Talk:Human

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I like this Idea too! Paperclip petter (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
100% of people who will look at this article use a computer. Sinistrality2023 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's still a computer. 185.139.138.106 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Primate looks great on my laptop and phone. Leijurv (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mosaics used for lead images on Wikipedia 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)[reply]
See MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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/)[ᴛ] 01:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, ideally we would use a featured picture on Wikimedia commons or something like that. Howard🌽33 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I see no reason to keep using a low-quality photo from 2009. Howard🌽33 18:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
When we take a picture of an ant for Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
The picture is good, fine, and representative. Remsense诉 14:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"It" in lede

There seem to be some current attempts to avoid the use of "it" in the lede as "dehumanizing". Please keep in mind that we are discussing the species Homo sapiens here - species, as in singular. Forcing some kind plural usage is strictly wrong grammatically; we avoid it with respect to all other species. I see no justification for messing up the phrasing here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The opening sentence was recently changed from:

  • "Humans, or modern humans (Homo sapiens), are the most common and widespread species of primate."

To:

  • "The human, or modern human (Homo sapiens), is the most common and widespread species of primate."

This is not an improvement. The original sentence was grammatically correct. The later version gives rise to odd clauses such as "that enable the human to thrive in extremely varied environments", which do not sound at all like standard English.Graham Beards (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "original" (longstanding) sentence is the current one [1] - what you saw was an edit made today [2], which I reverted. So what you consider "ungrammatical" has actually been in place for years, in one of the most highly-scrutinized articles on the project. And no, I can't agree that your examples do not sound like "standard English"; this is how you refer to a species - in the singular. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seems I got it wrong - we did use the plural form, and it was altered two days ago [3]. In light of that, striking and reverting (although I maintain that the singular is more appropriate). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes the change was made here [4] on 7th October. Graham Beards (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "natural prose is good"? There's no need to impose a particularly artificial phraseology if it's not prominent in sources. Remsense诉 14:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

potential error of picture being used in the Human Life Stages area

The two photos which suppose to be an infant girl and an infant boy actually seems to be two infant boys (according to my research) and I think a further change is needed 144.82.8.62 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding section on the Anthropocene?

The Anthropocene is mentioned briefly in the lead, but not really elaborated on. As humans are the driving cause of this geologic epoch, I believe it warrants some elaboration. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed geologic time Anthropocene is extremely fringe in usage (uncommon and officially not accepted). Current era is officially called Holocene . So, that would be quite unnecessary. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different periodizations that exists for a different purpose. I agree that elaborating too much on both would be wishful POV pushing on our parts, but wait who officially decides these things? The cene-police? Remsense诉 10:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Who officially decides this things?" Umm..... the geological consensus? Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing trimming of article

I undid a revision by @CoastRedwood that trimmed the article and removed an image. I think this trimming was excessive, and that it should be discussed a bit so consensus can be built. Some trimming may well be warranted, and the image in question can be removed if that is the consensus, but I think the change was substantial enough that some discussion should happen. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t excessive. The fact that that was there shows anthropocentrism. It talked about commonly defined body systems. This is not the kind of stuff needed for a specific species article, it covers body systems that many animals have.
Here’s what I trimmed.
Basic anatomical features of female and male humans. These models have had body hair and male facial hair removed and head hair trimmed. The female model is wearing red nail polish on her toenails and a ring on her left hand.
The human body consists of the legs, the torso, the arms, the neck, and the head. An adult human body consists of about 100 trillion (1014) cells. The most commonly defined body systems in humans are the nervous, the cardiovascular, the digestive, the endocrine, the immune, the integumentary, the lymphatic, the musculoskeletal, the reproductive, the respiratory, and the urinary system.[1][2] The dental formula of humans is: 2.1.2.32.1.2.3.

References

  1. ^ Roza G (2007). Inside the human body : using scientific and exponential notation. New York: Rosen Pub. Group's PowerKids Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-4042-3362-1. Retrieved 30 July 2022.
  2. ^ "Human Anatomy". Inner Body. Archived from the original on 5 January 2013. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
Maybe the dental formula thing should be kept, on second thoughts, although I’m not sure what that even is.
But everything else doesn’t need to be there. This is meant to cover species specific stuff. But here we have an entire section that goes on about how many cells there are and body systems that every animal has. This belongs in a seperate human anatomy and biology section. By the way, everybody knows about the fact we have legs, arms and head. This should have been trimmed a while ago. CoastRedwood (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the trim. The current section is Human#Biology while the trimmed section is permalink. The main article Human body is the place for body details. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Everybody knows" is not really an excuse to exclude information from an article, got to make sure aliens reading Wikipedia in the future can get the full idea. In seriousness, I'm not really committed either way, but this content has been there for a long time, so I figured it was best to discuss a bit. If a lot of people agree, I won't argue further, consider me neutral on the matter. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahah. But, the main objection really is that it just doesnt belong there. The human body contains 100 trillion cells, common body systems are the musculoskeletal, immune, etc. This does not belong in a species article, and it sounds like something that comes from a 'Body Facts' website or something. CoastRedwood (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. If no one else replies for a few days or whenever you're feeling bold, you can undo my revert. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is an article about humans written by humans for humans to read. This is content useful for human readers to understand their own species. If any editor wants to improve articles about worm species or butterfly species or bacteria species, go for it. But do not make this article less informative. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to the dedicated human body article anyways in this one CoastRedwood (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not too bothered either way by the trim. It wasn't excessive detail in the first place, but it is not worse off with the trim. Disagree with the removal of the image though so have restored that. Aircorn (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

There are 14 uses of the word "they" referring to the human species. If my assumption that the author is human is correct, this error should be corrected by editing it to "we". If my assumption is false, I have bigger worries than the accuracy of this article. LegitGopnik (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See FAQ on the top of this talk page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fix in Ancient History

I'm not really an editor, but there's a typo in the 'ancient history' section. It says 'Indus Valley Civilisation' instead of civilization. I'd fix it but I'm not 'established'. Thought I'd let someone more experienced know! 23disembodiedvoices (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting one. Wikipedia articles can be written in many different versions of English, but are normally expected to use the one version consistently within a single article. This article is written in US English, as you can see from the note at the top of this page with the US flag beside it. However, the use of the "Civilisation" spelling is in a Wikilink to an article written in British English. (That's why it's in blue.) That article uses the "s" in its title. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Human"