Talk:Human/Archive 20

message: I do not have neither the inclination nor the stamina to sustain yet-another-edit war on this article. I, and others, worked really hard to get this article in shape for FAC status and to accommodate conflicting POVs. I leave this "second round" in the hands of other capable editors, with the hope that they will not just rehash previous discussions, and that they don't throw away all that hard work. There are hundred of articles that need out attention, I just feel I have done more than enough to contribute to this one. I may check this article from time to time, but will no longer engage actively in editing it. If you need a fresh pair of eyes to look it over when you have arrived at a version that is stable, drop me a line in my user_talk page and I will be happy to comment on your work. Good luck, and happy editing. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy editing 

message: I added the NPOV tag because the psychology subsection as it stands now (after i removed Jung who is totally insignificant in psychology) is more about psychoanalysis than it is about psychology. I have edited the article a few times but any time I mention Wilhelm Wundt (who is credited as opening the first experimental psychology lab and being the first person to call himself a psychologist in the main psychology article as well as that about him the subsection is reverted/rewritten by SS and its back to psychoanalysis, Freud and Jung. I really think that the subsection should be rewritten, but I cannot be stuffed doing it just to have it reverted.
:dr.alf 09:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO you are correct Freud should not be there; however, I question the need for Wundt. What about rewriting so it is a summary of what Psychology is (rather than A Brief History of Psychoanalysis, which si what it is right now), with of course a link to the main article, and leaving out details better covered in the main article? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That, in my opinion, is a lot more appropriate because its not about some dead austrians (or germans or americans) but rather about the disciplines and what is actually studied in psychology. Might be a bit too wordy so i'll see if I can trim it down a bit later on. dr.alf 10:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, watch the stuff about dead Germans and Austrians -- my forebears might roll over.  :)  I'll give the pararaphs a shot later. Jim62sch 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree completely with KillerChihuahua that change is necessary. The subsection is called "Psychology and human ethology" not "Psychoanalysis". I'm going to bed now but will check in later & help where I can. Mikker ... 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Human#Psychology_and_human_ethology|Psychology subsection]] 

message: Origins
Main articles: Human evolution, Origin belief and Creationism
Essentially every culture has its characteristic origin beliefs. Creationism or creation theology is the belief that humans, the Earth, the universe and the multiverse were created by a supreme being or deity. The event itself may be seen either as an act of creation (ex nihilo) or the emergence of order from preexisting chaos (demiurge). Many who hold "creation" beliefs consider such belief to be a part of religious faith, and hence compatible with, or otherwise unaffected by scientific views while others maintain the scientific data is compatible with creationism. Proponents of evolutionary creationism may claim that understood scientific mechanisms are simply aspects of supreme creation. Otherwise, science-oriented believers may consider the scriptural account of creation as simply a metaphor.
There is nary a word on human evolution in this mess.  Jim62sch 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This used to be in the evolution section evolution section.  It seemed inappropriate so i moved it to the culture section.  I don't think theory of evolution should be discussed here. David D. (Talk) 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it belong in culture? Jim62sch 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking along the lines of mythology.  Is that culture or religion? If the latter you think it should go in religion? David D. (Talk) 21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You'll hate this answer: both. Jim62sch 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both, but belongs in religion, as every myth either is now, or was once, believed as part of a religious paradigm. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This needs to be significantly revised

message: I have no problem with what Jim is trying to do.  We need a fresh start on this article as indicated by the tepid reviews it got at FARC. To cling to the old version because it was FA status does not make sense.  Only a few voted on it at the time and there were significant criticisms that are still being discussed to this day.  Jim's edits are NOT destroying this article, they are a new backbone.  If some regard his edits as POV then let's discuss WHY you regard them as POV and HOW you would like to reword any given section/paragraph.  To just reverting wholesale is not productive since we have been told by the community that the old FA version is NOT the best we can do. David D. (Talk) 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm glad someone sees what I'm trying to do.  As with any article I've either written or worked on, I want it to be the best it can be, written from an NPOV perspective, factual, and short enough to capture all the facts without putting the reader to sleep.  There are still a lot of things that can be rewritten, some that can be shortened (and a few that could be removed or combined), but I hope we're off to a good start. Jim62sch 21:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: The article has gone to hell in a handbasket in the last week, and the editers who helped to achieve FA status have largely left. With FA removal now a certainty, this article is beginning to look like the best argument for permanant page protection yet. We've been able to maintain FA status at wikipedia despite our obvious bias... is Human simply too much for us to handle as a collaborative project? Sam Spade 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not gone anywhere but up.  That certain POV's have been limited to those sections in which they belong is a sign of accuracy and growth, not of decay and decline.  A collaborative effort is not necessarily one in which the technical is subverted for the placation of the few.  Jim62sch 00:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last week 

message: why are these seperate? or at least, why is there no mention of evolution in the section "origin beliefs"? Surely, as this article was written by humans (I assume), evolution is an origin belief that is held by humans. The fact that it happens to be right doesn't mean it's not a belief. --Krsont 03:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: obviously not on a cosmological scale, but it does address the origin of humanity. --Krsont 12:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, evolution is about evolution. Origins are about origins. Two different things. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, evolution discovers all biomes, not just humans. Jim62sch 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article need not discuss about origin of life, and should focus on origin of humans. Life thrived before humans and will continue to do so after the extinction of humans. Of course, certain religious theories combine the two hopelessly, in  which case they have to be mentioned together. deeptrivia (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think you all seem a bit confused. Evolution is a theory that explains the origin, through natural selection, of species; including humans. I.E it is an origin belief. Unless you're saying that the section "origin beliefs" should only be focused on beliefs about the origin of the entire universe, in which case putting it in the human article is pointless; it should have it's own article. --Krsont 17:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that's what. Focus on "origin"/evolution of humans on this article. deeptrivia (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point in time I'm unclear where either of you are going with this.  Suffice it to say that as evolution is science it will not be combined with "origin beliefs" with is mythology. Jim62sch 18:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, as far as I am concerned, I give two opposable thumbs up to evolution, but that doesn't matter. To represent all viewpoints, we must mention these "alternative" beliefs somewhere. deeptrivia (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Deep, See my proposed format for the article above...they would be discussed (whether or not they need to be is a separate issue).  Jim62sch 18:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Again, I feel that everyone is confused here; my point was: Evolution is one of many beliefs that are held by humans dealing with their own origin. The facts "humans evolved" and "many humans believe their origin as a species can be explained by the theory of evolution" are not the same. Hence my proposal that there be an "evolution" section for the actual facts of humanity's evolution, and a seperate one labelled "origin beliefs", presumably under culture/religion, that mentions the idea of evolution as one of many that are held by humans. --Krsont 22:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that evolution has been developed to explain observations, and that it changes as new data comes to light, does not make it any different from a belief. It's a very well thought out, scientific belief, but that's still belief. That's not to say evolution is only as good as any other origin belief, because that's obviously not true. This article infact already shows that, by portraying the evolution POV as the only definitive POV regarding the actual biological origins of the human species. But if you think "belief" is a dirty word, fine. However if we're going to write about what humans themselves think about their own origins, whatever the terminology be, I think it's extremely bizarre to leave out evolution. --Krsont 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up, people, up.  Look at the proposed structure of the article.  Both items are in there.  Origin beliefs with Religion, evolution with the science aspect.  Let's stop wasting bytes on this.  (And, no, evolution is not a belief as it is based in fact.) Jim62sch 00:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you even been listening to what I've been saying? my entire point was that saying "the human species came about via a process known as evolution" is not the same as saying "many humans believe/know that the human species came about via a process known as evolution". They are two totally different facts; one biological, the other cultural. I was proposing that the science aspect continues to explain the actual truth of human evolution, wheras the "origin belief" (or whatever else you want to call it if you think "belief" is a dirty word) section deals with the sociological aspects of humanity's understanding of it's own origin; including it's understanding of evolution. Do you not see the distinction there? --Krsont 01:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict]I don't recall diagreeing with you re your first point.  However, muddying the water by placing evolution (even in the sense of human comprehension of the theory) in with origin beliefs helps nothing (unless one is an IDist); in fact it unwittingly tends to create a false dichotomy that evolution and other beliefs (especially religious) are incompatable (see Intelligent design.  So yes, I see the distinction (and did a number of posts ago) -- in fact I see it all to well.  Jim62sch 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I'm confused. Its beginning to sound like we're all actually talking about the same thing, almost. Krsont, what do you think of Jim's proposed article structure, above? with evolution as 2.3, and Religion and Origin beliefs at 4.4? KillerChihuahua?!? 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, gravity is a force. An observable force. However our ability to understand that force is also observable. This could be an observation made in the context of a history of scientific thought, or an explanation of human understanding of the environment. The same is true of evolution. It is a process, but it is also a theory that formulates a definition of that process. I believe this article needs a representative discussion on human "ideas about origins" that includes a description and history of humanity's understanding of evolution, along side any other ideas they've formulated (including religious beliefs). It's not about making evolution look the same as those beliefs; it's about showing the human understanding of evolution in the context of the long history of human curiosity about their origins. As for the origin of life/the universe, I personally think that should be a secondary concern - human's understanding of specifically themselves is, imo, far more relevent to an article on humans than human's understanding of the universe in general is. --Krsont 02:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that evolution should not be in the section on biology? Does that make sense? David D. (Talk) 03:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  er, no. I'm suggesting that a discussion of the evolution of humans STAYS in the biology section; but that another section in "culture", or perhaps "religion", deals with the history of human thought on their own origins, including evolution. Like I said, there are two different facts here: one is "humans evolved" (biological) the other is "humans know they evolved" (sociological). Both facts should be mentioned. --Krsont 14:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K.  i was making an assumption on your position based on previous discussions on this page. I should read more carefully next time. Do you care to rewrite the origin beliefs section with the inclusion of evolution to see how it looks? I don't find belief such a dirty word but fundamentalist have a tendancy to label anyone who accepts evolution to be a member of the "atheist religion that believes in evolution". I find that usage to be a dirty word in the sense that it is false. David D. (Talk) 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: something like that, anyway. --Krsont 23:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big Bang has nothing to do with the origin of humans. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeh i know, but the beginning of the universe is clearly related to the general concept of "origin" expressed in human culture. I therefore thought it was relevent. You can remove it if you want. --Krsont 02:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "origin beliefs" vs. "evolution" 

message: I kindly ask editors engaged in the re-write of this article to request a demotion of this article from Feature Article status. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we already went through that? Jim62sch 01:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove FA status 

message: A reason for not using a picture of a human noenate to represent the subject Human has not been made. A crowd photo would suggest only 'humans who lived in cities'. paula clare 14:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I'm being a bit dense here.  What is the point you're trying to make here?  It does not seem to stem from previous discussions. David D. (Talk) 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not being dense.  Jim62sch 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Paula, first, your comments need to go below those of others, not above; second, we don't have "judges" here so you might want to rephrase your statements to something a bit less officious.  Jim62sch 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crowds are only in cities?  That is news to me. Even in the amazon jungle I'm sure there are community gatherings where a crowd congregates. The advantage of a crowd is that with the right picture diversity with regard to 'race', gender and age can be represented with one photo. David D. (Talk) 17:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean about more than one culture would require cities. Isn't the baby idea going to have the same problems as the voyager image? David D. (Talk) 17:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it would.. Jim62sch 01:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we can find a circle of naked babies of differing ethnicities (did I spell that right?) and even then it would be age-discriminatory, yes? So... a group image of very old, old, middle aged, adult, child, baby, of differing genders and ethnic backgrounds. Preferably smiling. Until then, I suggest the Voyager image at least has historical weight in its favor. I prefer it to a crowd image anyway. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone mentioned earlier we just need to get Coca Cola on the job for us. Another possability is a cartoon hand print  or a color paint hand print? David D. (Talk) 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image to represent Human 

message: #The major defect of this article is that it is written from the point of view of humans, and is therefore very biased. An objective (biocentric) point of view is urgently needed, before humans turn the entire Earth into an exclusively human playground populated only by species tolerant of humans. See http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4.
:Get a life. Jim62sch 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much...let's just trash the whole project until either, a) aliens invade and take it over, or b) we develop robots with AI who will write about us.  Jim62sch 13:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK.  Jim62sch 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendment 

message: What does "GE 10,000" mean, as a date (I assume)? Skittle 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GE is a Boolean operator that means "greater than or equal to".  10,000 refers to the proposed number of breeding pairs.  However, the correct operator would be LE, "less than or equal to". Jim62sch 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The War secion presents the viewpoint of war as it pertains to government and organizations. As such. I would prefer that this section is summarized under "Government, politics and the state". An alternative is to re-write that section with an emphasis on "human beings and war". ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 15:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The human cost of war, physical, psychological, religious, cultural is not even touched upon.  The section is also too full of military jargon. Jim62sch 23:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War 

message: A large number of "spelling" corrections were made recently. Be aware that British spelling is not incorrect, it is different. Diff: []. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I would like to suggest that we pick one or the other, for the sake of consistency (personally, although I'm American I prefer the Brit spelling).  So, what say you all?  Jim62sch 02:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm British, and i'd go with the spelling that the FA had at the time it was elected. I'm not sure which it is. David D. (Talk) 03:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was British.  If we want it that way again, I'll do it.  Jim62sch 13:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes it look like i am endorsing the Brit, i'm not especially bothered and often write in American on wikipedia. But, there does seem to be a wikipedia policy of first come first served. David D. (Talk) 14:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Jim that we need to decide, so spelling is consistent across the article. Like Jim, I am American, like Daycd I have no strong preference. I suggest we go with Brit spelling as the original spelling in the article, and the spelling in the FA version. So far we have no arguments for American spelling. Let's just do it, yes? and move on to fixing more pertinent issues, such as where War goes. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I’m American too, but I don’t care which spelling we use either, as long as we’re consistent. If British spelling is the original one, then let’s stick with that. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: not some species that was found in the jungle. (this is the way I feel about this article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inanthropomorphism (talk • contribs) 
:I think it’s important that we at least attempt to write about subjects from a disinterested point of view. The nature, political affiliations, religious backgrounds, and so on of individual authors should not be obvious from reading an article (at least ideally). For most articles, it is easier to do so since both those part of the group and those outside will edit the article. For articles like Human, Earth, and so on, I think it's important we at least try to write the article from an observer's point of view, even if we have difficulty in seeing it that way. Also, only in this manner can we see how we fit in with and differ from other animals (and how Earth relates to other planets, and so on). — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of observer: ant, dolphin, angel, buck rogers, yoda, rock, or other? Tom Haws 19:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a dolphin, although I'm keeping it a secret now. Bottlenose dolphin. My best friend's a spinner, and I'm good buddies with a few Pacific white-sideds. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A likely story. "Some of my best friends are spinners" indeed. I bet they're just colleagues. I'd like to point out that Buck Rogers is human, and so incapable of an outsider's perspective. However, put your cat on the keyboard and the problem is solved. Skittle 18:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is us we're talking about! 

message: Am i the only one who thinks that this article is covered by images? why can't we just have less pictures more text. Robwi 17:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures?