Talk:Human/Archive 22

message: A section of the article reads:
"Most sexologists, starting with the pioneers Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey, believe that the majority of homo sapiens are attracted to males and females, being inherently bisexual. This belief is based upon the human species close relatives' sexual habits such as the bonobo, and historical records."
There are many problems with this section:
*The claim that "most" sexologists believe people are inherently bisexual is unverified. Recent studies of neurology and genetics suggest people may be born with one sexual orientation or another. This would undermine the idea of an inherent bisexuality that is pushed in one direction or another by life experiences. In other words, sexologists who keep up on sex research would have reasons to doubt the inherent bisexuality of human beings, so the claim that most sexologists continue to believe this needs to be verified.
*The concept Freud proposed was polymorphous perversity, which is a concept of psychoanalytic theory and does not equate to bisexual orientation as most people think of it. 
*Kinsey never claimed that all people were inherently bisexual. Kinsey claimed that sexuality was complex, and that people could express varying amounts of homosexuality and heterosexuality in different areas of sexuality. He created continuous scales to try and capture the complexity of human sexuality. He was perfectly comfortable with the idea that some people fall on the 100% heterosexual end of the continuum and others fall on the 100% homosexual end of the continuum. 
*Freud and Kinsey did not develop their ideas about sexuality based on bonobo sexual behavior. Most of what we know about bonobos has come from research conducted after their deaths. Besides, bonobo sexual behavior proves absolutely nothing about human sexual nature. Humans split away from the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos. This means human ancestors had already started down their own unique evolutionary path before the bonobo species existed. The sexual evolution of bonobos and human beings occurred quite independent of one another.
::
::
::First of all, please sign all comments with four tildes.
::Second, good points. I will try to edit the bisexuality bit to incorporate your observations.
::Aroundthewayboy 01:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent studies of neurology and genetics suggest people may be born with one sexual orientation or another. Does anyone have a source on that? I believe it, without doubt, but I'd like a good source. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 13:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans Inherently Bisexual 

message: Sam, you write above:
:"100% of people are homo sapiens according to you. Were not here to discuss our own opinions. We are here to attribute and catalogue the opinions of others. Humans are homo sapiens in latin, or according to anthropology. 'According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church a human is a being of body and soul in the image of God." " Quoted from Sam above 10:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking throught the archives to try and get some perspective on the discussion here.  Sam contributed the following which seems almost at odds with the current discussion.  To tell you the truth it just makes me more confused with regard to the current discussion. David D. (Talk) 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed at odds, at least on the face of it, with what is happening right now. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sense a disconnect. Jim62sch 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bordering on orignial research

message: Humans are, from a biological perspective, bipedal primates classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "thinking man") under the great apes family, HominidaeTaxonomy of living primates, Minnesota State University Mankato, retrieved April 4, 2005.. Humans have an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, emotion, and introspection. Like all primates, humans are an inherently social animal.
Culturally, humans create uniquely complex and varied social structures composed of co-operating and competing groups which range in scale from nations to individual families. Social interaction between humans has established a variety of social norms, values, stories, laws and ethics important aspects of human society. Humans build fires or clothe themselves. Their desire to understand and manipulate the world around them has led to the development of science and technology. This curiosity also contributes to the self-awareness of humans and the development of unusually distinct personalities. Humans have an appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with a desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.
The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for complex behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relation between mind and body. Psychology attempts to study behaviour from a scientific point of view. Many believe Humans are beings whose destiny and purpose transcend the biological body. Those who hold this perspective see the biological explanation as either complimentary or secondary to the spiritual or as an illusion. Religious perspectives often emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. The world religions include many different and often seemingly contradictory beliefs regarding the origin of humanity and the cosmos. Philosophy, which includes cosmology, attempts to rationally evaluate these perspectives through argumentation and dialogue.
*Sam Spade 17:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Uniquely complex and varied social structures" seems POV, given that there are many who believe other animals have equally varied and complex social structures. Also, doesn't "many people believe Humans..." constitue weasel words. I am relatively new here, but I thought that phrasing such as that was frowned on; in fact, "Many people say..." is given in the examples under Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words  Avedomni 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter is easily correctable with links given above by Hawstom and jossi. — goethean ॐ 18:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proposed intro 

message: What is the problem with using "classified as" in the first sentence. Is that incorrect, not-factual, not verifiable, etc? What exactly? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It suggests that the rest of the first sentence isn't "classification", just the Homo sapiens part. For example, "primate" is just as much a part of the taxonomial classification of humans as anything: just look a few inches to the right and look at the "Order: Primates" part of the human taxobox. More than anything, inserting "classified" adds unnecessary noise and verbosity that has no chance of adding information and does have a chance of adding misinformation (or at least confusion), and certainly, above all else, adds completely unnecessary inconsistency, in that most other species don't require such subtle disclaimers. What good does it do, that is not outweighed by the bad? What information does it add, that isn't redundant to the already-clear use of words like "species"? Articles on Wikipedia do not start with "X is classified as Y", they start with "X is Y", because the job of the beginning of an article is to define its subject, not to "characterize" or "classify" it—though in some cases, especially for species of organisms, the scientific classification is a part of the dictionary definition of that species' common name. That is the case here. -Silence 01:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You speak of verbosity, Silence :) . Adding ONE 'TWO words, that is are factually accurate, verifiable and NPOV is not verbose. Verbosity: an expressive style that uses excessive or empty words. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to "classified as" - it is two extra words, it is not absurdly silly like the "biological" specification (one wonders, as opposed to what other classification schema?) and it is not inaccurate. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's much less silly than the "biological specification", and I object to it much less strongly than the "biological specification". But being less absurdly silly doesn't mean that it's not absurdly silly—surely our qualification for inclusion isn't so loose that something gets added to the first sentence of the article as long as it isn't the worst proposal (just a bad one with no real benefits). -Silence 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As has been mentioned, there are many ways to classify beings. — goethean ॐ 03:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument of yours has already been thoroughly refuted. If you disagree (or have new nuances to add to your past argument on this subject, which were deeply unconvincing), it's past time for you to respond to the last comments at Talk:Human#User:KnowledgeSeeker's claim that only biological classifications exist, rather than continuing to advocate a fantasy. If frog doesn't need the qualifier "classified as", neither does human, and that doesn't imply anything about humans or whether they're "only Homo sapiens"—it implies nothing, it merely states the dictionary definition of the word human (and if you disagree with that, you should respond to my list of dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles at Talk:Human#Archives). -Silence 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Silence, you may see no benefit on the use of "classified as", but I see many. One of them is that it will enable us to put our energies to copyedit the article rather than filling pages upon pages about the absurdity of using "classified as" or the crime of  omitting it. Let's go people, we have work to do! ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 05:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classified as

message: I like the version that seems to have been up for a couple of days now.  I really like it.  And here is why:  
* It stops just barely short (thanks to that "classified" discussed above) of asserting "Humans are great apes" and will thus be more NPOV dispute resistant.
* It has a short separate paragraph at the end of the intro explaining that religious perspectives define humanity in terms of soul.
* It mentions that humans are the ones that build fires, wear clothes and write.
I have a few small reservations with it, like the fact it doesn't say humans are the "only" beings known to wear clothes, etc.  But I could live with this version without dispute.  Tom Haws 03:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, Tom. I added the very interesting distinction you suggested (it was there before, but was lost in the shuffle): Humans are the only beings known to.... I really hope this version can stay, so that we can move on and pay some attention to the sections that need work, as discussed above. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for link Sam.  Very amusing. Who on earth would do that to their cat!? With respect to tools there are birds that use sticks to pry out grubs. I have always been amazed by the birds that weave their houses. (excuse the off topic respite) David D. (Talk) 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I like it

message: In reviewing 10 completed versions of the “Human” article in 10 languages, I noted the following regarding word count, and mention of religion and spirituality
*English 269 – 49 words devoted to religion and spirituality
*Bulgarian 85 -- nothing on religion and spirituality 
*Danish 72 – nothing on religion and spirituality 
*German 141 – See below
*Spanish 268 – BUT: not a word about spirituality or religion
*French 46 – nothing on religion and spirituality 
*Galician 197 –  BUT: not a word about spirituality or religion
*Italian 34 – nothing on religion and spirituality 
*Dutch 99 – nothing on religion and spirituality
*Swedish 240 – mentions the word “religion” twice, and that’s it, the word is listed along with Art, Politics, Medicine, Genetics without any elaboration
Of the three featured articles, the only one I can read is the German article , which I have translated for your elucidation:
:Modern humans (Homo sapiens) are mammals in the order of Primates.  They belong to the suborder Haplorhini, and to the family of the anthropoids (Hominidae).  In former times humans (Hominidae) and other anthropoids (Pongidae) were regarded as two separate families, due to the special mental development of humans.  However, recent investigations see a closer resemblance, between both groups and therefore place them into a common family.  
:Modern humans are the only survivors of the genus Homo.  Sometimes, modern humans also have added sapiens sapiens to the scientific designation Homo, which was used to express that the Neandert(h)aler (then Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) belonged to the same kind as modern humans.  This opinion is considered today however as very doubtful, thus the modern designation is simply Homo sapiens.  This comes from the Latin homo "humans" and sapiens "wise".
Bottom line is this: the intro is too long, and is out of step with 10 other fully completed articles.  In fact, even the incomplete articles and stubs do not mention religion or spiritually in what is likely to become their intros. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bottom line is that this is the English Wikipedia with a very active editing process. Spirituality, beliefs, etc. are part and parcel of humanity since time immemorial and until today, even if you don't like to think about it in these terms. As for the lenght, read WP:LEAD. We have discussed this to death already, let's put that one to sleep and let's fix the article instead. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 18:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely need to consider the context.  Since humanity is redirected to human in the English version i think we are on the right track.  It is possile that the other wikipedias have separate articles for humanity.  Personally, i prefer what we are trying to do here, despite the fact it is sometimes tempting to POV fork. Certainly the intro is longish, i prefer things below an arbitrary 250 words, but it is not outrageous. David D. (Talk) 18:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how the English article is the only one that overreaches.  •Jim62sch• 01:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Intro Might As Well Be the Article – it is too long, and covers too many topics

message: First of all, my apologies if I'm stating the obvious (for some). I have little to no experience with this article. I feel, though, that there are things seriously wrong with it that are immediately apparent.   
    
To be specific: I feel that the article places massive and undue emphasis on the "spiritual" aspect. The waffling about soul, atma, etc simply does not belong in the intro. In fact, I don't think religion/spirituality belongs in the intro at all.   
    
Similarly, the section on "spirit" is stupidly long. All that stuff belongs in the "religion" or "spirit" article, not in "human".   
    
I've read this talk page, and I see that I'm not saying anything new here. I just thought the views of someone taking a "fresh look" at the article might be welcome.   
    
As it is, the article really really feels like religious propaganda, just barely toeing the line of NPOV. --Ashenai 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Query, at this point do we have a consensus to take out, or at least massively pair down the Spirit section? JoshuaZ 21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely support a reduction in the size of that section; it's long enough to be a short article in itself. Tenebrous 23:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that the more people that come in and make this initial response (Jim, Silence and now Ashenai) it should be clear that there is a lot of compromise occurring here with respect to religion. I think the compromise intro is starting to look OK, but Sam, realise it is a large compromise for some, as it is for you.  It sometimes appears from your perspective that the religious side is the only one trying to compromise.  I think this is not true. David D. (Talk) 22:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this point, I don't see a need for compromise. The number of editors who disagree with Sam is massive. JoshuaZ 22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed as well. Let's significantly pare down / split off the spirit section. Argyrios 01:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, if we could just pare down the whole article and stop overreaching, it might make it to FA again. •Jim62sch• 02:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Over-reaching has only increased (on the part of those opposed to spirituality verbiage) since the article was modified from the consensus version a few months ago. — goethean ॐ 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd POV 

message: Gee, and here I thought frogs had a spirit.  Guess not.
"Frog is the common name for amphibians in the order Anura. Adult frogs are characterised by long hind legs, a short body, webbed digits, protruding eyes and the absence of a tail. Most frogs move by jumping or climbing. Most frogs have a semi-aquatic lifestyle. They typically lay their eggs in puddles, ponds or lakes, and their larvae, called tadpoles, have gills and develop in water. Adult frogs follow a carnivorous diet, mostly of arthropods, annelids and gastropods. Frogs are most noticeable through their call, which can be widely heard during the mating season. The distribution of frogs ranges from tropic to subarctic regions, with most of the species found in tropical rainforests. With over 5,000 species described, they are among the most diverse groups of vertebrates. However, their declining numbers are increasingly giving cause for concern. A distinction is often made between frogs and toads on the basis of their appearance, prompted by the convergent adaptation of so-called toads to dry environments; however, this distinction has no taxonomic basis." 
•Jim62sch• 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they do.  But Wikipedians have not had the time to search, evaluate, prioritize, debate, and reference the required sources to add that to the article.  And I don't know any that are about ready to try.  After all, we have to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.   Let's work on documenting what we've said at Human before opening any cans of worms elsewhere.  Tom Haws 20:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. See . , etc. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yeah.  •Jim62sch• 00:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's featured article

message: Article says: 
:It has also led to the exploration of spiritual concepts such as the soul and God, and has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.
There is no need to discuss spirituality in the intro.  I don't know particularly that it even needs to be in the article.  Some humans are spiritually inclined.  Others are not.  We are saying what doesn't need to be said.  And we are failing to say what needs to be said: that humans are widely defined and described in terms of spirit, soul, or what have you.  Or to be more NPOV/NOR compliant, "According to the three largest religions, that together have adherents totalling 70% of the world, humans are beings of soul." Tom Haws 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church a human is a being of body and soul in the image of God.  According to Islam, every human "is composed of three parts—spirit, carnal soul, and body"  and humans are the "vice-regents of God" . According to Hindu Advaita thought, "no such thing as a human exists. The human phenomenon (supposed to consist of the mind, vital energy, and physical body) is an illusion. Only God exists." And according to Hindu Dvaita thought, "humans, like all creatures, are souls of God (or divinity) enclosed within a complex of bodies ranging from very gross (the physical body) to very subtle (the ego). Humans, however, are unique among living things in that they have the potential to realize their divinity."
--Tom Haws 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the fresh view, PC.  Tom Haws 19:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The American bias in this article has been noted before. •Jim62sch• 01:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spirituality not needed in intro, says Hawstom

message: #Terminology 
#Biology 
##Anatomy and physiology 
##Genetics 
##Evolution 
##Intelligence 
##Life cycle 
##Habitat 
##Population Demographics 
###(sub topic Race and ethnicity )
##Food and drink 
#Culture 
##Language
##Emotion and sexuality 
##Music , Art, Literature
##Artifacts, science, and technology 
#Mind 
##Philosophy 
##Psychology, human ethology and Motivation
##Self-reflection and humanism 
##Religion and  Origin Beliefs 
#Political and Economic structure 
##Government, politics and the state 
###War 
###Colonization and Slavery
##Trade and economics 
#See also 
#References 
##Further reading
*If we use this template, we can come up with a structure.  The only debate is see is if the religion section should be under culture of mind, as religion/spirituality are clearly by-products of both. •Jim62sch• 11:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  in the outline above. That's the idea. Hack at it here, discuss, move there. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: See the begining of this page and notice that this article is part of "WikiProject Primates". To me, this would indicate that a separate article on humanity would be a good idea.•Jim62sch• 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note the project this is linked to

message: I think Human should be the disabmig page. Psychology can be discussed on both, in different ways. On Homo Sapiens it can be discussed from a biological/behaviorist POV (brain chemicals and all that). On Humanity it can be discussed from a spiritual or humanist POV, taking into account freud and jung and other somewhat "philosophical" views. Sam Spade 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Holy cows and elephants, we agree. :)  •Jim62sch• 21:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not that hard to agree when we focus on moderate, centrist positions, and leave out the extremes (Humans are a soul bound for glory/humans are a lump of shortlived cells enroute to the grave ;) Sam Spade 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm cautiously optimistic. :) --Ashenai 03:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: '[Curiosity]...has factored into the self-awareness of humans, leading to self-reflection and the development of distinct personalities.'
That seems like a bit of a reach-  I don't know about fish or bacteria, but plenty of animals have distinct personalities.  I have not seen any evidence of 'self-reflection' taking place with my friends' cats, but they all of quite distinct personalities.
Why does the second paragraph say that human beings are especially notable for trying to understand and alter their environment?  Our relative ability to do both is notable, but how can we know what other creatures desire?  That is not a verifiable statement.
If no one objects, I'm going to change that section to be a bit more grounded.  MilesVorkosigan 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  David D. (Talk) 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would argue that our ability to understand and alter our environment and the demonstration of such ability is pretty obvious. We cannot assert the intentions or desires of other creatures, but surely we can assert their actions. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant.  Were you agreeing or disagreeing?  :) MilesVorkosigan 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Miles, make your case here before screwing with the article.  Besides, you throw a hissy about alleged OR, but what is this, "but plenty of animals have distinct personalities.  I have not seen any evidence of 'self-reflection' taking place with my friends' cats, but they all of quite distinct personalities"?  If you're going to debate the content you need to do a much better job than that. •Jim62sch• 00:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curiosity 

message: I deleted the following edit from the article page because I got no hits on Google for 'heto-panubutiosis':
...but some diseases like heto-panubutiosis makes it impossible for these people to lose weight. This is a diseases that infects the intestines, keeping them from functioning properly. (i.e for people with this it is impossible for them to relieve themselfs of their own solid waste products.)
This one will require a good solid set of sources to be allowed back into the article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal of this trivia, if not pure invention, strongly. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Pure invention. That's pseudo-greek and besides, "it is impossible for them to relieve themselfs [sic]"! Right. Because excrement is the only way to loose body mass. Ig0774 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'heto-panubutiosis' edit 

message: To have African looking people as the picture for Homo Sapiens, them being first.
--Vehgah 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the majority - do you have an image to suggest? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Having a bad week, apparently. Asians are the majority. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it would be proper 

message: I don't wish to open up a complicated discussion, but I would like to explain my removal of "As of 2006, humans are the only beings known to be sentient." If this statement is to be included, it should specify known to whom (with a citation, preferably), since both scientific perspectives and many religious perspectives appear to consider other animals to be sentient as well. Certainly according to the definition (Merriam-Webster, American Heritage Dictionary), it seems quite apparent to me that we're not the only sentient creatures around. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Our own article on Sentience fails to assert that only humans are sentient. There's a reason for that: there is simply no reasonable evidence for the claim that a three-month old human baby is sentient while an adult dog, chimpanzee, or dolphin isn't. --Ashenai 21:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentience 

message: Its been a while since I studied latin but thought man was just a common preconception.
:we should rather say that English man properly means homo, but is mostly used in the restricted sense of vir. dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't  homo latin for person not man? 

message: I removed the following text from Human#Terminology: "(though terms such as 'man' for humankind are in a sense pejorative, given women's statistical majority in the population of Homo sapiens on earth)". I find the speculation dubious, and would require sourcing at least. Thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your removal. Getting into reasons behind different word usages is a very big subject and doesn't belong in this article. We should just report what words people use/have used here, and leave the mankind/humankind debate for another article. Ashmoo 05:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you think referring to all human beings as "mankind" is proper?  Where exactly does the debate belong?  Or maybe your just afraid to confront the issue... JuniorMuruin 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I think is not relevant here. The debate itself should not take place on Wikipedia, unless there is discussion on an article's talk page regarding usage of the collective noun in that article, or unless some broader discussions on style usage within Wikipedia are taking place. To document the debate itself, an article like gender-neutral language would be an appropriate place. Note that the article is for documenting the debate and opinions with cited references, not for discussing our own. Please feel free to ask me further questions on my talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of removal 

message: One of the last sentences in the intro reads that humans are one of the few species who have sex for fun. The next sentence starts with "This natural curiosity..." and it seems ambiguous - does it refer to the previous sentence?
* No, it does not.  The "sex for fun" sentence was inserted between the two sentences about "natural curiosity" in this edit.  The page is so delicate.  I have wondered how I could fix the flaw that you bring to our attention without losing the tight impact and insightfulness of the previous editors.  Any ideas?  --Rednblu 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: Phillip your current favored version is the following:
::Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate or -for the latter 3 choices- participate in natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythology
I agree with the editor that reverted your edits that using the phrase "latter three" is a bit confusing.  Mentioned are "desire to understand", "desire to influence",  "seeking to explain" and "seeking to manipulate".  I have bolded what I think you are referring to with respect to the latter three. The reason I am confused is that the way I read this, explain and manipulate are the actions of "understand" and influence, consequently, referring to the latter three is an odd turn of phrase since there appear to be only two concepts being discussed. The version that is currently in place reads as follows.  
::Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain or manipulate natural phenomena through science, religion, philosophy and mythology.
Now that I read the current version, I agree that "explain and manipulate" is better.  What I do not understand is the need to include participate. Is this not directly implied by the use of the words understand and influence?  Is it possible to explain and manipulate without participating? It seems to be redundant. David D. (Talk) 19:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is exactly why we need to use the talk page. What is obvious to some is as clear as mud to others. But a start IS a start ;) David D. (Talk) 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if people would now leave it alone, I'd be happy to call it much more than a start,
we could call it an End! - because it's now as clear as day - not that the sentence which lumps science, philos, religion and mythology cannot help but be murky as deepest night. Phillip 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We participate in nature whether or not we have religion, mythology, ethics, science, philosophy, or any understanding of nature. Nature happens; nature happens to us and to everything around us. We participate in nature no matter what. Saying that any of these, or any subset of these, exists so that we can participate in nature is groundless. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A start---

message: A question from a newcomer to the Human article: why doesn't this article have featured status? It is cleanly, concisely and elegantly written, and provides some of the best coverage of a complex subject that I have seen on Wikipedia. Killdevil 14:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. This article was a featured article, and lost that status. You can see why by following the links in the box at the top of this talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A naive question...