text:
Talk:Human/Archive 2

bad bullet list
Under "Physical Characteristics", the list-tags aren't displaying properly under IE6---that is, the bullet marks don't display at all, and the text seems to simply be broken into short lines randomly. Though I can't imagine why this'd be (the UL and LI tags are in the generated HTML), it does make the page look funny to a lot of users. Any ideas? Grendelkhan 16:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It's the skeleton thumbnail image. I've moved it lower so that it doesn't interfere with the bullets. - UtherSRG 21:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

race vs. species
"Subspecies" is not the same as "race". It's deceptive to equate the two terms. Here is one definition for "race" from my dictionary:

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics

 * You are correct, although in other taxonomic classes, you would not be: bird subspecies are often called races. - UtherSRG 11:50, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's worth listing the known subspecies though, so I added them to the taxobox. Gdr 14:50, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

 * A race in humans would be a "subsubspecies"; although yes they are used interchangeably elsewhere. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Habitats
No offence, but I think that a discussion of habitats along the lines of "about 3 humans at a time live on space, of the remaining 6.3 billion Earthbound humans, blah blah" is amusing (to put it politely). I have changed it around. As a biological species, Humans are adapted to the savannah where they evolved, then colonized all continents and climates through cultural, not biological evolution. Just my 2 Euro cents. — Miguel 04:45, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

 * There also shouldn't really be a title link under habitats: see house style. --BozMo|talk 15:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stub notices?
Why are there some stub messages in the middle of this article?? 66.32.141.227 21:46, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, it's a non-standard usage, but it indicates that those sections of the article are underdeveloped. Yours, Meelar 21:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Page move
Neumannkun - you copy-paste moved this page to human being. First, page moves should be done with the "Move this page" option to preserve page histories. Second, the disambiguation page you replaced it had two terms - the article you moved, and a dictionary definition which should not be here -- see Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Third, human is much more intuitive than human being as an article title -- Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.. That's why I reverted. →Raul654 01:50, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

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

"Human" vs "Homo sapiens"
This article seems to be entirely about the biological "Homo sapiens". I think a little bit of disambiguation (rather than simple forwarding) would be in order: If you ask me, I would say "Homo sapiens" and "human" should be two separate articles, with a section "biology" in "human" pointing to "Homo sapiens"... Dbachmann 07:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * is "Human" really equivalent to "Homo sapiens"? This is not a political issue, since no other "Homo" have survived, but I am not sure whether Homo neanderthalensis should really be classified as non-human
 * besides being a biological term, the word human is also used in a cultural/ethical sense: human vs. inhuman, humanism, humanitarian etc. Maybe there should at least be a paragraph addressing this (adjectival) use.
 * how about some etymology and history of the term (latin "earthling", etc.) rather than stark biology? What was the meaning of "human" in antiquity? In the middle ages? During Colonialism?

 * is Human equivalent to Homo sapiens -- Some scientists like to call everything in the Homo genus human, while for everybody else, human means Homo sapiens sapiens and nothing else. I think we should stick with the second view.

 * As for the article focusing on the biological side, well, go ahead and fix it. A section including a summary and link to culture might be nice. There is a lot that could be done with the article. But disambiguation is not in order. --Yath 08:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * well, it would be an encyclopedia's job to detail the different views, rather than "sticking" with one. As for "fixing" human (cultural)/human (adjective), it's a tall order I cannot pull off in a coffee-break. I maintain that there is ambiguity in the term 'human', while I won't insist that it be disambiguated here. Rather, there can be articles like human condition, human nature or similar dealing with the other aspects. The only thing I'd impose on this article would be a "this article is about your biological species, see also bla bla" header. Although this article could do with a History of the term section, showing views that predate the modern/biologist one endorsed in the rest of the article (which I also endorse, but that's because I'm a 21st century human) -- maybe starting with Plato's "non feathered bipedals" definition, progressing through christian notions of "capable of sin" and what not. But here's my original point: such a section would make sense in an article titled "Human" but not in one titled "Homo sapiens" where the subject treated is immediately clear. Dbachmann 11:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see your problem. Are human condition and human nature aspects of Homo sapiens sapiens or some less specific group of organisms? Homo neanderthalensis and other proto-humans are not included in culture (except possibly as a mention that humans are interested in their origin). We also don't know what culture the proto-humans have, and comments on what we can surmise from paleoarcheological findings belongs on the appropriate proto-human pages. Everything else are just items that should be added to this article, or summarized in this article with pointers to other articles on those subjects (philosophy, religion, etc). I'm going to add a "to do" list at the top of this talk. Feel free to add any pertinent items you feel are missing from the article. - UtherSRG 13:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In its current state, the orientation of an article on "human" toward being effectively an article on "Homo Sapiens" is a POV problem. The word human does not for most people mean Homo Sapiens. And saying that a human is a great ape is obviously misleading, given the historical, traditional, and general meaning of the word "human". The introductory material presents a marginal POV by omitting key facets of the menaing of the word "human". I propose we flag this article as having NPOV problems until these matters are fixed. Tom 17:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, the word human is historically and traditionally used to separate living things into very few classes, such as Plant, Animal, and Human. Whether or not this system of classification seems adequate or reasonable, it is assumed in the word human. The article would do a much better job at explaining the word "human" to an alien or a child by recognizing better the core meaning and intent of the word. The article might start out, for example by saying, "A human is a person; a member of the genus Homo, especially the species Homo Sapiens. The word human also denotes those positive aspects of nature and character generally regarded as distinguishing humans from other living things." Tom 17:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Saying that a human is a great ape is just a way of saying that humans are no more different from any great ape than any other two great apes are from one another. In other words, if we say that Orangutans and Chimpanzees are both in a category, it makes no sense to exclude humans from that category.  Similarly, if you decide to put 77 and 24 in a group called "numbers between 1 and 100", you will have a tough time convincing anyone that the number 30 doesn't also belong in that category. There is nothing misleading about this.
 * Except that the word human implies something different. You are right that "great ape" is a way of saying that humans are not different.  And that is the problem. Tom 19:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * You can put on the article if you feel strongly about it, but may I suggest you add missing parts before doing so. Putting the dispute notice up implies that you have some concern and interest in the article; why not put some of that energy to use fixing it?
 * Of course you are right. Tom 19:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--Yath 17:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * A human is a person; a member of the genus Homo -- calling everything in the genus Homo "human" is not mainstream, even among scientists.
 * The word human does not for most people mean Homo Sapiens. -- fine, and the word "pen" for most people does not mean "oblong hand-held instrument with an ink reservoir." It means "thing you write with." But this is why we have encyclopedias.
 * The word human also denotes those positive aspects of nature and character generally regarded as distinguishing humans from other living things -- see if you can neutralize this a little more, because there are some people who see the difference between humans and the rest of nature as a matter of degree (e.g. we're the smartest, but still matter and energy) and there are some who see the difference as more profound (e.g. made in God's image). There isn't a consensus on this issue.

 * It is absolutely necessary to write this article from the POV of an alien looking in on us, anything else is POV. And that means treating us like any other species, complete with taxobox, etc.  What isn't so good about this article is its content, it needs a lot more on human culture.  Not doing this has IMHO been the big downfall of anthropology over the years.  However, one should use the term "human" instead of "H. sapiens", as this is English language. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe this is a common misconception of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Yes, we are to write to be clear for an alien who was clueless.  But NPOV is not a point of view.  We write representing major human points of view with attribution.  If you haven't recently read the NPOV policy and NPOV tutorial, I think you would find them quite an interesting refresher.  Tom 04:47, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that your hypothetical alien would zoom in on Earth and say, "Hmm. Rocks, plants, and a bunch of thingies running around.  We've got dogs, cats, humans, rats, cockroaches, and whales. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah ad infinitum.  The species dog runs around in circles and barks.  The species bee builds cool hives and makes honey.  The species human wears clothes, builds cities, writes books, has universities, runs around in planes and cars, has space probes out, and husbands, breeds, and engineers all the other species.  Nothing special there.  Next species." Is that your NPOV alien's view? I am saying the word human has important core meaning that you are sweeping under some rug. Tom 19:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Engineering "all species" is a bit strong, mate, and you're underestimating dogs. But yes, the big difference between humans and other species is the language and the culture, and this should be improved upon.  And this can be done without removing the biology or the NPOV.  be bold in editing it.  Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, D. I need to cut the talk and be bold. It helps a bit at first, especially when I am new to the article, to do a little bit of talk though. That way I can be more NPOV in my efforts. Thanks. I think I might have some ideas. Tom 23:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is a violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy to use the Human article as a re-direct for the Homo Sapiens article when Homo Sapiens is not the overwhelmingly dominant and obvious sense of the word human. Regardless of how strong we feel about our POVs, our Wikipedia contributions must comply with NPOV policy. I will disclose my POV fully for the sake of clarity. To me, a human is a child of God and a responsible being, and all other living beings in the known universe are neither children of God nor are responsible. I know that this is only one POV. I also know that it is not a fringe POV. I am still considering what might be done for this article. I will be trying improvements. Tom 04:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I seem to agree with Tom. I think nobody here disputes that "homo sapiens" is the correct zoological classification of humans. The dispute is about word usage: I accept the truth of the statement "humans are homines sapientes". But I claim that it is not a tautology. We are caught in a common philosophical paradox here, in that, certainly, human culture (including this encyclopedia) is zoological, because it is created by a zoological species. At the same time, of course, zoology is cultural, since obviously as a science it is part of human culture.

Now let me ask the other way round: What are the arguments against making Human a separate article with a section Biology including a link See main article Homo Sapiens? The fact that this is the zoological classification of humans will thus be made clear, but there will also be room to treat meanings associated with Human but not with Homo Sapiens. We will have more room to resolve the issues at hand, while the undisputed "zoological identity" will not be obsucred. I really don't see what would speak against such a course. But let me add that after a discussion of this length, it is not recommendable to "be bold". We should seek a consensus first, before engaging in a revert-war. dab 13:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * In the rest of the Wikipedia, such terms as bird, dog, and cat, are essentially biological discussions of a zoological class. For this reason, I couldn't personally feel is was neutral to give human a separate homo sapiens article.  What I think is obviously fair is the common Wikipedia approach like I have demonstrated: "In x, humans are a.  In y, humans are b.  In z, humans are c." Tom 04:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * We need to be "NPOV" in reporting differing views (of humans) as balanced as we can. en.wp will be centered on english (language) because it's in english, and it will be centered on humans, because it's written by humans for humans, in that respect, there is no point in neutrality, since we're not writing an encyclopedia for cats, or martians. Articles should also inculde historical vistas of the subject. The history of the term "human" is simply not the same as the history of the biological species. Yes, a separate human article is human-biased. But so is the rest of the wp (for example, we organize geography primarily by state rather than by bear territories, or routes of migrating birds). That's alright: it's an encyclopedia for humans. dab 15:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As dab says above, we are caught in a philosophical quandary here, perhaps a circular reference in this article. This article is the article that is supposed to answer what humans are. But though the question of 'what humans are' has no single neutral answer, a single answer is being presented as the neutral answer. And the main crux of the article--that consensus human definition is elusive--is hidden at the bottom of the article. Can we not see that this is classic NPOV violation? Presenting a single POV as the obvious one, when it fact it is seriously and widely disputed (however ridiculously and irrationally), is against all that is Wikipedia. Tom 15:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * If something is missing, add it. Other than that, note that the article follows news style. All major subjects to be covered are mentioned in the introduction. (The current introduction is remarkably neutral, but it could stand to say something like "When used as an adjective, human has powerful implications for the responsibilities a person faces.") The remainder of the article is remarkably biology-centered, but the solution is to balance it. The simplest, most direct meaning of "human" is a creature, so we start with that and move on to more complex interpretations. I feel that the article may be incomplete, but its form and the ordering of its subjects are appropriate.

 * You said "the main crux of the article [is] that consensus human definition is elusive." I don't agree; most people seem pretty content with what they are. Christians don't deny that humans have biological bodies, and atheists don't go around trying to convince Christians that they have no soul. There's conflict on usenet, and Jack Chick's tracts can have serious impact, but the amount of anxiety over this issue can easily be overrated. --Yath 17:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * while I don't entirely agree with Yath, I think the present solution is fair enough, and the article is evolving in the right direction. -- dab 19:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Good perspectives, Yath. Human definition is only elusive at Wikipedia (and like haunts), and not for the billions of humans who have a comfortable POV.  Our job is to present fairly and accurately those POV's.  We must present in a balanced way the major answers to "what is a human".  I think the following is balanced Wordnet 2.0.  I might add (for commpletness and comic relief) Player's Handbook. Tom 19:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, human, soul -- (a human being; "there was too much for one person to do")
 * 2) homo, man, human being, human -- (any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae)

Tom 20:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) human -- (characteristic of humanity; "human nature")
 * 2) human -- (relating to a person; "the experiment was conducted on 6 monkeys and 2 human subjects")
 * 3) human (vs. nonhuman) -- (having human form or attributes as opposed to those of animals or divine beings; "human beings"; "the human body"; "human kindness"; "human frailty")

The word "man"
The word "man" is mentioned as a term for the human race in the first paragraph of the article, yet I'm somewhat surprised that there is no asterisk next to it linking to a footnote about the use of the word "man" to refer to a human being in general. Can anyone put a footnote in?? Any objections?? 66.245.102.121 20:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, anyone can put a footnote in. Go ahead.  We have a policy that says "be bold".  If anyone objects then they can just delete it. -- Heron 20:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * However, it's already implied by the plural "men". - UtherSRG 20:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Status
Status: Secure? Really??

 * Are we in danger of dying off? Are our number dwindling? Certainly by those measure we are "secure". However, I'm guessing you're questioning the stability of that security given our environmental habits. - UtherSRG 20:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, our number are not dwindling. I think in most areas we're actually increasing in number quite a bit, which could in itself be cause for concern. --66.32.123.183 05:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * We are in danger in the long term. But if we are, so is every other species, because if we are to be extinct, we'll take the rest of the biosphere with us! So I suppose "secure" refers to mid-term extinction only, we should be safe for, say, another 100 years... dab 12:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't say definitively that we'll be around in 100 years. We are, after all, the only animal with the odd preoccupation of constructing large projectiles for the express purpose of having the ability to launch them and cause massive radioactive explosions, reducing the number of members in the species. I certainly hope that doesn't turn out to be the case, but one can never be sure. Livajo 01:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know, guys, this article really is as humorous as your gut tells you. Someday when we are ready to tackle the article with real effort to represent all human knowledge (an important facet of NPOV) fairly, we will make this a respectable article. Until then, the taxobox will be there saying status: Secure. And this article will be humorous. Tom 05:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Humans aren't "Secure", we don't exist in the wild and are therefor extinct in the wild.

The above anonymous posting is by User:Husker007, a troll who has been vandalizing Wikipedia and has been repeatedly reverted. RickK 23:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

It was anonymous on accident, and FYI, I'm not a troll moron. Husker007 23:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How do you define "wild?" Humans exist, therefore we cannot be considered "extinct." Where we choose to exist is irrelevant. --Feitclub 00:06, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Skin color
The recently added subsection on skin color is too indepth for this article. What would people think if it were merged with human variability, and a short paragraph left here? --Yath 05:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, we need just a few sentences on skin colour, although what we have is well researched and good. An picture of a few people of different races together and looking happy would be good too. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Being bold I've moved the science-heavy skin color section to the article on skin color where it fits nicely. I have added a shorty on skin color to the physical section and a link to skin color in human variability. -- Solitude 08:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I regretfully added an NPOV dispute to this article. Before entering any discussion of the matter, I respectfully request that any participant (myself included) read in their entirety the Neutral point of view article and its linked tutorial (2 articles total). There are some key considerations of NPOV that are currently being misunderstood, and thus violated, in this article. I anticipate that once key participants have read those 2 NPOV docs and discussed this article, the disputation can be removed, and editing toward NPOV can go forward. Tom 17:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful, in light of the NPOV article Tom mentions, to discuss what the conflicting points of view are in this article that are leading to the reverts. In most articles it's obvious, but in this one I think it may be less so.

Making this Human article chiefly about humanity as a biological species, with the taxonomy first and foremost, clearly suggests that a human is primarily or even only a biological species. This is undoubtedly a widely held and significant POV, deserving of reasonably thorough coverage. In addition, the biological facts and theories are certainly worth documenting.

Another view is that humanity is more than a species, but is special and maybe even unique in several respects: some ethicists reserve certain privileges to sentient species, with sometimes wider, sometimes narrower definitions of sentient; more importantly, most of humanity throughout history has practiced some form of spirituality, and has even believed in some sort of supernatural existence, in life after or beyond death, and so forth.

My initial proposal is that we return to having a "Biology" or similarly named section to address humans from the materialist scientific perspective, and other sections to address the sociological, psychological, spiritual, etc. aspects. Since the taxobox describes humans in chiefly biological terms, it seems reasonable to put it in the appropriate section. Comments? Alternative proposals? Wesley 06:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Whether you like it or not, we are animals. Therefore the taxobox stays, otherwise it is POV to remove it or move it down because it suggests a special status for humans, which honestly, is rather vain.  The quality of the article on the points you mentioned is poor because it doesn't include such material, when it really ought to.  We should try to improve the article first rather than dispute its neutrality.  The ordering of those sections can then be addressed. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Duncharris, how long has it been since you read the NPOV doc and tutorial both from beginning to end? Tom 17:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * That we are only animals is your POV, one that is demonstrably held by a minority of even today's people, never mind history. It is vain to presume that you know better than everyone else, and are therefore justified to make the entire article ultimately and exclusively about biology. The taxobox stays, but goes in the biology section. Wesley 11:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * See the article on cow. It has a taxobox.  People in India think that Cows are sacred.  It has a taxobox. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It may be that the taxobox in that article should be moved as well. I see no particular reason why the status quo in that article should be normative. Do you acknowledge that the belief that humans are only animals is a philosophical POV or belief? Wesley 19:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with Dunc - as any good anthropologist could tell you, when you study people, you need to study them with as detached a mindset as possible -- this is also what the NPOV policy dictates. That means treating humans just like any other animal, which (in this case) means we keep the taxobox in the article, at the top of the article, just as Dunc suggests. →Raul654 19:47, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Raul, how long has it been since you read the NPOV doc and tutorial both from beginning to end? Tom 17:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Earth, the cradle of humanity, has an infobox just like any other celestial object. It seems appropriate to me. The remainder of the article contains a lot of information about the special distinction this planet has. By moving the taxobox down, you create an artificial distinction between humans and other organisms-- you not only emphasize the additional attributes we feel about humans (which is fine), you also deny relationship we have with other lifeforms (which is not fine). My recommendation: talk about the important, unique qualities humans possess, but don't belittle the bits we share with other creatures. --Yath 20:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yath, how long has it been since you read the NPOV doc and tutorial both from beginning to end? Tom 17:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My, what a lot of reverting has been going on. Yikes, an edit war! This discussion can only go forward profitably when all have read the NPOV docs. Please each commit to yourself to revert no more until you have read the docs from beginning to end in recent memory Human doc. I personally still need to finish the tutorial. Tom 17:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the taxbox is not the issue (sorry for shouting). I feel somewhat guilty since I seem to have set off (but not caused) the current dispute (Aug 12 posting), but note that I have voiced my concerns without making an edit, let alone reverting someone. Please: I think the dispute is both typical and important. Let's make this an example of consensus building, both for how conflicts can be resolved in WP and, more generally, in Humanity. My original concern was that the word "human" is used in different ways, and I still think it is mainly a lexical problem (while of course related to opposing world-views). My suggestion would be that the taxbox stays at the top, just like for Cow and Earth, but labelled "homo sapiens sapiens" ("Humans" sounds like bad science-fiction). For the record, let me add that if a taxbox is included in Human (which I support), let it be the one for Homo (genus). Homo is latin for human, so if human is used in a zoological sense, let it be synonymously with homo. It can not be argued that common use equates Human with Homo sapiens rather than Homo (genus), since for every-day (synchronic) use, the two do not contrast. dab 18:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * How would this proposal fit in with the need to reflect fairly the prominence of other views on the subject? If the biological view is just one of the competing views, how does putting its stamp (taxobox) keep NPOV?  Have you read the NPOV document and the tutorial from beginning to end?  But of course the taxobox is only representative of the issue.  I think Rednblu has a good proposal below that we should discuss after we have all read the NPOV doc and tutorial thoroughly. Remember NPOV is our common ground and is absolute and non-negotiable.  We need to understand what it is. Tom 19:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I have read and understood the NPOV docs. I also understand that they are not gospel, and that consensus hinges on understanding which points exactly are at issue. I assume your objection to the taxbox is related to "Space and Balance"? Because I cannot conceive of the possibility that you actually dispute the information therein? When this discussion started, the article was entirely about the biological species. This has changed significantly. After renaming the taxbox to the scientific name, I can see no objection (just as I wouldn't object to bovine taxboxes even if I thought cows were sacred). Every spiritual aspect still has a place in the text and is not hampered in the least by taxonomy. But if consensus is impossible, we will indeed be forced to make this a Summary style article with only very brief exposition of each of what are now section headers. dab 20:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

 * I assume your objection to the taxbox is related to "Space and Balance"? Because I cannot conceive of the possibility that you actually dispute the information therein?

You are wrong with both questions, in my opinion. :))

If I were a space alien looking dispassionately at the works of humans, I think I would be impressed by the extreme efforts that humans have made to sublimate their animal nature. Laws generally forbid men from ganging up and raiding the next village in a raid of stealth. However, Wrangham and Peterson tell us that men have a genetic predisposition to gang up and raid the next village--which genetic disposition men inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. So Law, in forbidding men to raid when they feel like it, is devoted to denying that human is first of all animal. And Religion certainly is devoted to denying that human is merely what the empirical evidence indicates that human is--namely an animal that has an inherited genetic predisposition to invent a God when all facts indicate that there is none. And today a huge expense item of the most bully of human nations on this earth is the defense budget--all devoted to denying that human is just animal. So, in the face of all that human effort to become something other than what he is--namely just an animal--to put the taxonomy box at the top of the Human page is an insult to all that human effort to become something other than the animal in the taxonomy box.

Hence, putting the taxonomy box at the top of the Human page discredits unfairly the extensive work that humans have made to sublimate, imprison, and lock away forgotten evermore that animal nature in the taxonomy box. Putting that taxonomy box at the top of the Human page is like putting shit on the dining table. Shit has its place, but shit's place is in the bowels of the article--or in another article, another page, another room, like maybe the toilet. ---Rednblu 23:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I have read and understood the NPOV docs. I also understand that they are not gospel

Are you saying we are free to take or leave, or to self-define the absolute and non-negotiable principle that is placed before the world as the centerpiece of our success? What you've said puts in doubt your claim to have read the NPOV doc and tutorial in full. As Wikipedia editors, we are to represent all significant POVs fairly, without any representation (by tone, word choice, form, etc.) that any one of them is the Wikipedia preferred "right" POV. For me the taxobox is not the central issue. The central issue is that the article as a whole violates NPOV as explained by Rednblu. We all have a mandate to fix this so we are presenting the whole body of human "knowledge" in neutral fashion. The taxobox is only a pivotal case for the issue. Tom 03:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. I think you misunderstood: I said the NPOV docs are not gospel. Because they are indeed self-defined (i. e. defined by us, the good-faith editors). I take pains to follow them in all points, since I fully agree with them, but that does not make them divine relevation. My point was not to question the NPOV principle (which I challenge you to show I have violated, ever) but to say that we will get no further by simply pointing people to those pages rather than patiently explaining how they, in our view, relate to the present case. That said, I fully support you in that anyone making changes, or even reverts, to a disputed article, should be aware of the guidelines, and try to justify their edits by them. Now, seeing no easy resolution, I would like to make the proposal of changing the article to Summary style. I ask the "biology" faction to cease to insist that Homo sapiens be a redirect to Human, and I ask the "cultural" faction to stop taking issue with the taxbox (I'm sorry, but the view that human biology relates to human nature like shitting to dining strikes my as, putting it lightly, a bit neurotic). I understand that moving the taxobox down sort of takes away its whole point, which is to give a quick overview. Of taxonomy. But come on, this is not a dispute of POV, its one of layout. Add to that my opinion expressed above that it's the wrong taxobox anyway:

Proposal: disect article into summary of:
 * Human biology
 * Homo (genus)
 * Homo sapiens
 * Human sciences
 * Human culture
 * Religion
 * Human nature

The taxoboxes would go to Homo (genus) and Homo sapiens. This arrangement is off the top of my head, based on the present sections, and before voting on this, I would like to invite other suggestions for the arrangement. Understand that this proposal does not represent my ideal, but is in my view the most efficient way of reaching an article Human with which everybody can live. - dab 08:17, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

 * <<(I'm sorry, but the view that human biology relates to human nature like shitting to dining strikes my as, putting it lightly, a bit neurotic).>>

Gee. That you distort the sentence that way illustrates the mechanics of the interpreter.

Let me try a simpler analogy. Putting the taxonomy box at the top of Human is an insulting distortion of human priorities--like putting the animal part as the top selection menu for an animal that 1) when writing puts the animal part on another page separate from what is most human, 2) when fine dining, puts the animal part under wraps or in another room, 3) when philosophizing, puts the animal part in an unexamined and unnotable category far inferior to intellect which most of human activity considers to be beyond and separate from animal part, shared with brilliant machines that humans have designed if not yet implemented, . . . . Putting the taxonomy box at the top of Human is certainly a valid point of view of a cold, cruel analyst, who ignores what most humans consider to be most human--namely, the human ability through technology and culture to transcend every element of that taxonomy box that you want to keep putting at the top of Human--against the wishes of most humans. And since I think that you are an ingenious human, I am sure you will think of another way to distort even the above analogies and keep on ignoring what humans consider to be most human. ---Rednblu 15:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not here to distort your analogies, I simply don't agree with what you say. I claim that healthy humans are not embarassed by having/being (your pick) an organism. There is not a single culture where people do not adorn their bodies. But: as I said, we don't neet to decide this. It's enough to decide on a position for the bloody taxobox. As it stands, I am on your side: Let's make a Homo sapiens article and stick it there. Please give your view on how exactly we should do this in the "Taxobox" thread below. dab 16:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Well said! ---Rednblu 17:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lead section of Human: Proposed design
I propose something like the following lead section for Human. As others have noted below, we need some fair means of presenting sequentially the many facets of human.

 * A human is a creature that deliberately attempts to improve itself and its society based on values like understanding, ethics, morality, and law. In the twenty-first century, humans have many conflicting views of what values are most important.  For example at wide extremes of a spectrum, some humans aim for altruism; other humans aim for self-aggrandizement and promote ideas of anarchism or free market to improve human society.

 * At first, the ancestors of the humans were just animal--passing along only the aspirations and dynamics of animal genes to their children. Then, about 1.4 million years ago, humans discovered fire.  And thereafter, the ancestors of the humans began to see possibilities for deliberately improving themselves and human society in general.  Fire and similar technologies, like language, tool kits, and laws provided humans with insights on how to make themselves and their surroundings by deliberate human action to be more like humans wanted things to be.

 * In the twenty-first century, humans remain animals, requiring proper nutrition, exercise, and outlets for feelings of hostility. However, humans consider the most human part of themselves to be the culture, art, philosophy, and religion that humans have themselves created.  Accordingly, humans hope to pass on to their children the human-created culture along with the inherited animal genes that provide merely the physical carriers for what is most human--the human intellectual tools, passion for excellence, and appreciation of beauty that humans have themselves created by trial-and-error, by painstaking learning from the mistakes of the past.

 * Accordingly, humans in their philosophy and literature call machines or animals such as chimpanzees acting human to the extent that the machines or animals act in a way that suggests altruism, creativity, or teaching--with an appearance of deliberately attempting to improve their society.

Thereafter, following the above preamble, the sections of Human might be chronological, with animal taxonomy and history first. What do you think? ---Rednblu 17:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * That is hideously POV. You're getting too involved, to generate a NPOV you have to stand back and look in from the outside -- it's a basic principle of athropology. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * So smooth out the POV parts that you see. I would suggest that the most efficient means of getting to a Neutral Point of View is for someone to construct a first draft--and then for someone else to smooth out the POV edges that he or she sees.  Please edit the text below which is an exact copy--for your convenience. ---Rednblu 18:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite 1

 * A human is a living being that generally deliberately attempts to improve itself and its society based on values like understanding, ethics, morality, and law.

 * In the secular view, the ancestors of the humans were initially just animal--passing along only the aspirations and dynamics of animal genes to their children. Then, about 1.4 million years ago, humans discovered fire.  And thereafter, the ancestors of the humans began to see possibilities for deliberately improving themselves and human society in general.  Fire and similar technologies, like language, tool kits, and laws provided humans with insights on how to make themselves and their surroundings by deliberate human action to be more like humans wanted things to be.

 * In the spiritual view, humans are the biological creatures described in biology, with an origin as described in biology or by creation and an additional component usually called soul, wherein resides special responsibilities and potential that animals are not thought to possess.

 * Biologically speaking, modern humans are animals, requiring proper nutrition, exercise, and outlets for feelings of hostility. However, humans consider the most human part of themselves to be the culture, art, philosophy, and religion that humans have themselves created.  Accordingly, humans hope to pass on to their children the human-created culture along with the inherited animal genes that provide merely the physical carriers for what is most human--the human intellectual tools, passion for excellence, and appreciation of beauty that humans have themselves created by trial-and-error, by painstaking learning from the mistakes of the past.

 * Accordingly, humans in their philosophy and literature call machines or animals such as chimpanzees acting human to the extent that the machines or animals act in a way that suggests altruism, creativity, or teaching--with an appearance of deliberately attempting to improve their society.

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

Rewrite 3:

 * the above is, in my view, much worse than the present paragraph. at the very least, "just animal", "secular view" and "spiritual view" have to go (these are not linked anywhere, and you just assume it's clear what is "the spiritual view". Also, it's too long. Here is a modified/shortened version of the present paragraph. The point is, it's easy to agree on biology, even if many find it irrelevant, but very difficult to agree on spirituality, even among believers -- therefore, undisputed fact and common word use first, listings of views of spiritualists of different denominations later.

 * A Human is a member of a species of mammals, in taxonomy classified as Homo sapiens, the only surviving species of the genus Homo. Humans are noteably set apart from the animal kingdom by their intelligence, language, culture and spirituality.

 * Humans, being by nature introspective, inquisitive, and philosophical, have long wrestled with self-definition. The word itself is from latin humanus, the adjective to homo which means itself "human" but carries an original meaning "of the earth, earthling". In common usage the word human denotes a person, and emphasizes those aspects of being that are assumed to distinguish humans from other animals. In religion, humans are typically seen as a special class of being with a transcendent purpose and destiny, endowed with a supernatural component, such as soul or atman, that is lacking or less developed in non-human animals. In mythology, humans are often contrasted to other humanoid races, such as dwarves or giants.

— this is suitably short and unambiguous, and I really like the "long wrestled with self-definition" which points to more detailed discussions that are to follow (and expresses exactly what we are doing here). It includes a couple of links that are central, such as soul, humanoid (!= hominid) and person. We need the taxonomic/mammals bit to exclude (without descending too much into science-fiction) hypothetical (a) extraterrestial/angelic intelligent beings, (b) artificial intelligence. I think even believers need biology to define humans as separate from angels and the souls of the dead. dab 06:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments on Rewrite 3
In my opinion, your objections do not make sense. Clearly, you have not stated your real objections to Rewrite 2. Let me just itemize a few of the irrationalities--from my view-- in your above statement of your "objections."

 * 1) "just animal", "secular view," and "spiritual view" are already well-defined Wikipedia objects. That is obvious.  So your real objection is not that they have no links.  Anybody can find the Wikipedia links.
 * 2) If it is too long, then shorten it. I would suggest that it is much easier to shorten text once you have the structure.  First things first.  At least Rewrite 2 describes a reasonable flow of the article.
 * 3) I understand that you prefer the secular view in the current paragraph. So do I in my personal life.  But Wikipedia is more than your personal testimony.  In my opinion, the current lead section and your rewrite miss what humans consider to be "most human" about themselves.  In brief, the current lead section and your rewrite say nothing significant about "human."
 * 4) Your "long wrestled with self-definition" phrase does not make sense. It makes no sense logically, and it makes no sense historically.  "Humans" historically go forth to convince; they do not wrestle with self-definition.  Rewrite 2 does a good job of summarizing the various fronts on which "humans" have gone forth to convince each other.
 * 5) Now let me ask you a question. Are you and I trying to convince each other?  Or are we "long wrestling with self-definition"?
 * 6) I understand your Point-of-view, philosophy, or outlook on life, I think. It is similar to my own Point-of-view, philosophy, or outlook on life, I think.  But Human surely should represent also that very real part of "human" that you and I try to ignore.  And that part of "human" that you and I try to ignore is what you actually object to in Rewrite 2, I hypothesize.
 * 7) Where do we go from here? ---Rednblu 13:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * alright. I withdraw my objection that "spiritual/secular view" be not well-defined. Still, how many articles can you cite that have an introduction structured along the lines "in the spiritual view........, while in the secular view......." In principle, very many articles could be structured like this, but I'm glad they are not, since I don't think it's a useful template.
 * Point well taken. But one elegant (IMO) explanation of NPOV in the doc is "P-ists say P and Q-ists say Q."  It is precisely that formulation that seems to be elusive in the current article.  It always seems to boil down to "Human is P, within which Q-ists say Q".  Definitely not NPOV. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * My real objection is that instead of basing your rewrite on the already long-evolved and reasonably fair existing version, you replace it by a single-author version with an agenda. Note that my suggestion is derived from the existing version, with the removal of some material that is offensive to, and with the inclusion of some material that is supportive of the "spiritual view". Since your version is entirely new, I can just say that I find it clearly inferior as a whole. If you are not prepared to discuss particular points of the existing version, and if nobody else gives suggestions for improvements of either version, or yet another wholly different version, I say we just call a vote.
 * I agree with dab on this. But, dab.  Go ahead and put the current intro into Rednblu's intro, or ignore his in your counter-proposal.  I am sure he doesn't object to that.  In fact, maybe that is what I will do. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * the "long wrestled" phrase is not 'mine' -- I kept it, just like all that I thought was fair in the current paragraph.
 * Guilty here. I'm not claiming it, but I did write it. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not sure I clearly understand your stance (and I'm not sure that's to your credit). It seems like a very smart "reverse-POV" where you try to over-represent what you don't believe in an attempt to reach a balanced statement. I think that's too contorted to work, and I would like to hear a "believer's" (Tom?) opinion on these paragraphs.
 * I do not object to the "spiritual component" if that's what you mean. Indeed, in my suggestion, it has more room than the biological one, it just comes second place because it's more complcated, while biology gets a single line, just saying the necessary (mammal. homo sapiens. genus homo). Once that's out of the way, we're ready for more long-winded, culture-comparing, balanced approaches to spirituality (remember, the article need not just be acceptable to biologists and mormons, but, if possible, also to Hindus, Moslems, Jews, etc.).
 * There is great merit to this. But we still have to find a way to say "P-ists say P".  I don't know how at the moment other than to suggest that all (I suppose) believe a human has a physical body that can be classified among the animals, mammals, and primates. Tom 20:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * your phrase A human is a living being that generally deliberately attempts to improve itself and its society based on values like understanding, ethics, morality, and law. is not a definition, but a statement about human nature. And a false (or overly optimistic) one at that.
 * ad #3: the current lead section and your rewrite say nothing significant about "human.": what about my linking to culture, spirituality, person, religion, transcendent, supernatural, soul, atman – does that look like a paragraph by a hard-boiled "secularist" to you?? dab 13:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite 4: Copy to below what you want to rewrite
...

What is wrong with the current lead section?

 * <>

Sure. At your pleasure. Let's take the first sentence.

 * Humans are commonly referred to collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race and individually as humans, human beings, persons or people.

That is a really dumb statement, in my opinion. It sounds like a fourth grader composing a fourth-grader sentence with zero content. It is the exact parallel of a fourth grader, in typical lovable fourth-grader fashion, writing:

 * Even numbers are commonly referred to collectively as two, six, 128, or google and individually as even numbers, cardinal numbers, integers, or infinity.

Those sentences do not even point in the direction of what it means to be 1) "human" or 2) "even number."

Here is a dictionary definition of "human": "Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals." Now that sentence would suffice if this were a Wictionary entry.

But since this is Wikipedia, the first sentence should at least point the reader to the internal structure of those "positive aspects of nature and character."

At least Rewrite 2 above provides the reader some clues to what those "positive aspects of nature and character" are. Of course, there are many similar valid solutions other than Rewrite 2 for the first sentence to Human.

So let's try to write an appropriate, informative, and accurate first sentence for the Human page. Take your shot. ---Rednblu 16:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * You may think it too trivial, but it's good practice to start an article by listing synonyms. ("two" is not a synonym of "even numbers" – what's it with your "analogies"?). I'm starting to feel like I am feeding a troll, so I'll put this on PR and take a break from this discussion for a few days. dab 15:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Umm, what's PR? There is no reason for you to despair just because the effort is great. It is only by clashing mightily and with sweat that we arrive at new and better presentations for our articles. Tom 20:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * WP:PR, sorry. I'm not despairing, it's ok, I just don't want to grow too attached to this article. I think the discussion has been very civil, but it's growing stale. I would like to hear some more opinions. As it is, this talk page looks disheartening. We should archive some stuff, and arrange the rest in a way that makes it easy to spot the disputed points. Maybe we should go back to minor edits to the article (not replacing entire paragraphs, but slight improvements, with the understanding they will be reverted if considered offensive). Thanks for your patience. dab 18:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I can see what you mean. In the great Mormonism and Christianity effort, we ended up with 5 archives and a user thinking space.  Finally one week the solution began to converge and then suddenly in total peace the edits died down.  This took months and several sporadic pushes and an irate moment or two along the way.  I'd like to hear Wesley's post-mortem on the historic value of that titan struggle.  I agree with archiving the parts of the talk that are no longer helpful. Tom 14:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I would welcome your opinion on all these differnent rewrites and suggestions. And, by all means, clean up the talk page. As long as there are only three people talking this over, there is always the danger of yet another completely different opinion cropping up. And as it is, hardly anyone will be prepared to trudge through the past discussion. dab 15:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First sentence for the Human page
We begin with the first sentence as it is now.

Original
Humans are commonly referred to collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race and individually as humans, human beings, persons or people.

Rewrite 1: Edit here directly. This is a copy of the above
Humans are commonly referred to collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race and individually as humans, human beings, persons or people.

Comments on the iterative review above of the lead section of Human

 * Commenting on Rewrite 2 that is now active. I would prefer that the "In the spiritual view, . . ." paragraph precede the "In the secular view, . . ." paragraph. The whole section flows better that way, in my opinion.  ---Rednblu 01:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taxobox
"Keep the taxobox. Removing it makes it POV," said Duncharris.

 * Yes, you are right. But clarification is needed.  Have you read the NPOV docs from beginning to end yet?  Removing the taxobox would be POV, because there is an important POV that demands the taxobox be present, and removing it would be thus a suppression and a POV act.  But note I didn't remove the taxobox.  Part of us may say it is POV to put the taxobox anywhere but at the top, because that is non-parallel with the presentation of dog, bird, and cat.  But ahh, that is a misrepresentation/misunderstanding of NPOV.   It is indeed non-parallel; but NPOV simply means, in a nutshell, "represent all major POVs fairly."  If we examine the NPOV docs honestly and with an open mind, we find that what NPOV disallows is coming to any official Wikipedia POV on any controversial matter.  Putting the taxobox at the top of this article (rather than in its respective section) violates NPOV (in tone, structure, insinuation, etc.) by representing that the biological view is the official Wikipedia POV.  Unfortunately, we can't do that.  We have to represent all the major POVs fairly.  In this case, that means keeping all unqualified controversial points about humans out of the introduction.  The intro must be most carefully qualified and attributed.  Please, I beg of you, my fellow editors, let's not continue this without reading again in their entirety our NPOV doc and tutorial.  I finished reading the first again Friday, and I commit to read the tutorial also promptly. Tom

Can you explain to me how the NPOV dispute can be removed while NPOV is thus violated?Tom 21:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, the Taxobox should be at the top of the Human page. But I can also see that there are plenty of good NPOV reasons to move the Taxobox to the "Biology" section of the Human page.

From how I interpret the dynamics of human groups, those who keep moving the Taxobox to the "Biology" section have a valid point--namely that the Taxobox distorts the part of "human" that tries so hard to avoid facing the "Biology" of "Human." And, now that I think about it, the part of "Human" that tries so hard to avoid facing the "Biology" of "Human" is the major component of human civilization and culture--giving rise to the extravagant delusions, follies, and puffery of Religion, Law, Philosophy, and Art.

So here is my compromise solution. I make the motion, and let's have some discussion.

Let's split the Human (biology) page to a separate page from Human. This is in NPOV recognition of the fact that today, most of human energy and attention is focused on closeting Human (biology) onto a page, a locked room, a suppressed region of humanity where people don't have to deal anymore with Human (biology) and look at animal nakedness every time they try to deceive themselves again and convince themselves again that they Human are more than just animal. ---Rednblu 06:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is exactly my suggestion, see posting under "NPOV dispute" above. If we can agree on this, we don't need to agree on any other points, although I emphatically reject your view that human culture has the aim of "avoiding" biology. Rather, society-building is a crucial component of the natural behaviour of the "human animal", and civilization is really built around our biology (I don't see at all how you can invoke defense budget as an indication that we have overcome our primeval instincts, btw). And what's this "just an animal"? animal means "life form" (or, granted, "life form capable of locomotion"). How does this relate to anything? But as I said, as long as we agree on where to go with the article layout, we don't need to agree on any of this. But note that my suggestion implies that all sections be "exported" (not just the biology one). I'm not sure if this is in agreement with your proposal. dab 08:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS, article titles: it doesn't need to be Human (biology), it should be either (or both) Human biology (viz. adjectival use of human) and Homo sapiens, which at the moment exists only a a redirect. Again, c.f. "NPOV dispute" posting. dab 09:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's go slowly with this. I'm not sure this is what we want happening to the Wikipedia.  The issue at hand seems rather simple, and it should be quite easy for our NPOV policy to handle it, especially if we all agree to agree on the non-negotiables and absolutes of Wikidom.  I'm not saying a split won't end up as part of the solution; but we need to go slowly. Tom 14:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * that's why I haven't gone ahead and done it ;o) but a split is a good thing, regardless of disputes, when an article is getting long. Especially if you want to "represent all human knowledge (an important facet of NPOV) fairly" here, a split is unavoidable. So, please give your opinion of how you think the TOC of a summary article should be arranged. It doesn't have to start with biology. Typically, summaries start by giving a dictionary definition and an overview of the history of the term, before getting down to particularities. The present contention seems to include disagreement on *where on the page* the taxobox should be. Now, with the best intentions, articles will always be *sequential*, i.e. some paragraphs will appear before others. NPOV dictates that all views are reported, but it will be very hard to come up with a "correct" sequence. If we can agree on a logical sequence, or a superior layout, that's fine. If not, we'll have to vote. But it's silly to call POV, just if your POV happens to be mentioned after somebody else's. dab 14:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the ideas so far. How about this concern? Say we split everything up and end up without any article called Human. Then somebody comes along and says, "Hey! There is no article called Human!" I think there should be (as proposed before) a summary article called Human that kinda gives a dictionary definition and then directs to more information. Tom 17:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, I don't know that I speak for a majority of belivers on this or not, but I am not against the taxobox or the biological discussion at all. As a believer, I simply believe a human is more. So a human is a combination of a natural body that is a member of a physical species of earth, genetically related to all other living things, with its own comparative characteristics, and a supernatural spiritual component whose characteristics transcend those of all other natural things (without denying a spiritual component to those other things). So I would not want to see the taxobox go or deny that it describes my flesh and genetics. I merely know that it is POV to frame and define the Human article by the taxobox when so many other share roughly my POV, as Rednblu explains so well from a secular perspective. Tom 17:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * well said. I will support you in the inclusion of a fair description of this "supernatural spiritual component". We already have "In religion, humans are typically seen as a special class of being with a transcendent purpose and destiny", but I agree, this could be made more explicit. And I also think that the mention of chimpanzees and science fiction is unneccesary in the introduction. Compare my suggestion "Rewrite 3" above. dab 10:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it makes sense to make this article a "Wikipedia Summary Style" article, splitting off the large part of the biology section to Human biology, culture to Human culture, etc., as Rednblu (and I think dab?) have suggested. Like Tom, I don't object to having a taxobox; it simply seems to make much more sense to put it with the discussion of human biology (whether in this article or a separate one) since human biology is what it describes.

 * I personally sense no problem with the current biological view of Human being the lead theme and other views following it. But, as a compromise, we can make it a disambiguation page that points to all the different POV. -- Sundar 07:22, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, someone suggested that the taxobox in this article should be of Homo rather than of Homo sapiens, and I don't recall seeing a reply. Did that suggestion have any merit? As you might have guessed I'm not a trained biologist, but I would like any taxobox that is included to be the right one at least. Wesley 17:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Human/Archive 2


text:
Fort Koshkonong

Fort Koshkonong (Fort Cosconong) was a military fort located near the present-day city of Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin. Intended to control the confluence of the Bark and Rock rivers, it was used as a station for local militia units and the U.S. regulars in the region to scout the British Band, a group of Native Americans who fought against government units during the 1832 Black Hawk War. General Henry Atkinson was the commander of the fort during the war. Black Hawk was in the same general area, but evaded capture and started to flee towards the Wisconsin River. The original fort was abandoned by the Army following the conflict. Local settlers dismantled it for the wood as the town developed.

Today the fort's original location along the Rock River is marked with a monument. The city built a replica of the fort during the Great Depression of the 1930s as a Works Progress Administration (WPA) project funded by the President Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. Its overall size is somewhat larger than the original fort, but provides a representation of how it looked during the Black Hawk War.

Fort Koshkonong shares its name with Lake Koshkonong, which is several miles downriver. Very shallow, the lake at the time of the fort's activity was more of a marsh with the river flowing through it. It increased in size when the river was dammed and is one of the larger lakes in Wisconsin in acreage.

The Fort was located at 42.92694°N, -88.83111°W. The replica is located about a mile and a half west in Rock River Park at 42.92568°N, -88.85792°W.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Fort Koshkonong