Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:50, 24 December 2006

Human/Archive 26 has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: November 14, 2006. (Reviewed version). Template:Core topic Template:V0.5 Template:FormerFA Primates NA‑class This page is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Human/Archive 26 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. Template:FAOL

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

What's wrong with "apes"?

What is the problem with describing people as type of ape? TimVickers 04:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is because it is a POV statment.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 04:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it is verifiable information backed by two references, why do you describe it as POV? Do you think we need better-quality references to support this statement? TimVickers 04:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Added a peer-reviewed reference to replace one of the original webpage references. Hopefully that deals with your concern. TimVickers 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy is not POV. NOT being accurate because of your personal feelings or beliefs is POV. KillerChihuahua 06:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying we should or shouldn't say ape then Killer? As fopr Sir James, what do you say we should say instead? This has been debated to death and I think the consensus last time I checked was to say ape, which is accurate from all the sources I've seen. Ungovernable Force 07:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Primate. Ape is mentioned, and linked, later in the intro. See this for a debate about the intro held in mid 2006. KillerChihuahua 12:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• We should not put any questionable info in articles. Jedi does not agree, I do not agree, and many others do not agree either. It is not a fact. Maybe you could put in instead that some people think that we come from apes and some think we do not. God bless.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 17:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to support an addition of verifiable information then you are of course free to add to this article. However, personal opinion does not belong in an encyclopaedia, even if several other people share this opinion. If you do not think this information is accurate, guidance is provided on this page Misplaced Pages:Accuracy dispute. Hope this helps. TimVickers 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• All I am saying is that we should say that not all people agree with it and many think it is wrong. There are many creationists you know.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a creationist means one believes God created Man. That does not mean Man is not a primate. By that reasoning, calling salt Sodium chloride is a POV. For every statement on WP, there is probably some fringe group or person (sometimes more mainstream, sometimes more fringe) who disagrees. There are flat-earthers and hollow-earthers among us. Undue weight is the section of the NPOV policy that applies here - and this is not even about views, per se, but about terminology. Humans are homo sapiens. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that or has issue with that. Are you saying you do? And again, humans are animals - we eat, we excrete waste, we have hearts and lungs and reproduce sexually, we have every part and function of animals, and physically we have no part or function which other animals do not have. We may or may not have additional attributes, such as the ability to think in an abstract manner, such as a spirit, and those are matters of varying degrees of opinion and evidence. But it sounds like you are saying humans are not homo sapiens, and they are - just as table salt is sodium chloride - and neither is anything other than a specific scientific name for what is. Salt may or may not be special in a religious way - but it is sodium chloride regardless of what else you may or may not believe about it. Are you saying there is a statistically significant view that people are not homo sapiens? Can you provide a source for that? Not that some vanishingly small minority believes that, but that it is actually believed by any significant group whose expertise is the study of humans? KillerChihuahua 00:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an obvious example of WP:NPOV's undue weight clause- there is nothing wrong with calling humans apes in this context- it is the prevailing viewpoint and is backed up by multiple reliable sources. Heck, even Linaeus classified humans as apes and he was a creationist. JoshuaZ 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What some groups of people happen believe about humans is irrelevant, personal opinions are not encyclopaedic content. The policy of this encyclopaedia is extremely clear, see Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Information in articles must be verifiable and backed by reliable sources. The description of human as a type of ape is verifiable as it is supported by multiple, high-quality peer-reviewed sources. Consequently, it is entirely appropriate to add this description to an article on humans. TimVickers 01:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like an alien

It's not that I disagree with this article reading as if an alien life form wrote it, although it's pretty funny. I find it hard to understand that a human could describe things about themselves as much as any other animal - our lives are stuck in the first person so it's pretty hard to describe ourselves. If this article contained everything humans can do or do compared to other animals it would be unnaturally long (mainly because we're the most irrational things on the planet).82.18.180.58 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That last part about human extinction...I' pretty sure that didn't happen, because then we wouldn't really be here would we...

Vandalism reverted. TimVickers 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Snozzer's spelling changes

Snozzer, please read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English before you try to change spelling norms wholesale in an established article. Also, please do not leave edit summaries disparaging American English, such as "Non regionalised spelling - WIKIisnt American centric - Use Standard English in generic articles, you may use American in an American specific article" which, by the way, misrepresents the guidance in the Manual of Style. -- Donald Albury 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Good articles without topic parameter
• NA-Class Primate pages
• NA-importance Primate pages
• WikiProject Primates articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused