Talk:Human/Archive 7

message: vrs.
Just for sake of clarity.
(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Human#Poll where I discuss and link to important aspects of the talk archives. Knowledge of a given pages archives is no prerequisite for making edits, but I think its pretty obvious I have reviewed the talk page archives, So I find your advice peculiar. What would give you the idea that new ideas ought not surface, or that historical discussion trumps the present? Think about other, quality reference sources. They display diversity within a species. Just because dog isn't perfect should not limit this article. 2 girls is a poor representation of humanity, as are the images in the archives. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sure, new ideas would be welcome. the two girls are not required to represent "humanity" of course.  dab (ᛏ) 13:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Nice! (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The images 

message: Just want to comment Rednblu, saying that biology has very little to do with what is "human". In my opinion that's not true:
* if the anatomy would be a little different, we could not speak
* if there would be no aging and disease, we would have a completely different values than we have today (not health, youth etc.)
* the effect of emotions that are biological entities in its origin and are quite human
* impact of the need for food and water on our society
* races (they are not mentioned at all in the article!)
* enormous effect of genes on our behaviour
* taking care of children (not every species does so)
Saying that biology has very little to do with what is human is like saying we are tabula rasa. That is not true at all. We are biological entities heavily influenced by society. If our biological nature would be different the definition of human species would be different too. BTW, I also want to remind of the article nature versus nurture that should be rewritten.
As for separating the articles, after reading the discussion and having thought about it I do support the idea, because the biology of human is an enormous field of knowledge. However the article should be named homo sapiens sapiens or biology of modern human but not human biology if it is created. Human biology is a science that deals with biology of human. Homo sapiens sapiens would disproportionately focus on evolution, so I would propose to use the name biology of modern human or modern human (biology) instead. The use of word modern (or sapiens sapiens) saves us from the dilemma what to do with homo neanderthalensis and with arhaic forms of homo sapiens. They are described separately.
The article could become a category that would include Human anatomy, Human physical appearance, Human height and so on.
Also, there should be a paragraph about biology of modern human left in the article human. --Eleassar777 14:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and hope you don't mind me moving you down here where your more likely to be read. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment to Rednblu

message: IMO the answer is to reduce the size of this article while broadening its scope. Excess content should be summarized and moved off to the particular articles in question. More sections detailing important concepts about humans should be created, with equally condensed, summarized info and links. Finially, this article should probably be moved to Human being, and most of the biological info should be moved to Homo sapiens sapiens, leaving behind a summary of course. Human should be a disambig page. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sam. I just wish to propose the use of biology of modern man instead of homo sapiens sapiens because the latter focuses more on classification while the former focuses on different aspects of biology of modern man. Would that perhaps be an unacceptable exception to general rules of categorizing and/or describing species in Wikipedia? --Eleassar777 19:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but we may still have too much content @ Homo sapiens sapiens, and need yet another article, in that case Biology of modern man. People are in a state of evolution IMO, see transhumanism. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll agree with Sam's ideas, with the addition of the two suggested cross referencing articles 'Biology of modern man' and the 'Homo sapiens sapiens', leaving the latter probably as short as the Chimpanzee article with in the second and third line immediately links to human, human being, biology of modern man, and a 'See also' sections at the end. The 'homo sapiens sapiens' article should be included for completeness and consistency of the series of articles on primates, interesting for those looking for categorizations of species and the like. Gebruiker:Dedalus 08:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The answer