need ever arises to list Humans anything other than "Not threatened," only because there would apparently be people worried about maintaining Wikipedia rather than working for the survival of humanity. Maybe it won't be too long. Until then, we should keep the status. It should be common sense. Okiefromokla questions? 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Obviously humans are LC, but that's my "original research". It is not up to Wikipedians to decide what conservation status to give. When the IUCN lists humans, then sure, but until then, no, they are not officially assessed. There should be no status listed. —Pengo 05:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a conservation status to the taxobox of the human article is only something you would do on April Fools Day. And besides, we'd surely be one of the hardest species to eradicate. Imagine you were actually given that task - can you even think of a way you could do it? Your only real option would be contriving some sort of massive global change that would upset all life on earth, like destroying the ozone layer or something (and I believe the PRC have beaten you to that one). 130.216.172.69 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation status

message: I don't see any reason why the classification shouldn't include Subfamily: Homininae, Tribe: Hominini
and Subtribe: Hominina. I believe it used to list all three. Why was it cut down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmologyProfessor (talk • contribs) 
:It is not our standard to list all intermediary taxa in the taxobox. For a species article, we list only the major ranks unless there is a pressing need to list a specific intermediary taxa. For other articles, we list important intermediary taxa between the article's rank and the next higher major rank, unless there is a pressing need to list additionaly intermediary taxa. For this article, there is no pressing need to list Homininae, Hominini, or Hominina. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was scientific classification of humans cut down?

message: To my mind it sounds weird and a bit exaggerated to call the sheer human presence for scientific purpose in the low orbit an "inhabitation" of it. People are there for science and research, so they are working, but not really living there. I think, the term "living" would be justified, if they would spent their complete live up there with free time, work, family etc. 
Otherwise you could also say, humans were "inhabiting" (parts of) the oceans. (on oil platforms.) To say so would be ridiculous as well. So I think, "presence" is something different than "inhabitation". 84.44.128.59 (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I remember when research communities were set up at the north pole which is a somewhat analogous situation. Even though they were initially just for military or research, they did become actual human habitations over time which is probably the goal of the space station too. I don't have any problem calling it either habitation or presence. Today, hundreds of thousands of people live on land reclaimed from the sea (Netherlands, Singapore, Bangladesh...), although the earliest of these were probably just clinging to a platform or a tree. That said, there might be some way to clarify this as initial habitation in advance of colonization.Bob98133 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I think as well, the north pole isn't inhabited by the research community, but by the Inuit. The difference is, that the Inuit don't need any help from somewhere else. That's also the point with the lands, that have been reclaimed by the sea. People are able to live their own lives there (behind dikes) without help from anywhere outside. To my mind, in the orbit that would just be the case, if there would exist a big/huge infrastructure (i.e. like in "Babylon 5") so that they could live there in real autarchy (like on different continents -> see sentence).84.44.199.238 (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm convinced. I'm OK w/presence. You might mention that their presence is not self-sustaining but depends on outside help, if that would clarify it.Bob98133 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "inhabiting" low earth orbit? 

message: "The developed world generally aging, with the median age around 40 years (highest in Monaco at 45.1 years). In the developing world the median age is between 15 and 20 years. Life expectancy at birth in Hong Kong, China is 84.8 years for a female and 78.9 for a male, while in Swaziland, primarily because of AIDS, it is 31.3 years for both sexes.[42] While one in five Europeans is 60 years of age or older, only one in twenty Africans is 60 years of age or older.[43] The number of centenarians (humans of age 100 years or older) in the world was estimated by the United Nations at 210,000 in 2002.[44] At least one person, Jeanne Calment, is known to have reached the age of 122 years; higher ages have been claimed but they are not well substantiated. Worldwide, there are 81 men aged 60 or older for every 100 women of that age group, and among the oldest, there are 53 men for every 100 women."
This is a bunch of gibberish and unrelated statistics. could anyone put this into an understandable form? if i have some time i'll check it ou myself.--71.97.138.104 (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Cycle