Talk:Human

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Human is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Human was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 13, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted February 13, 2006 Featured article review Demoted November 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 1, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

Human is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. Biology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has been rated as unknown-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration. B Human has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. Version 0.5 (Rated B-Class) This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments). WikiProject Echo      (Multiple languages) WikiProject Echo has identified Human as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese or Indonesian language Wikipedias. Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Archives 15 March 2005 — 18 March 2005 19 March 2005 — 31 March 2005 31 March 2005 — 19 April 2005 23 April 2005 — 3 May 2005 26 April 2005 — 28 May 2005 May 2005 — June 2005 June 2005 June 2005 — September 2005 September 2005 September 2005 — October 2005 October 2005 — December 2005 January 2006 — February 2006 February 2006 — March 2006 March 2006 March 2006 — May 2006 May 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – early January 2007 January 2007 – late April 2007 April 2007 – May 2008

[edit] Er...

Why does "non-human" redirect here? And what if a child sees this article? I think the article should have a more appropriate picture. Elasmosaurus (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. There are many things that are Non-human e.g. Aliens or machines, so I think that by knowing what human is someone could work out the set of what was not human. Which picture is a problem ?. They all look OK. The taxobox(picture is excellent as it's the Pioneer plaque depiction which was designed to be as neutral but representative of the majority of the human species.Ttiotsw (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

God forbid a child should know humans have reproductive organs. Deltabeignet (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid i do not understand your complaint... Do you find any pornographic content or any other unethical information in this article? Or do you think that a child should not have any idea of his/her own anatomy? 82.208.174.72 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that image qualifies as pornography. However due to the extreme social liberalism on wikipedia, negotiation is near virtually impossible. I think that a good option right now is to just having children avoid this article. --AirLiner (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's pornography? Do you people wank off to human anatomy illustrations too? Grow up God fearing idiots. C6541 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is worrying, however, is that the female depiction in the plaque has been censored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-human redirect

I'd propose that non-human be set up as a disambiguation page, including the video game article, Non Human, a link to the Wiktionary definition and links to the articles on non-human apes and non-human intelligences. Mind you, it only has two incoming links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Non-human . --Cedders^tk 08:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We are Humans

So write the article intended to be read by us, not some aliens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.34.152 (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not policy to write "us" and "our". The article is written from the third person perspective, as is appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And, if we were to establish contact with alien civilizations tomorrow, we won't need to rewrite the article. Zazaban (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Let us not exaggerate. All articles on Wikipedia must be written in an objective manner, and from a 3rd person point of view. No article must contain personal opinions what so ever... 82.208.174.72 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually came here to praise the fact that the page managed to maintain a third-person perspective. --Omicron91 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omicron91 (talk • contribs)

If you think about it, humans are sort of extinct in the wild. Zappo123456789 (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I DISAGREE, theres still some nomads and people in africa.--Jakezing (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually find the third person perspective somewhat annoying. Its so cold, (ironically) dehumanizing and degrading. I feel like were being treated like animals. However this is an encyclopedia article so i suppose its reasonable to keep it in third person. --AirLiner (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Airliner stop with your bullshit, we are apes which are classified as far as I know as animals. C6541 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing evolution

Wobble keeps reverting a section on continued evolition. There has been many papers recently written that refute the belief by social planners and even some scientists that evolution has stopped. I think there should be some commentary before such a vital section, in my view, is reverted again. It seems to conform to the sources section, although some have called it "fringe". The NY times has published the article as fact, and they are certainly not a fringe publication, nor was the sources that the claim was based off of. Verwoerd (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you are probably a sockpuppet of a banned user, I don't see much point is discussing this with you. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's sure a great reason. Please assume good faith. In today's world, everyone is accused of something. I am supported by a plethora of authors. Going back to the issue, here are a few more sources from the largest journals showing that evolution is still occurring. [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verwoerd (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Human/Archive_26#Lame_.22Dysgenics.22_Section for last time we discussed this with you. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are just angry that many editors support my position. I will not accuse you of being User:Wobble for example even though the two of you have been making similar edits. Like I said, please assume good faith in this important matter. Verwoerd (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see:

• About two papers report a possible stop to the Flynn Effect. No more.
• The theory of dysgenics as advanced by Richard Lynn has been mostly criticized or ignored.

I don't call that sound scientific bases.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That section on human is not exclusively about dysgenics. There are articles on Science, an journal of considerable repute, that mention this finding, yet you are deleting the entire section. I am not in a mood to fight, but instead of accusing me of being another user to stifle me, why not talk about the validity or lack thereof, of what was changed. In addition, where does it say that dysgenics has been discounted? I think you are overreacting. Verwoerd (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

However, you are putting the two together as if the Science references supported the dysgenics theory. That is OR and forbidden by Wikipedia rules, not to mention misleading in the extreme.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the dysgenic info should not be in the article, but I have no problem with the first part of the Continuing Evolution part - that evolution is continuing should stay in. Bob98133 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of two and two is four. If human evolution is not occurring, then obvious dysgenics is moot. But the fact that humans are evolving shows that the theory can be true, that it cant be discounted. And then there is the mountain of research on dysgenics. Verwoerd (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that or everyone would agree. I think it can be documented that evolution is continuing, but predicting or even determining what changes or direction that evolution is taking cannot be done with any certainty during the process, which is what I guess dysgenics tries to do. If it were that easy to do, then certainly someone should be able to predict when vestigal organs, such as the appendix, will disappear in humans, or other changes.Bob98133 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting two and two together is WP:OR and not permitted. And there is no mountain of evidence on dysgenics; there are a handful, most of them related to Lynn's book and its reviews. Differential fertility studies, before you ask are not about dysgenics.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an overview of Lynn's dysgenics research and a critique by another scientist. [3] The research on dysgenics may not be as large as in other unrelated fields, but in the genetics discipline, it is certainly an important topic. Verwoerd (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny that of several reviews, you would pick the one by Lynn's staunchest supporter (Marian Van Court), which even shows its bias by offering a 20% discount on the book upon order!!! BTW, neither Van Court nor Lynn are geneticists to start with.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bob, but this info is already in the article, the last paragraph of the section entitled "Origins" states: "The forces of selection continue to operate on human populations, with evidence that certain regions of the genome display recent positive selection." The NYTimes article by Nicholas Wade is cited. That selection still acts on the human population should not be particularly surprising, selection acts on all organisms. Whether one would consider this "evolution" is a matter of how one defines "evolution". Generally with human differences we are talking about microevolution rather than macroevolution, microevolutionary adaptation to localised environmental conditions is unlikely to produce speciation, whereas major changes due to large environmental change, that could for example lead to mass extinction, would lead to macroevolutionary pressures and more speciation events (punctuated equilibrium). Selection is a more specific and less misunderstood/misused concept. As for dysgenics, it's massively fringe, is never discussed in serious academic circles, and when the occasional biologist does offer an opinion it's usually to simply state that it's bunk. A few right wing psychologists, who appear to have a very tenuous understanding of biology and genetics spout this nonsense for political reasons, there's no reason to include it here except for pov-pushing by right wing idealogues. Indeed I'd say that a user who chooses a username for the "architect of apartheid" (Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd) lacks credibility. Alun (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary selection pressure only operates if conditions allow. In the history of any species, there will be long periods of stability where there is no clear selection pressure. Continuing evolution implies selection pressure to overcome poor adaptation to the evolutionary niche of the species, and will manifest itself in unequal reproduction rates between individuals.

In modern human society, nearly all individuals, of all social levels, marry and have children, so there is little or no selection pressure. Concern about alleged low intelligence among most people has been expressed for at least a century, but heavy spending on education was meant to compensate for any genetic shortcomings. People appear to breed largely at random, and this situation could continue for a long time, or change suddenly.

David Erskine124.179.1.30 (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suppose homo sapiens had never emerged

The ability to make and use tools has made humans what we are today. The cranial capacity of homo erectus, neanderthalus and sapiens is similar, but we cannot know more than that about their intellectual abilities. The other anatomical differences between these varieties or sub species may not be important, so it is possible that erectus, neanderthalus and sapiens were moving together towards a common future and may have interbred significantly. If sapiens had never appeared, modified forms of erectus and neanderthalus might now be living as we do today.

David Erskine124.179.1.30 (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Canoes

There is an Australian feature film, “Ten Canoes”, set in the remote past long before white settlement in Australia, and showing the minor dramas of daily life in a tribe in northern Australia. All the actors are Australian Aboriginal.

In some parts of Australia, Aborigines were living a largely traditional way of life just two or three generations ago. Their traditional way of life was presumably much the same as in the Pleistocene.

The film is of course a work of fiction, but is still interesting as attempting to show how we all lived before the last ice age.

David Erskine124.179.1.30 (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)