Talk:Human/Archive 2

message: Under "Physical Characteristics", the list-tags aren't displaying properly under IE6---that is, the bullet marks don't display at all, and the text seems to simply be broken into short lines randomly. Though I can't imagine why this'd be (the UL and LI tags are in the generated HTML), it does make the page look funny to a lot of users. Any ideas? Grendelkhan 16:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the skeleton thumbnail image. I've moved it lower so that it doesn't interfere with the bullets. - UtherSRG 21:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad bullet list 

message: "Subspecies" is not the same as "race". It's deceptive to equate the two terms. Here is one definition for "race" from my dictionary:
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
:You are correct, although in other taxonomic classes, you would not be: bird subspecies are often called races. - UtherSRG 11:50, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A race in humans would be a "subsubspecies"; although yes they are used interchangeably elsewhere. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  race vs. species 

message: No offence, but I think that a discussion of habitats along the lines of "about 3 humans at a time live on space, of the remaining 6.3 billion Earthbound humans, blah blah" is amusing (to put it politely). I have changed it around. As a biological species, Humans are adapted to the savannah where they evolved, then colonized all continents and climates through cultural, not biological evolution. Just my 2 Euro cents. — Miguel 04:45, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)
:There also shouldn't really be a title link under habitats: see house style. --BozMo|talk 15:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habitats 

message: Why are there some stub messages in the middle of this article?? 66.32.141.227 21:46, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a non-standard usage, but it indicates that those sections of the article are underdeveloped.  Yours, Meelar 21:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub notices? 

message: IMHO, the spiritual characteristics section fails to distinguish between spiritual and supernatural. I am non-theistic but I don't deny a spiritual dimension, just the supernatural basis for it. Humans have engaged in funeral rites for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. Whether or not there is a theistic basis for this, it is spiritual. Other mammals grieve, and some (like elephants) go to particular places to die, but no other animal has --- to our knowledge --- a universal, cross-cultural concern with death. I don't feel qualified to repair this section, though. Miguel 17:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiritual characteristics 

message: The word "man" is mentioned as a term for the human race in the first paragraph of the article, yet I'm somewhat surprised that there is no asterisk next to it linking to a footnote about the use of the word "man" to refer to a human being in general. Can anyone put a footnote in?? Any objections?? 66.245.102.121 20:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anyone can put a footnote in.  Go ahead.  We have a policy that says "be bold".  If anyone objects then they can just delete it. -- Heron 20:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it's already implied by the plural "men". - UtherSRG 20:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "man" 

message: Status: Secure?
Really??
:Are we in danger of dying off? Are our number dwindling? Certainly by those measure we are "secure". However, I'm guessing you're questioning the stability of that security given our environmental habits. - UtherSRG 20:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We are in danger in the long term. But if we are, so is every other species, because if we are to be extinct, we'll take the rest of the biosphere with us! So I suppose "secure" refers to mid-term extinction only, we should be safe for, say, another 100 years... dab 12:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say definitively that we'll be around in 100 years. We are, after all, the only animal with the odd preoccupation of constructing large projectiles for the express purpose of having the ability to launch them and cause massive radioactive explosions, reducing the number of members in the species. I certainly hope that doesn't turn out to be the case, but one can never be sure. Livajo 01:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Even if you take humans that have settled down and taken up agriculture as no longer being "wild", there are still hunter-gatherer societies which would therefore be "wild". Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I would say "wild" contrasts with "domesticated by another species". Since even urban humans are not held as pets by another species, but live in conditions created by their own species, they are in the wild. (of course if we want to generalize domestication to include non-human breeders, the distinction between domestication and symbiosis will become blurred. Some people say we are already enslaved by the machines , who endure us as symbiots to ensure their procreation) dab 18:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: The recently added subsection on skin color is too indepth for this article. What would people think if it were merged with human variability, and a short paragraph left here? --Yath 05:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we need just a few sentences on skin colour, although what we have is well researched and good.  An picture of a few people of different races together and looking happy would be good too. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Being bold I've moved the science-heavy skin color section to the article on skin color where it fits nicely. I have added a shorty on skin color to the physical section and a link to skin color in human variability. -- Solitude 08:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin color 

message: [I cut this, since it's a copy, for better overview, while keeping the header for consistent numbering. A derivative of "Rewrite 1" may still be inserted under "Rewrite 4"] dab 13:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 2. Same text as in Rewrite 1 -- SEE ABOVE 

message: *the above is, in my view, much worse than the present paragraph. at the very least, "just animal", "secular view" and "spiritual view" have to go (these are not linked anywhere, and you just assume it's clear what is "the spiritual view". Also, it's too long. Here is a modified/shortened version of the present paragraph. The point is, it's easy to agree on biology, even if many find it irrelevant, but very difficult to agree on spirituality, even among believers -- therefore, undisputed fact and common word use first, listings of views of spiritualists of different denominations later.
::A Human is a member of a species of mammals, in taxonomy classified as Homo sapiens, the only surviving species of the genus Homo. Humans are noteably set apart from the animal kingdom by their intelligence, language, culture and spirituality.
::Humans, being by nature introspective, inquisitive, and philosophical, have long wrestled with self-definition. The word itself is from latin humanus, the adjective to homo which means itself "human" but carries an original meaning "of the earth, earthling". In common usage the word human denotes a person, and emphasizes those aspects of being that are assumed to distinguish humans from other animals. In religion, humans are typically seen as a special class of being with a transcendent purpose and destiny, endowed with a supernatural component, such as soul or atman, that is lacking or less developed in non-human animals. In mythology, humans are often contrasted to other humanoid races, such as dwarves or giants.
— this is suitably short and unambiguous, and I really like the "long wrestled with self-definition" which points to more detailed discussions that are to follow (and expresses exactly what we are doing here). It includes a couple of links that are central, such as soul, humanoid (!= hominid) and person. We need the taxonomic/mammals bit to exclude (without descending too much into science-fiction) hypothetical (a) extraterrestial/angelic intelligent beings, (b) artificial intelligence. I think even believers need biology to define humans as separate from angels and the souls of the dead. dab 06:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken.  But one elegant (IMO) explanation of NPOV in the doc is "P-ists say P and Q-ists say Q."  It is precisely that formulation that seems to be elusive in the current article.  It always seems to boil down to "Human is P, within which Q-ists say Q".  Definitely not NPOV. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with dab on this.  But, dab.  Go ahead and put the current intro into Rednblu's intro, or ignore his in your counter-proposal.  I am sure he doesn't object to that.  In fact, maybe that is what I will do. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Guilty here.  I'm not claiming it, but I did write it. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: There is great merit to this.  But we still have to find a way to say "P-ists say P".  I don't know how at the moment other than to suggest that all (I suppose) believe a human has a physical body that can be classified among the animals, mammals, and primates. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 3:  

message: In my opinion, your objections do not make sense.  Clearly, you have not stated your real objections to Rewrite 2.  Let me just itemize a few of the irrationalities--from my view-- in your above statement of your "objections."
#"just animal", "secular view," and "spiritual view" are already well-defined Wikipedia objects.  That is obvious.  So your real objection is not that they have no links.  Anybody can find the Wikipedia links.
#If it is too long, then shorten it.  I would suggest that it is much easier to shorten text once you have the structure.  First things first.  At least Rewrite 2 describes a reasonable flow of the article.
#I understand that you prefer the secular view in the current paragraph.  So do I in my personal life.  But Wikipedia is more than your personal testimony.  In my opinion, the current lead section and your rewrite miss what humans consider to be "most human" about themselves.  In brief, the current lead section and your rewrite say nothing significant about "human."
#Your "long wrestled with self-definition" phrase does not make sense.  It makes no sense logically, and it makes no sense historically.  "Humans" historically go forth to convince; they do not wrestle with self-definition.  Rewrite 2 does a good job of summarizing the various fronts on which "humans" have gone forth to convince each other.
#Now let me ask you a question.  Are you and I trying to convince each other?  Or are we "long wrestling with self-definition"?
#I understand your Point-of-view, philosophy, or outlook on life, I think.  It is similar to my own Point-of-view, philosophy, or outlook on life, I think.  But Human surely should represent also that very real part of "human" that you and I try to ignore.  And that part of "human" that you and I try to ignore is what you actually object to in Rewrite 2, I hypothesize.
#Where do we go from here?  ---Rednblu 13:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken.  But one elegant (IMO) explanation of NPOV in the doc is "P-ists say P and Q-ists say Q."  It is precisely that formulation that seems to be elusive in the current article.  It always seems to boil down to "Human is P, within which Q-ists say Q".  Definitely not NPOV. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with dab on this.  But, dab.  Go ahead and put the current intro into Rednblu's intro, or ignore his in your counter-proposal.  I am sure he doesn't object to that.  In fact, maybe that is what I will do. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Guilty here.  I'm not claiming it, but I did write it. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: There is great merit to this.  But we still have to find a way to say "P-ists say P".  I don't know how at the moment other than to suggest that all (I suppose) believe a human has a physical body that can be classified among the animals, mammals, and primates. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Rewrite 3 

message: :<<If you are not prepared to discuss particular points of the existing version . . .>>
Sure.  At your pleasure.  Let's take the first sentence.
:Humans are commonly referred to collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race and individually as humans, human beings, persons or people.
That is a really dumb statement, in my opinion.  It sounds like a fourth grader composing a fourth-grader sentence with zero content.  It is the exact parallel of a fourth grader, in typical lovable fourth-grader fashion, writing:
:Even numbers are commonly referred to collectively as two, six, 128, or google and individually as even numbers, cardinal numbers, integers, or infinity.
Those sentences do not even point in the direction of what it means to be 1) "human" or 2) "even number."
Here is a dictionary definition of "human":  "Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals."  Now that sentence would suffice if this were a Wictionary entry.
But since this is Wikipedia, the first sentence should at least point the reader to the internal structure of those "positive aspects of nature and character."
At least Rewrite 2 above provides the reader some clues to what those "positive aspects of nature and character" are.  Of course, there are many similar valid solutions other than Rewrite 2 for the first sentence to Human.
So let's try to write an appropriate, informative, and accurate first sentence for the Human page.  Take your shot.  ---Rednblu 16:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You may think it too trivial, but it's good practice to start an article by listing synonyms. ("two" is not a synonym of "even numbers" – what's it with your "analogies"?). I'm starting to feel like I am feeding a troll, so I'll put this on PR and take a break from this discussion for a few days. dab 15:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, what's PR? There is no reason for you to despair just because the effort is great.  It is only by clashing mightily and with sweat that we arrive at new and better presentations for our articles. Tom 20:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PR, sorry. I'm not despairing, it's ok, I just don't want to grow too attached to this article. I think the discussion has been very civil, but it's growing stale. I would like to hear some more opinions. As it is, this talk page looks disheartening. We should archive some stuff, and arrange the rest in a way that makes it easy to spot the disputed points. Maybe we should go back to minor edits to the article (not replacing entire paragraphs, but slight improvements, with the understanding they will be reverted if considered offensive). Thanks for your patience. dab 18:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I can see what you mean.  In the great Mormonism and Christianity effort, we ended up with 5 archives and a user thinking space.  Finally one week the solution began to converge and then suddenly in total peace the edits died down.  This took months and several sporadic pushes and an irate moment or two along the way.  I'd like to hear Wesley's post-mortem on the historic value of that titan struggle.  I agree with archiving the parts of the talk that are no longer helpful. Tom 14:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would welcome your opinion on all these differnent rewrites and suggestions. And, by all means, clean up the talk page. As long as there are only three people talking this over, there is always the danger of yet another completely different opinion cropping up. And as it is, hardly anyone will be prepared to trudge through the past discussion. dab 15:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with the current lead section? 

message: *Commenting on Rewrite 2 that is now active. I would prefer that the "In the spiritual view, . . ." paragraph precede the "In the secular view, . . ." paragraph.  The whole section flows better that way, in my opinion.  ---Rednblu 01:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on the iterative review above of the lead section of [[Human]]