Misplaced Pages

Talk:Human: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:40, 10 December 2011 editNorth Atlanticist Usonian (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers17,513 edits Possibly← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:27, 5 January 2025 edit undoYesI'mOnFire (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,210 edits Restored revision 1265409061 by Consarn (talk): Empty request editTags: Twinkle Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skiptotoctalk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{VA|topic=Science|level=2|class=B}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Controversial}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{FAQ}}
{{American English}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR |action1=PR
|action1date=03:37, 13 September 2005 |action1date=03:37, 13 September 2005
Line 32: Line 34:
|action5oldid=181453994 |action5oldid=181453994


|action6=GAN
|currentstatus=DGA
|action6date=1 February 2020
|topic=Natsci
|action6result=not promoted
|action6link=Talk:Human/GA1
|action6oldid=938715378

|action7=GAN
|action7date=23:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
|action7result=listed
|action7link=Talk:Human/GA2
|action7oldid=1035486013
|topic=natsci
|currentstatus=FFA/GA
}} }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=Top}}
{{WP1.0
{{WikiProject Primates|importance=Top}}
| class = B
{{WikiProject Anatomy|importance=High |field=meta}}
| VA = yes
{{WikiProject Animals|importance=High}}
| core = yes
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=High}}
| category = Natsci
{{WikiProject Transhumanism|importance=High}}
| v0.5 = pass
{{WikiProject Tree of Life|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
}} }}
{{Press
{{PrimateTalk|class=C|importance=top|nested=yes}}
| subject = article
{{Tree of Life|class=C|importance=High|nested=yes}}
| author = Ellen Airhart
{{MaTalk|class=C|importance=High}}
| title = How Misplaced Pages Portrayed Humanity in a Single Photo
{{WPMED|class=C|importance=High}}
| org = Wired
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=C|importance=top}}
| url = https://www.wired.com/story/how-wikipedia-portrayed-humanity-in-a-single-photo/
| date = 2018-03-10
| quote = ...the editors of the “human” entry on Misplaced Pages were having such a hard time in 2003. The crowdsourced encyclopedia, in theory, offers a solution to the problem of representation; no single writer has control over the way in which a subject is presented. But still: They had to choose a single image to lead the entry. And whatever photo they went with would inevitably leave out most of the diversity and cultural nuance that makes humanity beautiful and interesting.
| accessdate = 2018-03-11
}}
{{Copied|from=Homo sapiens|from_oldid=759666580|to=Human|to_oldid=760839119|to_diff=|date=14:31, January 19, 2017}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{page views}}
{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Davykamanzi|U1-employer=] user "Goro Goro"|U1-otherlinks={{Diff|Human|cur|724852860|(diff)}}}}
}} }}
{{FAQ}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |dounreplied=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Human/Archive index |target=Talk:Human/Archive index
Line 59: Line 81:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 450K |maxarchivesize = 450K
|counter = 33 |counter = 35
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
Line 65: Line 87:
}} }}


== Replacement of anatomy image == == Should the picture be updated? ==


I think it could be more fitting to have the picture be of (a) human(s) in a more current environment, such as at a computer. This better represents the current state of humanity, which is highly integrated with technology. ] (]) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
{{multiple image
:The lead picture? What percentage of "people" worldwide use a computer or work in an office environment? ] (]) 15:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
| direction = horizontal
::Here are the most recent sources I found from a quick search. I haven't checked these and couldn't find much info on google scholar.
| height =
::"A total of 5.19 billion people around the world were using the internet at the start of Q3 2023, equivalent to 64.5 percent of the world’s total population." (https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview)
| footer =
::47.1% of households had a computer as of 2019 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/748551/worldwide-households-with-computer/)
| image1 = Human_anatomy.jpg
::This is a little less than I was expecting, so maybe it's not time yet.
| alt1 =
::To be clear, I do think the current lead photo is beautiful and fitting and I like that it's not western-centric. I think these are also qualities that the photo should have. ] (]) 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
| caption1 = Previous image
:::Given the wide diversity of humans, and human behaviors. I think it would be a great idea to have a mosaic with the current image at top, and then a few others. Maybe some farmer in a banana plantation. Or villagers in rural Mongolia performing religious ceremonies, and so on, in that vein.
| image2 = Anterior view of human female and male, with labels.jpg
:::You'll never capture to full gamut of humanity from one, or even a few pictures, but I feel this would be the next best thing. ] (]) 13:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
| alt2 =
::::I like this Idea too! ] (]) 17:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
| caption2 = New image }}
:::What difference does it make if the picture has people from the west are in the photo or not? Human is a value neutral term in this instance. ] (]) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that the anatomy image shown in the biology-section should be replaced with a new one. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion at ]. ] (]) 03:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
::::You're replying to a year-old comment. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''': This image is clearer. In particular, it gets rid of the camera angle distortion on the female human. ] (]) 01:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::Disagree. While many people use computers (and other tech) daily, humans have primarily been either hunting/gathering or farming for a greater portion of their history. A photo with an agricultural or nature background is appropriate. ] (]) 06:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
They're all awfully white! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Having an entire article on humans with almost nothing but whites would be unacceptable; having a few pictures of white people among many others is acceptable. --] (]) 21:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC) ::100% of people who will look at this article use a computer. ] (]) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I am the 0.0001% that uses a phone to see this article. ] (]) 05:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
::::That's still a computer. ] (]) 02:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::::I used a phone to write this very talk page article. So, I'll second that. ] (]) 14:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:The picture should be updated to one of sub Saharan Africans. As they are the earliest homo sapien. ] (]) 23:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
::They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. ] (]) 23:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
::They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. ] (]) 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:I think the current image is not terrible, but I would say it's "bad". See ] and ], and consider ]. I personally would like a montage / gallery but it might be "politically impossible". I feel as though a good way to get the ball rolling would be to move the population density map up to be the main and only image in the infobox. For example like on the article ] there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead. Many comparable ] use a gallery in the infobox, such as ], ], ], and '''most importantly/comparably: ]'''. Others have a single example like ] or ] or, most comparably, ] and ]. Maybe we want to show those two images from ] and ]. Or maybe we want to show just one example. At this point I'm rambling, but I think the current image has got to go eventually. ] (]) 05:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed. The current image isn't horrible by any means. It gets the point across very effectively. I'm just saying that a mosaic would be even better. But not that the current image necessarily has anything wrong with it. ] (]) 12:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I disagree. A mosaic/montage might look good on larger screens, but on anything smaller it can just become a collection of tiny, meaningless postage stamps. ] (]) 22:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
::::] looks great on my laptop and phone. ] (]) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
::::The mosaics used for lead images on Misplaced Pages usually consist of multiple separate images. As opposed to all of the pictures being one large image. So, if you have difficulty seeing them, you can click the individual images to view them full size.
::::Even in the event that it's just a single image of a mosaic, provided the quality/resolution is acceptable, you should be able to zoom in on each panel in fullscreen to see it in more detail.
::::Others mention they've never had problems viewing mosaics on mobile devices, but you need to consider that not everybody's phone is going to have the same resolution, or physical screen size. And eyesight is going to vary a great deal from person to person, outside of legal blindness, that is another matter all together. So, even though it's the same image, the quality/detail will be different (at least, to some degree) for most people. ] (]) 22:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::See ] ] ] 20:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not with you on the content being outdated, the photo is perfect in that regard, but the quality of the image is starting to show it's age. For instance, there are some pretty noticeable JPG artifacts around the man's hat that either weren't noticeable on most screens 10 years ago, or were more tolerable back then. Maybe not today, but eventually the image will need to be replaced or updated in some way. <span style="color: #0645AD;">] (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)<sup>]]</sup></span> 01:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed, ideally we would use a ] or something like that. ]] 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Honestly, I see no reason to keep using a low-quality photo from 2009. ]] 18:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:Everyone agrees that it would be nice if every article were improved. The trick is to propose an actual improvement so a meaningful discussion can occur. Bear in mind that very few readers would need a picture of a human to know what the topic of the article is. ] (]) 23:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
::What if we did my idea I mentioned above: {{tqq|For example like on the article ] there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead.}} Maybe someone should ]ly move the population density map from the bottom of the infobox to the top, replacing the current image? ] (]) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
:::I think the better comparison here would be ]s and ]s, which are species (just like ]s). <br><br>] are members of a religion, so the comparison is weaker. ]] 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
::::True, the pages for gorilla and monkey have a single image, but other species with variation like ] and ] have collages. Humans have tons of diversity and variation that could be shown like that. ] (]) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
:There were lengthy discussions about the picture, all now archived. And turned out the picture is good enough, because is fulfills basic requirements like showing humans of both sexes, standing in a posture that shows most body features, and humans being in possession of tools (in a way, computers are just another tools). Plus millions of humans depends on subsistence agriculture and farming for living even today, so I think the picture isn't outdated. I'm against changing the picture, if there isn't a concrete alternative that is better. --] (]) 22:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::Well said, Bananice2. There is always an instinctive urge to critique, which can be a great thing, but there's a big difference between thinking something isn't good enough and actually finding a solution that improves it meaningfully. The image serves every practical purpose that could be asked of it.
::It is slightly lower resolution than you'd hope, but it's still serviceable. ] (]) 13:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
:::I’m jumping in, I think the page’s image should stay the same way it is, we could picture them in different environments such as deserts (my father spent most of his life in the deserts) or forests (if Germany has forests, they’ll be top 1 on my bucket list), other than that, it should stay same. ] (]) 16:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
::::It could use an update.....I would suggest something where someone is standing. I highly discourage use of a montage as seen at ].... as these photos are so small on phones they're indistinguishable thus deter readers understanding. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>-] 02:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
:When we take a picture of an ant for Misplaced Pages, we do not search for the most advanced, largest ant colony, basically I say the same should apply to humans. A random human of the 8 billion on earth is fit to represent the species, not its level of technological development. ] (]) 14:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
:The picture is good, fine, and representative. ]] 14:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
:At this point, picture on this page is iconic. I would agree we could have more pictures, including a gallery, but generally think the current one should be included in some capacity. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
:I think this specific image was chosen due to its representative aspect across different world regions and ages. While humans may be generally more acquainted with computers now, this has not always been the case. In contrast, humans have been farmers for millennia. I think if the image should represent humans across history, then the image chosen does that job well.
:This all depends on what you think the image should represent, though. And if you think it should represent humans as they are right now, then it's true that computers would be a more accurate symbol for technological advancement in the modern age. However, it is important to recognize that not all people have equal access to the latest technology, and the world is still built on the large population of farmers. ] (]) 16:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:The photo itself has a low resolution and quality compared to other Misplaced Pages articles so I agree that it should change. ] (]) 02:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::It is primarily intended for thumbnail display, and as such its resolution of 331×554 seems adequate to me. ]] 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::On Commons, to be a good image you need ], this image is less than one tenth of that, and it is very JPEG artifacted. For instance if I lean in even a little bit I immediately see the JPEG "shimmer" effect around the woman's hair. ] (]) 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
*If we're debating this again, I would say the most neutral decision would be a picture of Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger, such as ] ] ] 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
*:* I disagree, the most neutral decision is clearly Danny Devito. ]
*:] <sup> (]) </sup> 01:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*::WHAT??? ] (]) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*:I think ] would be very funny because it's Jimmy, and it's a high quality image, and I can't see anything wrong with it, and someone should just ]ly replace it in. :) ] (]) 05:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
*:Hey, one of the things ] doesn't say is "go for highly visible things that are clearly against existing consensus". Many people above are fine with the image, and I'm embarrassed that I let that stay on the article for even the couple seconds it was there. Thanks. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 21:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I personally think ] or ] is better. We shouldn't use any famous figure per ''].'' Additionally, we should keep both male and female, because it just feels like the right thing to do. ] (]) 19:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::The present picture is fine, and I don't mean to come off the wrong way with this, but I've read enough distinct, distinctly weak alternative arguments that it seems like editors are going out of their way to compose them rather than naturally assessing the article. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


Can you give any legitimate reason why we should go out of our way to find pictures of different races? Or are you just trying to purposelessly be politically correct? Not done because there is no reason.--] (]) 17:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC) :It should be updated, to reflect the increasing urbanization of human populations. These rural folks are not representative anymore. ] (]) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:Disagree. Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species.
::I can. That's what we would do for any plant or animal with several main varieties. Think of it as a report from ] to the ]s or some such. They're going to want to know about the basic types of this animal and want to see an example of each. It's not all that different from this picture: It has nothing to do with political correctness.
:Including more modern technology is not important. Modern technology is not important to us as a species overall, just basic tool use which is already shown in the image. We lived for millions of years using only basic tools, and if all electronics stopped working tomorrow, humans would still survive because of our ability for tool use beyond computers.
:Additionally, using images that display the human form would not be ideal. Those who are interested in learning specifically about the human body or its figure should be able to find pages directly related to that, but that would not make sense to use a representation of humanity overall. ] (]) 04:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::A representation of humanity is fairly abstract. As humans would mostly agree our minds are what make us human, or our nature as collaborative social creatures, maybe a screenshot of this talk page discussing the topic would be the best possible solution. It represents what humanity is like, overall, in my opinion. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 05:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::People have been raising legitimate concerns about the picture quality. If you're gonna be so insistent on using third-world farmers, then the least you could do is pick a high quality photo. There're tons of them on commons that would be a better replacement ] ] 16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
<gallery> <gallery>
File:Sciuridae.jpg File:Tea_plantation_Sri.jpg
File:Tonle Sap Siem Reap Cambodian-couple-steering-their-boat-01.jpg
</gallery>] (]) 18:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
File:A farmer in Kerala 04.jpg

File:Kudat-District Rice-Harvesting-01.jpg
:No. If he wanted to show us all varieties, he woud just do it. Choosing one white female and one Asian male helps nothing, it only confuses people. It looks like the 2 belonged together. --] (]) 23:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Woman with hand-rolled cigarette cutting rice.jpg

File:20160805_Inle_Lake_7434.jpg
::I was talking about the picture of the different races, here:
File:Woman_under_yoke_carrying_wicker_baskets.jpg
<gallery>File:RaceMugshots.jpg</gallery>. I don't know why the artist chose a white and an Asian were chosen for that picture, but maybe it's because those are the two most common varieties of this animal. What would you prefer, that they both be Asian? We have an Asian couple in the infobox. Maybe it was just the two models he had available and didn't think it mattered. You can't show "all varieties" when the picture has to be of two individuals. ] (]) 01:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
</gallery>

:::The image is displayed at thumbnail size. There is no meaningful difference in an image's fitness for this purpose if has 400 pixels of revolution or 3000. This has already been pointed out multiple times, and I wish this thread had been allowed to have been archived already, because it's going to do nothing but attract further repeated non-arguments and provoke further disruption like the deeply embarrassing Jimbo stunt above. There is more to image quality than resolution, but here they seem similarly immaterial. There are no serious arguments here as far as I can tell: that might be my personal opinion, but the fact remains that I've yet to read a single convincing point from anyone concerning the image, and I'm normally someone who's embarrassingly quick to change their mind. Instead, there's been a months-long trickle of well-meaning people who nevertheless can't help but articulate in different way the core fact that they do not know what they are talking about here. Please let this thread die. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::: But the prupose of the image isn't to show all varieties and races, its purpose is to describe the human anatomy. Both sexes must be of the same race in order not to create confusion. --] (]) 11:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Also, for what it's worth, I really resent your representation that the image selection has merit specifically because the subjects are "third-world" (???) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 23:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, I'd thought you were talking about the composite picture of all the different races. About the anatomy picture, what "confusion" does having them be two different races cause? ] (]) 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think the quality of the image does matter. I ] that I can clearly see JPEG artifacting around the woman's hair and the man's face ''on my laptop'', if someone has a desktop or larger monitor it will be even worse. It visibly appears low-quality.

:::::Huhbilly said {{tqq|Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species.}} and I think that's what Dunkleosteus77 was referring to. I think this is a reasonable argument and if we pick a single image (no gallery, no rotation, etc), I think this is a solid point that tool use / physical labor / farming are good and representative, and I agree that it gives merit to such images, including the current one. Note that all of Dunkleosteus77's suggested images fulfill this. I'm not sure where you are taking offense, possibly just using the phrase "third world" as a euphemism for being poor and/or subsistence farming? Anyway, their actual suggested images look fine to me. ] (]) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
== "...except ]..." ==
::::::The artifacting is a concrete visual issue: I will tamp down my earlier polemic and grant that. With that said, I feel all of the potential replacement issues have more fundamental drawbacks, either they do not depict both a man and a woman (I feel this to be necessary), or they are not full-face portraits that clearly show most of the bodies.

::::::{{talk quote|third world}}
Is this strictly true? Please read ]. A tweek to the wording at least is in order to clarify what we mean when we call it unpopulated. ] (]) 17:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::It's immaterial so I won't say anything more about it, but I mostly couldn't see what it was being used as a shorthand for unless it does in effect mean those things—as otherwise its more precise actual meaning is beyond irrelevant to the task at hand. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:There is no ''permanent'' human population in Antarctica. There are scientists at research bases there, but each individual is there on a temporary tour of duty. ] (]) 01:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Let's go for an example, let's consider the infobox of ]: ]. This would be an improvement in my opinion, without straying from the same general idea as the current photo (man and a woman, farming, rural, clothing, tools). It is higher resolution, 6.8 times more pixels (however, we would probably crop it in a bit). Admittedly, if you zoom all the way into the faces, there is still some artifacting, but it's ''much'' better than the current one. So nevertheless, I think this would be an improvement. I skimmed through some categories of a few thousand couple photos on Commons and this image was the best in my opinion. <small>My personal view is that a gallery is best but I recognize the overriding authority of ] disallowing that. With that constraint, my view is that the second-best option is probably a group photo, and realistically the best group photo will probably be a man and a woman. I also would be okay with having no humans in the infobox at all, instead the reader could view the gallery that's down in the "Human life stages" section, and the infobox would just contain a population density map (like ] for example).</small> ] (]) 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, but I think that it should clarify the idea something like "...on every continent except Antartica, even on Antarctica, where, even though no one lives there all their lives, there are at least a few people living there at any given moment and many hundreds in the summer". Like it might say "...and even maintain perminently manned stations on Antarctica". ] (]) 05:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::No way, the current photo is iconic. ] (]) 04:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::You're back!! haha ] (]) 04:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
==External Anatomy specimen Picture discussion revisited==
::::::::I think ] is the most viable suggestion yet, so I hope I don't come off as stonewalling when I say I think it is still less ideal—as it more prominently features both goods (the basket and bowl) and more prominently implies activities that seem more particularized, to the effect that I feel it is less neutral and less representative of humans at-large. While the man in the present image carries a banana stem over his shoulder, and the woman carries a bag strapped across her torso, these elements seem less particularized, owing in part to their being less prominently featured in the photo—the focus remains clearly on the man and woman themselves, with everything else pictured parsimoniously "coloring in" key aspects of humans we want to illustrate, but not really catching the reader's attention in their own right.
Well I don't know about you, but I don't think the female in the current picture is showing any female signs at all except for a vagina. And why have have they SHAVED all their hair? I can definitely accept trimmed hair as that makes it easier to see how man and women are different, in the current picture I might add.
::::::::I think ] is perfectly adequate for illustrating the concept of "couples", but so much is wrapped up in the concept of "human" such that it's one of the few topics that begs scrutiny of this kind on all levels. I really don't want to come off as finding any argument to retain the status quo like I said, I really am trying to assess merits objectively, so I trust you take my argumentation in good faith. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::To restate your position to ensure I understand: in the current image, the woman does have a bag, and the man does have a banana stem, but those elements are not very prominent or eye-catching in the image. The man and the woman are clearly and unambiguously the focus. Whereas in my suggestion, the bag and the bowl and the logs are quite prominent in the image, taking up literally a large fraction of the image and drawing the eye. I think this is a fair complaint, and I appreciate the {{tqq|most viable suggestion yet}}. I think it looks a bit better if you crop, like this: ], what do you think? Are there any other criteria or characteristics that you'd look for? Any other images that you'd point to for such characteristics? And, do you have a thought on eschewing a human / couple in the infobox, instead leaving illustration to the ten images under "human life cycle"? ] (]) 07:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, what the hell is this about showing boy, man, elderly man and female counterparts from different culture/race anyway? I mean yes, this article is supposed to cover all humans and be politically correct etc, but in it's current state it's just not very outlined what the differences are. I mean why mix race and gender into a picture that is supposed to differentiate between the differences of age, just confusing everything and make it harder to compare? It makes no sense at all. This comparison is more appropriate in a teachers presentation about diversity. And the previous poster can argue all he wants that the camera angle was somehow making comparison more clear but the camera angle helped clarifying two things; that fact females (who are not obese) have hips and thies (can't recall the correct spelling and the dictionary in my web browser ain't helping either) wider than their abdomen and two; have breast.

:What do you think should be done to improve the article? ] (]) 05:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

== Homo erectus soloensis ==

Currently, most relevant articles (such as ], ], ], etc., and also, for example, ] and ]) seem to basically ignore H. erectus soloensis, being written as if H. erectus (and stating that directly at certain, usually prominent places, or at least implying it, by not mentioning recent survivals, or only as an afterthought buried deep down the article) went extinct long before H. sapiens sapiens embarked on the voyage out of Africa and went on to populate other continents. (In fact, the article on H. erectus is completely unclear, or even contradictory, on the subject of the species' temporal range.) However, unless I'm under the effect of a gross misunderstanding, that is a flat-out contradiction with the article ], which describes a population of H. erectus living on Java as recently as about 50,000 BP, i. e., ''after'' the hypothetical Toba catastrophe and ''after'' the spread of H. sapiens sapiens into Australia, and by implication, Southeast Asia! While H. sapiens sapiens did not necessarily encounter this population, and in any case could probably not have interbred with it, anyway, I can't think of a single reason to act as if this subspecies didn't exist. I can't find any evidence of controversy or uncertainty about the Ngandong finds and their interpretation (or more specifically, their re-dating), either; unlike H. floresiensis and the Denisovans, there is not a single hint in this direction. Instead, it seems that most people contributing to the subject in Misplaced Pages at least aren't even aware of it, as are, it appears, journalists and even, perhaps, many paleoanthropologists. (Presumably due to the lack of sensationism surrounding the finds, or actually their re-dating, as the finds themselves were already made in the 1930s; but then, they ''are'' quite surprising, given how strongly they contradict the conventional understanding.) Of course, H. floresiensis, if really a separate species, would presumably also descend from a local population of H. erectus; but it is not necessary to mention him in this respect, as the Ngandong finds seem to suffice to disprove the idea that H. erectus went extinct more than 300,000 years ago, and to establish the significant conclusion that at least two human species existed as recently as about 50,000 BP, and even in the same area. Or is it me who is missing something important here? --] (]) 19:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

== Minor typo. ==

Near the end of the page, under the title "Science and mathematics", there is a typo in the following line:

"Mathematics is connected to language, and it is argued that special genetic trait of humans, linked to language and abstract tought is responsible for the mathematical ability."

Cheers.
:There were three typos, actually. I think that section would be better off gone, since it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, but I'll leave it in for now. <b>]]]</b> 02:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
::Found two other matters of interest in the sentence that followed. Fixed the grammatical problem and substituted a slightly less vague word (''use'' for ''do''). I still don't much like it. ] (]) 06:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please change the human population fromm "6 billion" to "7 billion" in the fourth paragraph of the section "Habitat and population". The United Nations demographers recently said that the human population reached the milestone.
Thank you.] (]) 05:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


== Only species able to create art? ==

What exactly are we defining art as? A visual or auditory representation of some kind of thought I would think? If that's the case, there have been other animals known to create artistic representations of their sensory perceptions, such as the gorillas ] and ]. Should the statement at the start of the article saying humans are the "only species known to create art" be changed because of this? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I don't think so. Art may be defined variously, but I think we can stick with the basic dictionary definition here, and four of five dictionaries I checked unequivocally define art as a human endeavor. (The fifth arguably implies the same.) ] (]) 07:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

::Er, I'm not sure that's the right basis for keeping the claim. If we ''define'' "art" such that no matter how many other species engage in it, it's a "humans-only" affair, then the claim "only humans do art" becomes completely trivial. It either needs to be possible (in principle) for non-humans to do art, or it needs to be a tautology lacking in any special significance. I think for now the question is whether any ] actually call the activities of Koko or Michael "art". If they don't, we shouldn't synthesize that conclusion. -] (]) 09:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:::I agree about not synthesizing, but I've been looking at the article more carefully, and the plot thickens. The statement in the lede really isn't supported in the body of the article, and it's too important a claim for that to be acceptable. So if the statement is to remain, it needs to be repeated (and preferably expanded upon) in Section 6.11, and of course it should be reliably sourced. If there are reliable sources stating claims to the contrary, that should be noted as well, with care taken not to give it undue weight. I'm fairly confident that the preponderance of relevant reliable sources will say that creation of art is the exclusive province of humans. Tautology, then? Possibly, but I rather think it's a significant enough detail to deserve mention. ] (]) 03:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

::::Ellen Dissanayake seems to have had a major influence on the field of the evolution of art (see, e.g., ), and she suggests in ''Homo Aestheticus'' that various species "perform behaviors that are remarkably 'artistic'" or make "'aesthetic' products" (using ]), but seems to think that only humans make "art", because human art is uniquely characterized by the attempt to ''. That's a start. (But, again, we shouldn't prejudge whether there are more recent ethology findings that suggest that non-humans have made 'art'. It's an empirical question.) -] (]) 05:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


I'd like to chime in. I think the picture, while it is showing its age in terms of photo quality, is a perfect representation of humans. It shows two humans in what is clearly an agricultural setting- Something that makes humans unique (Our ability to culture, harvest, and domesticate plants and animals.) It shows humans wearing clothes and woven accessories, another uniquely human aspect. It shows both a human male and a human female, representing both common sexes. I saw that another Wikipedian mentioned how they liked that the lead picture didn't represent Western humans, to which I agree. Most of the humans on Earth are in Asia, after all. If we could find another photo similar to the leading image with higher quality, then I think it'd be an acceptable replacement. Or we could leave it as is, because the current photo is beautifully representative of Homo sapiens. ] (]) 11:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree. Throughout history humans have proposed simple abilities that distinguish humans from other animals, such as the use of tools, the ability of self-recognition; these have have generally been shown not to valid. ] (]) 09:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 ==
::::::] says that apes like to paint, but don't want to look at or show the paintings to others once they are finished. That's pretty different. The ]'s bower, however, seems more like human art: it has no purpose other than to impress others with one's ability to create an object of beauty that has no other purpose. ] (]) 15:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Human|answered=yes}}
:::::::Hmm. I can't imagine how we can know whether a bower bird has any concept of "beauty", let alone that creating beauty is the object of its elaborate construction. Beauty, like art, would appear to be a human construct. Might other species share anything of our concept of beauty? Sure. Can we know that they do? Not really.
I want this to be public page ] (]) 07:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@Martin: I don't think those examples are quite comparable. The existence of tool use and self-recognition can be determined definitively without relying on any subjective impression. ] (]) 21:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:{{notdone}}. This page has been repeatedly vandalized going back 20 years. Semi-protection will be maintained. ] (]) 07:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I can see where you might find it hard to believe about the ], but it's true. It's simply a work of art intended to appeal to a female's sense of aesthetic, and has no other purpose. Here, talk a look, amazing but true: http://videos.howstuffworks.com/animal-planet/28366-fooled-by-nature-bowerbirds-seduction-video.htm and watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgHwdLiKIpQ and listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgHwdLiKIpQ. ] (]) 23:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks. I'm quite familiar with the bower bird and the purpose of the bowers it builds. Amazing, yes, but I disagree that it's "simply a work of art". In any event, this shouldn't be about what you or I believe to be "true". ] (]) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
This is practically impossible to claim or answer. Art becomes art when somebody says it is. So you'd have to ask Koko or Michael whether they think their creations are art. Any evaluation by humans is based on human perception. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Sorry I should have said "..., but it's verifiable." The article could be ammended to say "Other than the ], humans..." ] (]) 13:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, it ''could'', but not without violating ] or ignoring ], anyway. The birds' creations may be artistic (in one or more senses of the word), but to declare them ''art'' is a huge leap. The most the article could say is that some people consider them to be art, and that would only be worth saying if reliable sources state it unequivocally. I'd further say that "some people" isn't really a high enough threshold; it ought to be noted artists or people with expertise or notability in a related field, such as art theory or art history. Otherwise, it's WP editors cherry-picking sources to fit the text, rather than writing the text based on the prevalent sources. Seb_az86556 makes a good point: we cannot know with any certainty what non-human species think about their own creative output. Even if we could know that, if the generally accepted definition of art specifies human involvement, then it would be a leap to call the work of another species art. Defining and delineating the boundaries of art is a highly subjective endeavor—and, as far as we know, an entirely human one. ] (]) 19:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::There's nothing I know of inherent in any definition of the word "art" that implies it couldn't be engaged in by an alien species or some such, that it has to be "Homo sapiens" or another of our genus or it isn't art. And you might try entering "Bowerbird" and "art" into "Google Scholar" or some such. Experts agree: what the Bowerbird does is impress it's mate not with the aethetics of it's feathers, as is accepted case with other birds, but with the aesthetics of it's bower, a one-of a kind personal creation with no other purpose than to aesthetically please a female. For example: http://www.pnas.org/content/83/9/3042.short. ] (]) 20:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::So one-of-a-kind personal creations intended to impress one's mate are automatically art? I'm afraid I don't see that. The abstract you link to is a good start for sourcing a statement along the lines of the "some people" one I suggested above, but I'd point out that the author's field is physiology, which hardly recommends him as an expert on what constitutes art. Clearly, the word "art" is used in various ways by various people. My original point in this thread was that the basic dictionary definition of the word strongly suggests that it is a uniquely human endeavor. While dictionary definitions shouldn't be strict delimiters of the scope of WP article content, I've found they do provide a good starting point. If nearly all major dictionaries define art as a human pursuit, then suggesting in this article that the definition goes beyond that requires impeccable sourcing and great care to avoid original research, particularly synthesis. ] (]) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024 ==
*http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210010365
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bmNB7R1yH2sC&oi=fnd&pg=PT38&dq=Bowerbird+art&ots=iBKaPk9tcM&sig=QlRXkzTvQ93GddQ87A-YfCpozEc#v=onepage&q=Bowerbird%20art&f=false
*http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,11,11;journal,9,12;linkingpublicationresults,1:121164,1 “... One outstanding example of what some scholars consider to be art in nature is that created by the bowerbird (Miller, 2000). It is an exception in the animal world”
*... The differences between the constructions of each bowerbird species can be compared
to the distinct styles of individual human artists or schools of art. ... In the end, bowerbird art
is just another way for boys to show off their acumen and strength. ..."
http://www.akademiai.com/content/66w5h223887j370u/
*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bowerbirds/art.html


{{Edit semi-protected|<span class="recent_addition">Human</span>|answered=yes}}
Is that not enough to cite something like "...with the possible exception of the bowerbird" or some such? Listen to the BBC radio piece by ], please, he calls it a work of art. What category of thing does a bower fall into? It's not a shelter, what kind of thing is it?
This is an incorrect statement about the humans or Homo sapiens sapiens page (a very common misbelief with not bearing in scientific fact): Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. They are apex predators, being rarely preyed upon by other species.


We are 100% no where near being apex predators like a polar bears or killer whales.
Did you listen to the BBC radio piece by ] I posted before? Experts call a bower a work of art because there's nothing else to call it. If it's not a work of art, what is it? It has no other purpose but to attract females with it's beauty.


We are at 2.2 out of 5.5 on the Trophic level.
And about the "human only" definition, it's irrational. ]: Could a ] create art? Why not?


Change:
Also: Given an infinate number of ] planets and all possible time, reason dictates that there could be, nay must be somewhere sometime, some non-human art in the vastness of the universe. How can you delare that art must by definition be ''Homo sapiens'', that no species anywhere ever could by definition create art? It's irrational to delare that art is only ''Homo sapiens''-exclusive given the vastness of time and space. ] (]) 03:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


“Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. They are apex predators, being rarely preyed upon by other species.”
:This is beyond the scope of what I have time and energy for right now. I know you're arguing in the best possible faith, but we seem to be talking past each other at this point. Two points, very briefly: I've watched every David Attenborough documentary I can find over the years, including the one on bower birds, which I remember quite well. With all respect to Sir David, whom I admire, I don't think he should define art for the purposes of this or any WP article. Also, I don't believe I "declared" what you seem to think I declared. Rather than hunting up sources to bolster your argument, please seek out some really basic sources which define art and see what they say. ] (]) 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
<s>::Well, I hope that your feeling those emotions is a sign you're about to concede to evidence and reason.</s>
::Next, we at Misplaced Pages say that "] is the product or process of deliberately arranging items in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses." Just like the bower bird does. I think that's a pretty standard "non-has-to-be-human" definition, and the one David Attenborough seems to be using, and the I observe in context when people use the word, don't you?
::And I'm not saying it's you who "declares" it must be human or it's not art, but definition #1 of Wiktionary's definition of art, (which is unreferenced, as opposed to defintion two, which seems to be David A.'s and mine, here http://en.wiktionary.org/art) and other "exclusively human" definitions that you can find that "declare" that, so to speak, "]s couldn't do art" or "there is no art outside of this planet" when they say "art is the human...".
::Or it ''is'' you who so "declare", if use that definition, but not if "declare" means you made the "humans only" definition up; because we know that you didn't: the "humans only" definition is out there in dictionaries and such, you are right, it's part of some common definitions. But I think that part of the definition comes from the observation that no other animal does it, and would change if a non-human could be found, as the bowerbird has, to perform Misplaced Pages's main definition or Wiktionary's second defition of "Art".
::So can we compromise? Can we something like at least say something like "with the possible exception of the bowerbird" maybe with "at least by one common definition of art", or "is arguably art" or "that many or some scholars say it's art", or "there is some doubt that, given what we know about bowers, whether humans are truely the only known species to create art" or however else it would work in smoothly? ] (]) 06:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


To:
::*The way you've defined "art", all ] qualify as art. You say that only bower-birds and humans create art; but who are we to say that songs and dances aren't 'art,' or to decree that no other species sing or dance? The profound stickiness of the question is why Misplaced Pages shouldn't make an assertion one way or the other until we see highly reputably ethology/anthropology sources&mdash;stuff like other encyclopedia articles&mdash;weighing in on the issue. Otherwise, regardless of which view is truest, it's a ] synthesis. -] (]) 08:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Including mating displays such as that in the bowerbird would be equivalent to saying that bees have language. This is a mating display. ] (]) 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


“Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment, despite this they are not predators. Humans dominate ecosystems through changes in land use, biogeochemical cycling, biodiversity, and climate change. In the global food web, we discover that humans are omnivores in the primary consumers trophic level. They at 2.2 putting them closer to anchovies or pigs and cannot be considered predators let alone apex predators.”
:::@]: First, it's not my definition. I got it from here: ], and the "humans-only" definition from Wiktionary's definition, which someone tagged as uncited. Wiktionary's second definition is more like ours here at Misplaced Pages. So if you don't agree with any of those, you might want to edit those. Second, I don't know why bird dances and songs are not considered art by experts. Well, I have my theory, but I'll not share my original research. But the fact is, David Attenburough and these other experts aren't telling us that bird songs and dances are art. They are, however, telling us that bowers are. But you are correct about the profound stickiness of drawing a fine line around the referent ], so that's a good reason why the article shouldn't say as it does that humans are the only ones that do it. Second, with regard to the type of citations you would require, have you looked at the ]es that I posted above? And about ] or ]; when what your doing is passing along what experts and Misplaced Pages say, those don't apply. And these two guidelines apply to articles, not talk pages. There is no rule that all points made in how to improve the article discussions must rely on evidence alone. Pure reason may also be used to sway others on article discussion pages. So I don't how OR and SYTHESIS apply. ] (]) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


== Effect on ecosystems section ==


Citations:
Former versions included a section about human impact on other species and the enviroment. Was this removed? I couldn't find it carried over to any other article. I think it is a lot more objectively important subject than stuff like literature or religion, which only really seem important or positive traits when looking from a subjective human standpoint. ] (]) 18:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


S. Bonhommeau, L. Dubroca, O. Le Pape, J. Barde, D.M. Kaplan, E. Chassot, A. Nieblas, Eating up the world’s food web and the human trophic level, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
== Objection ==
110 (51) 20617-20620,


D Western, Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98, 5458–5465 (2001).
"Evidence from archaeogenetics accumulating since the 1990s has lent strong support to the "out-of-Africa" scenario, and has marginalized the competing multiregional hypothesis, which proposed that modern humans evolved, at least in part, from independent hominid populations."


J Rockström, et al., A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).
That information is 6 years old and it doesn't reflect the present state of knowledge. According to genetic tests 1-4% of genetic information of all non-Africans comes from Neanderthals trough interbreeding. The recent discovery of the ] and subsequent genetic testing have also shown that Australian Aborigines and Melanesians interbred with Denisovans, too. This this is a partial confirmation of the multiregional theory and must be included in the article, wile the old information needs to be deleted. --] (]) 20:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
:It's not "old information" that the multi-regional hypothesis isn't accepted by most scientists. ] (]) 12:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


P Vitousek, H Mooney, J Lubchenco, J Melillo, Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).
== Possibly ==


I will proide a source for this additioion. ] ] 09:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your consideration ] (]) 09:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Your "possibly" addition is pretty irresponsible. It's inconsistent with the ] section and the ] article. And as shown in that article and in the ] and ] articles, which have better sources than what you have provided, most scientists agree that anatomically modern humans originated in Africa. That's the general consensus among scientists. Your "possibly" addition is akin to saying that the world is possibly round.
::You also appear not to know the formal definition of ]. Your change would be inaccurate, and "humans are not predators" is not backed up by your sources in any way. Since this is plainly a false statement, I doubt this request will come to much, I'm afraid. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)


== Additions ==
:And, no, you should not go messing with those articles, replacing their good sources with your sources just to add "possibly." ] (]) 12:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


@], I did not merely revert your recent additions because they were improperly marked, but because I thought they were inappropriate to make without prior discussion. Also, while at such a broad level this might matter a bit less, you are citing comparatively some poor quality sources compared to others used in this article (History.com) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Why is it irresponsible to update the lede to reflect recent info about fossils findings? Your analogy to the earth being round is pretty stupid. If scientists dispute on a certain matter wikipedia should reflect that. Read all three sources before replying please. ] ] 14:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
:::It's irresponsible because it is a fringe view. So, no, per ], if scientists dispute on a certain matter, it does mean that Misplaced Pages has to reflect that. I'm not saying that the other view on this issue (multi-regional hypothesis) should not be mentioned, but giving it validity by saying that it is possibly correct is fringe, and this fringe view is already tackled lower in the article. Since most scientists maintain that this view is not correct, it should not be given validity by corrupting the mainstream view to say that the mainstream view is "possibly correct." It would be like saying that sexual orientation is "possibly a choice." While people can choose a sexual identity, most researchers maintain that sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists debate on various matters; it does not mean that every debate gets space in Misplaced Pages or that the fringe view should also get represented or be presented as equal to the majority view. Majority rules when it comes to scientific debate, just as majority rules in most cases in life. My Round Earth vs. ] analogy was not stupid, except when taking into account that no educated person should believe that the Earth is flat. I used that analogy because believing that the Earth is flat, in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is not, is also a fringe view. ] (]) 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
]
I don't think adding a weasel word for a minority view is a good idea, see ] ] (]) 17:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 26#Species 5618}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> '''] <sub>] ]</sub>''' 20:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Dbrodbeck is correct. The term "fringe" may or may not apply in this case, but it certainly would appear to be undue weight to "weasel up" the lede in this way. The lede is supposed to clearly and simply summarize the main points of the article, and its language shouldn't be watered down unless consensus in the scientific community shifts enought to warrant it. ] (]) 19:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Okay then. I provided 3 sources, but consensus is obviously against me. ] ] 19:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:27, 5 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why does the Human article use the third person? Aren't we humans? A1: The third person ("Humans are..." or "They are..." as opposed to "We are...") is simply the conventional mode of writing for Misplaced Pages and other reference works. We realize this may cause some phrases in Human to sound quite strange — "a majority of humans professes some variety of religious or spiritual belief" sounds almost like it was written by space aliens. However, the occasional strangeness this approach may lead to is still preferable to the alternative of inconsistency.

If we were to use "we" in the Human article, it would mean sometimes switching strangely between persons as we narrow our topic of discussion. For example, even if an editor were female, she would be forced to write things like "We humans, and especially those females...." Whenever a subgroup of humanity became the article's focus, we would need to switch to the third person; a sentence about humans would use "we", but a sentence about adults, Asians, engineers, or heterosexuals would need to use "they". It is far simpler to just consistently use the third person in all contexts, even if this doesn't always seem completely natural.

A related issue is the fact that, as a general rule, Misplaced Pages prefers to avoid self-references. In addition to being human, all editors on this site happen to be English speakers — yet we treat our article on the English language the same way we treat every other language article, in order to avoid bias and inconsistency. Likewise, we treat Misplaced Pages the same as other websites and reference tools. Analogously, we ought to aspire to treat Human in much the same way that we treat every other species article. Ideally, we should make exceptions of Human only where objective, verifiable facts demand that we make exceptions (e.g., in employing a lengthy behavior section). This is the simplest and easiest way to avoid bias and to prevent editorial disputes: When in doubt, follow the rest of Misplaced Pages's lead. Q2: Aren't humans supposed to be purely herbivorous/frugivorous despite our modern omnivorous habits? Aren't we jungle apes albeit highly intelligent and largely furless jungle apes? Most jungle apes eat no meat or very little. A2: No, we really are natural omnivores. Contrary to popular belief, we humans did not evolve in jungles. We actually evolved on open grasslands where fruit-bearing trees are nowhere near as plentiful as in the jungle, where most of our surviving close relatives evolved. Evolving in such a place, we would have always (for as long as we've been humans rather than Australopithecines and other even earlier fossilized genera) had to supplement our diet with meat in addition to plant material. We evolved also eating plant-derived foods to be sure; the Savannah (grassland) has some trees with edible fruit although comparatively few and far between, and grain-bearing grasses are far more plentiful there than any tree. (Some evidence suggests that the first bread and beer were made from these tropical grains long before recorded history.) Even so, the grassland being much less fruit-rich than the jungle caused us to evolve as true metabolic omnivores, not pure herbivores/frugivores. See the Archived Debates on this subtopic for source documents. Q3: How was the lead image chosen? A3: The current lead image was added on 15 September 2009 following this discussion and given this explanation. In short, an editor looked at commons:Category:Couples and picked one. Due to alphabetical sorting, this one came up early (the filename starts with "A"), so they picked it. They were looking for an adult couple standing side-by-side. The use of this image has been discussed many times over the years, including but not limited to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The current wording of this FAQ entry was decided following this discussion. See also our policy on photo galleries of people. Q4: Is it possible for an infobox image to perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity? A4: No.

Q5: Is it possible for the text of this article to perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity? A5: No.

Q6: If we can't make a perfect representation, should we still try to make the best representation we can? A6: Yes. Of course. Because Misplaced Pages is a work in progress.

Q7: How should the infobox image best represent humanity? A7: The lead image should illustrate important features of the subject — in the case of Human, these include an upright bipedal gait, hands specialized for manipulating tools, and use of cultural products such as clothing.

Lead images can attempt to encapsulate the broad strokes of the diversity and variation in its subject (e.g. Frog, Primate). The current consensus is that attempting to do further like that for humanity is not practical. There is a guideline MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES that exists due to issues on this topic in the past, stating that we may not assemble a gallery of many images into the infobox.

And regardless of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, by picking just one image, we leave space for showing important details of that image which would be obscured if we shrank it in order to fit multiple photos in. Sometimes, what a collage gains in diversity, it loses in detail and clarity. In this case, the current consensus is that the topic covered at Human is best served with a single image — a collage of faces, for example, would fail to illustrate the human body.

Q8: Shouldn't the lead image show more major groups of humans? A8: There is no good way to decide which groups of humans are the "major" ones. The consensus is that showing more groupings (such as along ethnic lines) is contentious due to the risk of unverifiable species-wide generalizations. As a middle ground, we currently just show examples of a male and a female human to represent sexual dimorphism in humans.

While many Misplaced Pages articles on diverse subject matter (e.g. Spider, Bird) do attempt to encapsulate that variety through galleries and selections of images, we are prohibited from doing so on this article per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES even if we wanted to. Other articles on diverse subject matter sometimes similarly have few examples, or even one example, rather than a collage in their infobox (e.g. Whale).

Q9: The current image is / / , shouldn't it be replaced? A9: The current consensus is that this isn't that big a deal. When viewed as normal at thumbnail size at a glance, you can't really tell.

Q10: The current image shows two people, not one. Doesn't that violate MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to begin with? A10: The current consensus is that group photos probably do not violate MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. That guideline is based on a RfC, and is to be interpreted narrowly. It specifically only prohibits galleries or photomontages to illustrate ethnic groups or other similarly large human populations. The consensus on this page is that a group photo does not count. Past discussion of this can be found here.

Q11: Could the lead image be a different photo? Perhaps a group photo with more than two people in it? Or a photo of an individual? A11: There is nothing prohibiting that, it is just not the current consensus to do that on this page. It would likely take a large discussion and very strong arguments for why the alternate image is an improvement.

Q12: Other ethnic groups have lead images such as a flag or map (e.g. of population density). Could that be the lead image (instead of any image(s) of humans)? A12: There is nothing prohibiting that, it is just not the current consensus to do that on this page. There already is a population density map at the bottom of the infobox.

Q13: Why isn't the lead image more abstract or symbolic? A13: Because any attempt to symbolically or nonliterally depict humans will subtly express an editorial opinion about what the "essence" or "nature" of humanity is. Even if we pick a famous artist's work to put at the top of Human, the fact that we chose that particular work, and not another, will show that we endorse certain non-encyclopedic points of view about humanity. The only real way to avoid this pitfall is to not pick an image that is even remotely symbolic or nonliteral — a completely literal, straightforward photograph simply depicting a human, with no more "deep meaning" than our lead image for Brown bear has, is the most neutral option available.

It is also worth noting that most abstract depictions of humanity remove a great deal of visual information. Misplaced Pages's purpose is educational, and our readers include non-native English speakers, young children, neurodivergent people, and other readers who will be best served by a clear, unambiguous, and factually rich depiction of the topic at hand.

Imaginative works also tend to be much more subjective and idiosyncratic than photographs, reflecting the creator's state of mind as much as the subject matter itself. The purpose of an article's lead image is to accurately depict the article's subject matter, which in this case means accurately depicting a human.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articleHuman 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.
Good articleHuman has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 1, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
February 13, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
November 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 1, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 1, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
July 25, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
This  level-1 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAnthropology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconPrimates Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnatomy: Meta High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.
WikiProject iconAnimals High‑importance
WikiProject iconHuman is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Animals To-do:


Here are some Open Tasks :
WikiProject iconMammals High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTranshumanism High‑importance
WikiProject iconHuman' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
For more information and how you can help click Show:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Quick help:
See changes to:

To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge

Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold

Be consistent

Maintenance / Etc

Create

  • Notable transhumanist articles

Shorten / merge into others

Expand

Your immediate attention

WikiProject iconTree of Life High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • Ellen Airhart (2018-03-10). "How Misplaced Pages Portrayed Humanity in a Single Photo". Wired. Retrieved 2018-03-11. ...the editors of the "human" entry on Misplaced Pages were having such a hard time in 2003. The crowdsourced encyclopedia, in theory, offers a solution to the problem of representation; no single writer has control over the way in which a subject is presented. But still: They had to choose a single image to lead the entry. And whatever photo they went with would inevitably leave out most of the diversity and cultural nuance that makes humanity beautiful and interesting.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Homo sapiens was copied or moved into Human with this edit on 14:31, January 19, 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
          Other talk page banners
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Should the picture be updated?

I think it could be more fitting to have the picture be of (a) human(s) in a more current environment, such as at a computer. This better represents the current state of humanity, which is highly integrated with technology. Paperclip petter (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead picture? What percentage of "people" worldwide use a computer or work in an office environment? Vsmith (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Here are the most recent sources I found from a quick search. I haven't checked these and couldn't find much info on google scholar.
"A total of 5.19 billion people around the world were using the internet at the start of Q3 2023, equivalent to 64.5 percent of the world’s total population." (https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview)
47.1% of households had a computer as of 2019 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/748551/worldwide-households-with-computer/)
This is a little less than I was expecting, so maybe it's not time yet.
To be clear, I do think the current lead photo is beautiful and fitting and I like that it's not western-centric. I think these are also qualities that the photo should have. Paperclip petter (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Given the wide diversity of humans, and human behaviors. I think it would be a great idea to have a mosaic with the current image at top, and then a few others. Maybe some farmer in a banana plantation. Or villagers in rural Mongolia performing religious ceremonies, and so on, in that vein.
You'll never capture to full gamut of humanity from one, or even a few pictures, but I feel this would be the next best thing. VoidHalo (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I like this Idea too! Paperclip petter (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
What difference does it make if the picture has people from the west are in the photo or not? Human is a value neutral term in this instance. 24.47.223.204 (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
You're replying to a year-old comment. Remsense ‥  05:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Disagree. While many people use computers (and other tech) daily, humans have primarily been either hunting/gathering or farming for a greater portion of their history. A photo with an agricultural or nature background is appropriate. LaggyMcStab (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
100% of people who will look at this article use a computer. Sinistrality2023 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I am the 0.0001% that uses a phone to see this article. 2001:448A:4006:20A9:55A2:4519:A9B3:584F (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
That's still a computer. 185.139.138.106 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I used a phone to write this very talk page article. So, I'll second that. VoidHalo (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The picture should be updated to one of sub Saharan Africans. As they are the earliest homo sapien. 67.81.247.227 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. New Boojum (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. New Boojum (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the current image is not terrible, but I would say it's "bad". See Talk:Human/FAQ and Talk:Human/Archive_35#Argument_made_in_the_FAQ, and consider MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I personally would like a montage / gallery but it might be "politically impossible". I feel as though a good way to get the ball rolling would be to move the population density map up to be the main and only image in the infobox. For example like on the article Jews there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead. Many comparable featured articles use a gallery in the infobox, such as Frog, Spider, Bird, and most importantly/comparably: Primate. Others have a single example like Whale or Brown bear or, most comparably, Man and Woman. Maybe we want to show those two images from Man and Woman. Or maybe we want to show just one example. At this point I'm rambling, but I think the current image has got to go eventually. Leijurv (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The current image isn't horrible by any means. It gets the point across very effectively. I'm just saying that a mosaic would be even better. But not that the current image necessarily has anything wrong with it. VoidHalo (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. A mosaic/montage might look good on larger screens, but on anything smaller it can just become a collection of tiny, meaningless postage stamps. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Primate looks great on my laptop and phone. Leijurv (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The mosaics used for lead images on Misplaced Pages usually consist of multiple separate images. As opposed to all of the pictures being one large image. So, if you have difficulty seeing them, you can click the individual images to view them full size.
Even in the event that it's just a single image of a mosaic, provided the quality/resolution is acceptable, you should be able to zoom in on each panel in fullscreen to see it in more detail.
Others mention they've never had problems viewing mosaics on mobile devices, but you need to consider that not everybody's phone is going to have the same resolution, or physical screen size. And eyesight is going to vary a great deal from person to person, outside of legal blindness, that is another matter all together. So, even though it's the same image, the quality/detail will be different (at least, to some degree) for most people. VoidHalo (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
See MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not with you on the content being outdated, the photo is perfect in that regard, but the quality of the image is starting to show it's age. For instance, there are some pretty noticeable JPG artifacts around the man's hat that either weren't noticeable on most screens 10 years ago, or were more tolerable back then. Maybe not today, but eventually the image will need to be replaced or updated in some way. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) 01:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, ideally we would use a featured picture on Wikimedia commons or something like that. Howard🌽33 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I see no reason to keep using a low-quality photo from 2009. Howard🌽33 18:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Everyone agrees that it would be nice if every article were improved. The trick is to propose an actual improvement so a meaningful discussion can occur. Bear in mind that very few readers would need a picture of a human to know what the topic of the article is. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
What if we did my idea I mentioned above: For example like on the article Jews there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead. Maybe someone should WP:BOLDly move the population density map from the bottom of the infobox to the top, replacing the current image? Leijurv (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the better comparison here would be gorillas and monkeys, which are species (just like humans).

Jews are members of a religion, so the comparison is weaker. Bremps... 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
True, the pages for gorilla and monkey have a single image, but other species with variation like cat and dog have collages. Humans have tons of diversity and variation that could be shown like that. Leijurv (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
There were lengthy discussions about the picture, all now archived. And turned out the picture is good enough, because is fulfills basic requirements like showing humans of both sexes, standing in a posture that shows most body features, and humans being in possession of tools (in a way, computers are just another tools). Plus millions of humans depends on subsistence agriculture and farming for living even today, so I think the picture isn't outdated. I'm against changing the picture, if there isn't a concrete alternative that is better. --Bananice2 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Well said, Bananice2. There is always an instinctive urge to critique, which can be a great thing, but there's a big difference between thinking something isn't good enough and actually finding a solution that improves it meaningfully. The image serves every practical purpose that could be asked of it.
It is slightly lower resolution than you'd hope, but it's still serviceable. 138.64.65.74 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I’m jumping in, I think the page’s image should stay the same way it is, we could picture them in different environments such as deserts (my father spent most of his life in the deserts) or forests (if Germany has forests, they’ll be top 1 on my bucket list), other than that, it should stay same. Cometkeiko (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It could use an update.....I would suggest something where someone is standing. I highly discourage use of a montage as seen at Primate.... as these photos are so small on phones they're indistinguishable thus deter readers understanding. Moxy- 02:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
When we take a picture of an ant for Misplaced Pages, we do not search for the most advanced, largest ant colony, basically I say the same should apply to humans. A random human of the 8 billion on earth is fit to represent the species, not its level of technological development. Kreuner (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The picture is good, fine, and representative. Remsense 14:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
At this point, picture on this page is iconic. I would agree we could have more pictures, including a gallery, but generally think the current one should be included in some capacity. GeogSage 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this specific image was chosen due to its representative aspect across different world regions and ages. While humans may be generally more acquainted with computers now, this has not always been the case. In contrast, humans have been farmers for millennia. I think if the image should represent humans across history, then the image chosen does that job well.
This all depends on what you think the image should represent, though. And if you think it should represent humans as they are right now, then it's true that computers would be a more accurate symbol for technological advancement in the modern age. However, it is important to recognize that not all people have equal access to the latest technology, and the world is still built on the large population of farmers. Gherickson (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The photo itself has a low resolution and quality compared to other Misplaced Pages articles so I agree that it should change. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
It is primarily intended for thumbnail display, and as such its resolution of 331×554 seems adequate to me. Remsense 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
On Commons, to be a good image you need at least two megapixels, this image is less than one tenth of that, and it is very JPEG artifacted. For instance if I lean in even a little bit I immediately see the JPEG "shimmer" effect around the woman's hair. Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
It should be updated, to reflect the increasing urbanization of human populations. These rural folks are not representative anymore. 68.199.125.5 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Disagree. Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species.
Including more modern technology is not important. Modern technology is not important to us as a species overall, just basic tool use which is already shown in the image. We lived for millions of years using only basic tools, and if all electronics stopped working tomorrow, humans would still survive because of our ability for tool use beyond computers.
Additionally, using images that display the human form would not be ideal. Those who are interested in learning specifically about the human body or its figure should be able to find pages directly related to that, but that would not make sense to use a representation of humanity overall. Huhbilly (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
A representation of humanity is fairly abstract. As humans would mostly agree our minds are what make us human, or our nature as collaborative social creatures, maybe a screenshot of this talk page discussing the topic would be the best possible solution. It represents what humanity is like, overall, in my opinion. GeogSage 05:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
People have been raising legitimate concerns about the picture quality. If you're gonna be so insistent on using third-world farmers, then the least you could do is pick a high quality photo. There're tons of them on commons that would be a better replacement Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The image is displayed at thumbnail size. There is no meaningful difference in an image's fitness for this purpose if has 400 pixels of revolution or 3000. This has already been pointed out multiple times, and I wish this thread had been allowed to have been archived already, because it's going to do nothing but attract further repeated non-arguments and provoke further disruption like the deeply embarrassing Jimbo stunt above. There is more to image quality than resolution, but here they seem similarly immaterial. There are no serious arguments here as far as I can tell: that might be my personal opinion, but the fact remains that I've yet to read a single convincing point from anyone concerning the image, and I'm normally someone who's embarrassingly quick to change their mind. Instead, there's been a months-long trickle of well-meaning people who nevertheless can't help but articulate in different way the core fact that they do not know what they are talking about here. Please let this thread die. Remsense ‥  22:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, I really resent your representation that the image selection has merit specifically because the subjects are "third-world" (???) Remsense ‥  23:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the quality of the image does matter. I reiterate that I can clearly see JPEG artifacting around the woman's hair and the man's face on my laptop, if someone has a desktop or larger monitor it will be even worse. It visibly appears low-quality.
Huhbilly said Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species. and I think that's what Dunkleosteus77 was referring to. I think this is a reasonable argument and if we pick a single image (no gallery, no rotation, etc), I think this is a solid point that tool use / physical labor / farming are good and representative, and I agree that it gives merit to such images, including the current one. Note that all of Dunkleosteus77's suggested images fulfill this. I'm not sure where you are taking offense, possibly just using the phrase "third world" as a euphemism for being poor and/or subsistence farming? Anyway, their actual suggested images look fine to me. Leijurv (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The artifacting is a concrete visual issue: I will tamp down my earlier polemic and grant that. With that said, I feel all of the potential replacement issues have more fundamental drawbacks, either they do not depict both a man and a woman (I feel this to be necessary), or they are not full-face portraits that clearly show most of the bodies.

third world

It's immaterial so I won't say anything more about it, but I mostly couldn't see what it was being used as a shorthand for unless it does in effect mean those things—as otherwise its more precise actual meaning is beyond irrelevant to the task at hand. Remsense ‥  09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Let's go for an example, let's consider the infobox of commons:Category:Couples: commons:File:A_Dagomba_couple_from_farm_02.jpg. This would be an improvement in my opinion, without straying from the same general idea as the current photo (man and a woman, farming, rural, clothing, tools). It is higher resolution, 6.8 times more pixels (however, we would probably crop it in a bit). Admittedly, if you zoom all the way into the faces, there is still some artifacting, but it's much better than the current one. So nevertheless, I think this would be an improvement. I skimmed through some categories of a few thousand couple photos on Commons and this image was the best in my opinion. My personal view is that a gallery is best but I recognize the overriding authority of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY disallowing that. With that constraint, my view is that the second-best option is probably a group photo, and realistically the best group photo will probably be a man and a woman. I also would be okay with having no humans in the infobox at all, instead the reader could view the gallery that's down in the "Human life stages" section, and the infobox would just contain a population density map (like Dutch people for example). Leijurv (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
No way, the current photo is iconic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
You're back!! haha Leijurv (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I think File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02.jpg is the most viable suggestion yet, so I hope I don't come off as stonewalling when I say I think it is still less ideal—as it more prominently features both goods (the basket and bowl) and more prominently implies activities that seem more particularized, to the effect that I feel it is less neutral and less representative of humans at-large. While the man in the present image carries a banana stem over his shoulder, and the woman carries a bag strapped across her torso, these elements seem less particularized, owing in part to their being less prominently featured in the photo—the focus remains clearly on the man and woman themselves, with everything else pictured parsimoniously "coloring in" key aspects of humans we want to illustrate, but not really catching the reader's attention in their own right.
I think File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02.jpg is perfectly adequate for illustrating the concept of "couples", but so much is wrapped up in the concept of "human" such that it's one of the few topics that begs scrutiny of this kind on all levels. I really don't want to come off as finding any argument to retain the status quo like I said, I really am trying to assess merits objectively, so I trust you take my argumentation in good faith. Remsense ‥  04:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
To restate your position to ensure I understand: in the current image, the woman does have a bag, and the man does have a banana stem, but those elements are not very prominent or eye-catching in the image. The man and the woman are clearly and unambiguously the focus. Whereas in my suggestion, the bag and the bowl and the logs are quite prominent in the image, taking up literally a large fraction of the image and drawing the eye. I think this is a fair complaint, and I appreciate the most viable suggestion yet. I think it looks a bit better if you crop, like this: commons:File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02 (cropped).jpg, what do you think? Are there any other criteria or characteristics that you'd look for? Any other images that you'd point to for such characteristics? And, do you have a thought on eschewing a human / couple in the infobox, instead leaving illustration to the ten images under "human life cycle"? Leijurv (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in. I think the picture, while it is showing its age in terms of photo quality, is a perfect representation of humans. It shows two humans in what is clearly an agricultural setting- Something that makes humans unique (Our ability to culture, harvest, and domesticate plants and animals.) It shows humans wearing clothes and woven accessories, another uniquely human aspect. It shows both a human male and a human female, representing both common sexes. I saw that another Wikipedian mentioned how they liked that the lead picture didn't represent Western humans, to which I agree. Most of the humans on Earth are in Asia, after all. If we could find another photo similar to the leading image with higher quality, then I think it'd be an acceptable replacement. Or we could leave it as is, because the current photo is beautifully representative of Homo sapiens. Where Did God Put All The Plums? (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want this to be public page 2001:14BB:679:2A2A:9408:F67C:72AF:2C1C (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. This page has been repeatedly vandalized going back 20 years. Semi-protection will be maintained. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is an incorrect statement about the humans or Homo sapiens sapiens page (a very common misbelief with not bearing in scientific fact): Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. They are apex predators, being rarely preyed upon by other species.

We are 100% no where near being apex predators like a polar bears or killer whales.

We are at 2.2 out of 5.5 on the Trophic level.

Change:

“Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. They are apex predators, being rarely preyed upon by other species.”

To:

“Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment, despite this they are not predators. Humans dominate ecosystems through changes in land use, biogeochemical cycling, biodiversity, and climate change. In the global food web, we discover that humans are omnivores in the primary consumers trophic level. They at 2.2 putting them closer to anchovies or pigs and cannot be considered predators let alone apex predators.”


Citations:

S. Bonhommeau, L. Dubroca, O. Le Pape, J. Barde, D.M. Kaplan, E. Chassot, A. Nieblas, Eating up the world’s food web and the human trophic level, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (51) 20617-20620,

D Western, Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98, 5458–5465 (2001).

J Rockström, et al., A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

P Vitousek, H Mooney, J Lubchenco, J Melillo, Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).

Thank you for your consideration Narnold7 (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Remsense ‥  09:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
You also appear not to know the formal definition of apex predator. Your change would be inaccurate, and "humans are not predators" is not backed up by your sources in any way. Since this is plainly a false statement, I doubt this request will come to much, I'm afraid. Remsense ‥  09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Additions

@BauhausFan89, I did not merely revert your recent additions because they were improperly marked, but because I thought they were inappropriate to make without prior discussion. Also, while at such a broad level this might matter a bit less, you are citing comparatively some poor quality sources compared to others used in this article (History.com) Remsense ‥  07:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"Species 5618" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Species 5618 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 26 § Species 5618 until a consensus is reached. consarn (formerly cogsan) 20:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: