Jump to content

Talk:Human/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Unbelievably bad paragraph

Paragraph in question

The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two. There are also the views that the world, including human beings, is all that there is, and the view that there may be also be God, gods, or other supernatural entities, and that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records.

Problems by 4.250

  • Curiosity and introspection exist in many creatures in addition to humans.
  • Other aspects of humans other than curiosity and introspection lead to explanations of existance and conciousness.
  • Metaphysics is an important issue; but entirely inappropriate for the INTRODUCTION to "HUMANS". Do not nonhumans have beliefs based on emotions? Oh, so THEY are MORE logical than we? Really????
  • "These include ..." Please. Belongs in the body. What possible justification is there for this in the intro?
  • "Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records" I'm now an atheist, but when I was a Christian, we believed it was a REVEALED RELIGION meaning that our theology was NOT based on "self-reflection" but on the word of GOD revealed by HIMSELF. Not our puny attempts to understand. (After all, the revealed word says he makes fools out of doubters and DECIEVES those he chooses to.) (Now, as an atheist, I point out this means God has planted lies in the DNA of EVERY CELL OF EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH. 4.250.168.252 02:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

introspective issue

Not sure if any non-human animals have been identified as meaningfully introspective. --Rikurzhen 04:22, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Start by constructing a double blind objective nonhuman-biased MEASURMENT for introspection. 4.250.198.202 14:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't be pedantic on the talk page. Save it for the article. I hope you realize that "no original research" is a Wikipedia policy. My point is that I think your claim about introspection is not supported by the evidence. I think that introspection is an important human quality to mention, if not in the intro then in the body, even if it is not unique to humans. --Rikurzhen 16:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clear. The issue is as you say "evidence". The kind of evidence not needed is assertion, hand waving claims by people who have not done actual experiments, experiments designed to produce a predetermined conclusion and the like. The difference between science and nonscience is often the use of measurement. What are the units? Similar structures produce similar results. Mammal brains are remarkably similar. Claims that the human brain is qualitatively different need proof. Care to cite a relevant experiment? What were the units of introspection? 4.250.198.202 17:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the issue here. The article doesn't say non-human animals aren't introspective. 4.250, I don't know whether you've followed the debate on these talk pages, but we've had enough speculation and debate to last most of us a lifetime, which is why we're into evidence, clear statements, and concrete proposals for actual content. We're suffering from a little battle fatigue, though if you've just arrived here, you couldn't know this, of course. ;-) If you have a better idea for the introduction, by all means propose it here, and we'll be glad to look at it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

rewrite issue

Do you have any ideas how to re-write it, Oh, wise one? ≈ jossi ≈ 02:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I find the paragraph completely without worth HERE IN THE INTRO. I choose not to think about whether it has worth elsewhere. (By the way, refering to Sam as SS is witty and funny. Live by the veiled reference, die by the veiled reference, eh Sam?) 4.250.168.252 02:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mel's comments

  1. The summary needn't be limited to unique aspects of humans; the summary of Tiger, for example, tells us that tigers "live in forests and grasslands (for which their camouflage is ideally suited)", that they "may often be found bathing in ponds, lakes, and rivers", and that they "hunt alone, and their diet consists primarily of medium-sized herbivores such as deer, wild pigs, and buffalo, but they will also take larger or smaller prey if the circumstances demand it", in none of which are tigers unique. If the summary said that humans are distinguished by being the only animals who have these properties, then fine — but it doesn't.
  2. Which aspects of human beings do you think lead to our theories about ourselves? I think that other aspects make such theorising possible, but I think that curiosity and introspection are the causes.
  3. The god squad insist on mention of what they vaguely call "spirituality". It seems inappropriate to many of us, as the history of this Talk page will indicate, but when we accept its presence here and attempt to make it NPoV, they kick up an awful stink about including the relevant detail and making the relevant distinctions. They don't want accuracy and balance, they want their views made prominent.
  4. As an encyclopædia, we can't assert that religion is revealed by god, we can only say that some people think that it is (and that would be even more inappropriate in this article).
  5. Thanks — I though that "SS" was appropriate (though not, of course, SS himself). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

4.250 response to Mel

  1. True. But we both know this is simply a stalking horse for talk about our special place in the universe, our soul, etc. Spirit (emotion, motivation, etc --(An aside: spirit=breath, God's sprit moved across the surface of the Earth = wind, the spirit left him = he stopped breathing) ) is adequately introduced by the preceding paragraph and dealt with in depth in the body.
  2. Most people most places most of the time believe what they heard and understood as a child. Adults will talk of things in an anthropomorphic way (The cold wind is mean out there, I hope the sun chooses to be nice and warm things up) and it is natural for children to take things literally. We humans are wired to see the forces around us as personalities making choices. Children without friends have imaginary friends. Adults often believe in an imaginary daddy in the sky. We believe more according to our pre wiring and early socialisation than later introspection. Few humans change their religion based on introspection. Muslim nations stay so generation to generation. So too with other spiritual beliefs. Introspection obviously does not result in nation wide change in spiritual beliefs.
  3. Controversy is best handled in the body as much as possible.
  4. Yes.
  5. You're welcome. 4.250.198.202 14:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion

Is this a sincere attempt to simplify things and help come to agreements about this intro?. I understand that WP is not a place for advocacy, being it religious or secular. Your attitude does not help, IMO. Can we keep things simple? Make proposals, not a discourse about what you think "most people most place most time heard and understood". Did we forget the fact that we can not engage in original research? May I also ask you to avoid using terms such as "god squad"? It is unecessary, inflamatory, escalatory, and not conducive to a civil conversation. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we are all sincere here. All trying to make this article better. Don't presume to read my attitude, please. (Thanks in advance.) Deleting the whole god-awful paragraph IS simple. And that IS my "proposal". Deleting a paragraph is not "original research". Mel used "god squad", not I. However, I think you greatly overreact to the term. I'm quite sure Mel meant no offense. You are in charge of your own emotions; don't blame others for your overreactions. Accusing one another over unintended slights has no place here. Walking on eggshells to avoid offending anyone with casual or witty or funny or flip (saying "god squad" is being flip) remarks only emboldens trolls and children who want to run off to mommy saying so and so isn't being nice enough to me. Mel spoke like he was speaking to other adults. Do us a favor and act like one and don't whine over every perceived slight. 4.250.198.202 18:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, 4.250, it would probably be helpful not to accuse editors of whining. Regarding deleting the paragraph, this (or a not-too-distant version of it) was agreed as a compromise after several months of dispute, so it can't be removed without the dispute starting up again, but if you feel you can improve it, please write out your proposals here and we'll take a look. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I was just asking what I thought to be pertinent questions, In any case, I choose not to respond to your accusations as a way to cool off the conversation. My understanding is that we are trying to improve a paragraph that was agreed as a compromise after a long debate. Can you help making it better? I do not think that deletion is on the table at this point.≈ jossi ≈ 18:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The introduction and the 4th introduction secion

  • This is my view. I haven't read the entire discussion (that would take hours) so I may be repeating points already made. But it is useful for any new commers to not have to read through the entire discussion and to be able to read these points. I am only here to discuss the introduction, and provide my views as to how it should be structured. If any of you have already discussed such points, perhaps difs could be provided so you don't have to repeat yourselves.


The introduction is presently organised into 4 sections:

  • What the defenition of Homo sapiens is, our species.
  • Our physical form including brain.
  • Our behaviour, use of language, culture etc.
  • Our nature, curiosity etc.


My view is that the introduction should deal with a few aspects of what defines "homo sapiens" and what sets us apart from all the other creaturs on this planet. The first 3 sections seem fine, no need to elaborate in the introduction. In the 2nd section perhaps we could mention that our use of "tools" is highly unique - there are almost no other animals who use tools, and those that do, use them to a very, very limited extent. It is also the ability which prevented us from being wiped out. The 4th section is difficult. Should it be there at all? It is almost covered by the first 3 sections. It is important I think to point out that our "curiosity" etc. does set us apart, and has played a major role in our lives since we evolved as "humans". When I studied ancient middle eastern history at uni, the first lecture dealt with "beliefs" such as the sun dying at the end of every day, and the people praying for it to be reborn each night. It seems that something which does separate "us" from "animals" is our imaginations, and our quest for meanings. Before there was science, there was imagination. After science, our imaginations still lead us to belive the most unbelievable things. I think this is a quality that is so significant, and which all humans share, that it has a place in the intro. I'm not saying GOD, I'm not even saying religion, I'm just saying that our tendancy to create stories, a dreamtime, etc. to explain the unexplainable, and to live our lives by those beliefs, is something that is quintessentially human. So therefore something about this does have a place in the introduction in my opinion. How it will be written...I'll wait to see what people have to say to this first. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Silversmith; what you say is very interesting. We did have something like this in a compromise suggestion at one point: I don't remember it, but it talked about the importance of narrative, and went on to talk about religious belief in those terms, which some editors objected to, so it got dropped. Personally, I like the idea of referring to imagination and story-telling, because I think they do define us to some extent, and the introduction should include defining features. But there's the question of space too. We probably shouldn't go beyond four paragraphs. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your response SlimVirgin. I was thinking more of the imagination stuff going in that 4th paragraph, as the 4th deals with that sort of aspect. If we were working as a team in a business, we would do some brainstorming, and write down a list of ideas for the paragraph/intro etc then refine those ideas until we know exactly what should and shouldn't be included. So how about it? I'll start with one:

Well, it's a good idea, but another editor started one a couple of months ago, and it practically ended in a fistfight, LOL! We started the disputed paragraph with the reference to curiosity and introspection as causes of the search for explanation, so that takes us nicely into narrative, ideology, and imagination. The problem is that some editors don't want religous beliefs to be described in terms of narrative: they feel that's POV, because narrative suggests either that it's not true, or that it's just one possible truth among many, whereas for many, that humans have souls and are made in the image of God is the most defining characteristic of the species. So to introduce imagination, we'd have to do it quite separately from any religious context, so that we didn't appear to be implying that God was a product of imagination. It's quite tricky to do that without getting too wordy. However, don't let me discourage you from trying with your list. It might work second time round. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I would endorse an approach based on a narrative about imagination, reflection, curiosity, and introspection. All these aspects combined (and maybe more) is what makes the essence of us humans in regard to our beliefs. I would argue that without these aspects (and regardless of the discourse about the existence of a supreme power, that clearly is at the core of the previous discussions), we would not be able to excercise belief in such power. I look forward to see if Silvermith can come up with something better/different than we have managed so far. ≈ jossi ≈ 01:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I would appreciate some point-form ideas, then if anyone objects to some of the points, they can either be removed or altered suitably. I'm getting an idea now of what the big problem was before. I hope that can be remedied. --Silversmith Hewwo 08:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, since no-one wishes to suggest some points, I'll try to come up with something for the 4th section then:

It is the nature of homo sapiens to evolve knowledge through exploration. From the earliest records humans have used imagination and observation to expain the world and formulate answers. This has given rise to metaphysical beliefs, which have become the basis of theology and philosophy. Humans also examine themselves, seeking to understand their purpose and physical beings, which has resulted in sciences such as psychology. The creative way in which the human mind has developed has led to the inventions of art, music, literature and technology. It is both the introspective and extrospective nature of human beings which has shaped their history, and the evolution of an unique and dominant species.

Please write any suggestions below. --Silversmith Hewwo 18:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

What would a solution look like?

It is difficult to arrive at a solution unless you know what the question is and what the conditions of success would be. What is the problem we are debating? How will we know when we've arrived at the correct solution? --Rikurzhen 02:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

goethean

My concern with this article has been that it is parochial — that the vast majority of people in the world would read it and say "No, that's not right at all." A truly neutral encyclopedia should attempt to say not only how scientists or humanists or atheists define human beings, but also decribe, or at least refer to, how other human beings have done so. This has been the guiding principle of my proposals (1, 2), which have generally been ignored. The real problem, it seems to me, is that some of the editors would consider any solution that most people could agree with to be inherently flawed. That is, it is only true if it contradicts and implies to be invalid what the vast majority of inhabitants of the world believe. They see those people as objectively incorrect, and see the role of wikipedia to disabuse these benighted souls of their unscientific and incorrect ideas. These users have successfully blocked any neutral introduction to this article since its inception. --goethean ॐ 15:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Human/Human Nature

My concern with the article is that it should not try to subsume content that is better placed in the human nature article. Finding a way to split material between these two article may be difficult. However, my experience has been that this kind of split is possible and preferable for maintaining readable articles. An example of this split that I have worked with are the articles on IQ and intelligence. To build the analogy, I believe human should be like IQ and human nature should be like intelligence. --Rikurzhen 17:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I like this approach in general. Another difficulty with it, though, is that subsequent editors may well be unaware of the separate articles and their purposes, resulting in material being added to human that belonged in human nature and vice versa. It's not an insurmountable problem, but it would probably require the sort of close monitoring by interested editors that we'd all like to avoid! It's no fun being a watchdog reverter! ;) --Bob Schaefer 18:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
If this distinction were agreed upon, we could leave a header on the talk pages and a disambiguation message at the head of this article to point out the distinction. That might go a long way. --Rikurzhen 20:31, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the distinction and the header and disambiguation proposals, and I'd also like to suggest using code headers

Consensus

So ... do we have a concensus to remove the fourth paragraph because

  1. there is already an article on Human nature
  2. this is an introduction to THIS article and this paragraph does not even reflect the content that exists in the subsection on human nature
  3. the paragraph contents are contentious and debateable and controversial and thus are better dealt with either in the main article Human nature or below in the subsection named human nature
  4. this is on the table, that's what the "Page protection dispute" is all about: My deleting this paragraph, it being put back and a freeze imposed saying to resolve that dispute.
  5. concerns such as User:Goethean/Human and Silversmith's are better dealt with at Human nature
  6. What's not on the table is a complete rewrite of the article or any such thing; just the status of paragraph four of the intro.
  7. "Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy," is demonstatably false.
  8. "many attempts", "a number of", "include", "also the views", "there may be", "or other", "perhaps" all cry out that the issues in this paragraph can only be properly handled in the body of an article specific to the purpose.
  9. the history of the debates around this introduction indicates the material is better off elsewhere.

Consensus for fourth paragraph to not appear in intro (and possibly to go somewhere else) ? 4.250.33.185 20:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I think it would be better to maintain the human/human nature split when possible. See the section above for my comments. --Rikurzhen 20:16, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I did come up with a rewrite of the 4th up above but no-one's commented on it. But it might be more of a human nature style paragraph? It might not be a bad thing if it's just deleted and we stick with 3. --Silversmith Hewwo 20:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC) merge the paragraph with the Human Nature article. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that seems fine to me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
No ... Unless we add at least a short sentence that explains the controversy and points to the Human nature article in the intro. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
jossi, what about the suggestions I made in the section above? that would put the distinction above the intro at the top of the page. alternatively, do both; we also need to mention consciousness in the intro, so that might go in a pargraph with human nature. --Rikurzhen 04:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
No. POV fork. The idea here is to define human beings as solely biological entities, and to marginalize other definitions. That's fine for a biological textbook, not for a putatively neutral encyclopedia. There is serious debate regarding whether human beings consist of more than a physical body. In cases where debate exists, the policy of Wikipedia is to describe the debate accurately, rather than taking a side on it. Defining human beings as biological entities while shunting other ideas elsewhere clearly takes a side in that debate. --goethean ॐ 16:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Can you point out what makes you think this article takes a non-neutral POV on human nature? An article as broad as "human" cannot hope to cover all possible details. We currently have a sub-article section on human nature. Why do we need a large segment of the intro dedicated to talking about human nature? Based on the table of context, this article is also about Evolution, Biology, Habitat, Population, Language, Culture, Race and ethnicity, and Consciousness. Can we not write an article that is indifferent to questions of (fundamental) human nature and leave those questions for the other article to cover in detail? --Rikurzhen 16:55, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
If this article was Homo Sapiens or Human (biology), it would be different. But this is the article not only on Human and Homo Sapiens, but also on Human being, Humanity, Humankind, etc. We have heroically taken on the task of defining human beings in the summary introduction. You want to leave the biological definition here, and move all other text elsewhere. That will result in Wikipedia endorsing the biological definition of "Human". That's not neutral. --goethean ॐ 18:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
But the "biological definition" of human is completely orthogonal and neutral to questions of fundamental human nature. Sometimes, articles have to be split and the two articles already seem to position a logical split between human (not fundamental) and human nature (fundamental). I think you are assuming that a biological definition of human beings precludes other definitions or endorses a certain fundamental definition. I think this is a mistake. The biological definition asks: what kind of organism is a human being? The scope of the answer relates humans to other organisms; and is neutral to more fundamental questions. --Rikurzhen 18:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I think you are assuming that a biological definition of human beings precludes other definitions or endorses a certain fundamental definition.
I don't, but many, many people do. They object to the strictly biological definition of "human". And they don't just assume it — they have, based on observation or tradition, rejected the biological definition of "human". When you erase all reference to their beliefs in this article, you are taking a stand on a controversy. Wikipedia's mandate is to describe controversies, not to resolve them.
Sometimes, articles have to be split and the two articles already seem to position a logical split between human (not fundamental) and human nature (fundamental).
Practical considerations should not compromise neutrality. Your proposal does. --goethean ॐ 20:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that some people believe that humans aren't animals? Or something like that? --Rikurzhen 21:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ahh.... By biological definition, I don't mean the definition that humans are only biological, but rather what kind of biologcial organisms are humans -- animal, mammal, primate, etc. I don't know of any philosophies that reject a discussion of the apparent biological properties of humans, even if they believe those properties aren't fundament, or that they're illusions, etc. So why do you need to discuss what kind of fundamdental nature humans have in the same article that we talk about the completely separate issue of what kind of animal they happen to be? --Rikurzhen 22:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Fourth para

The paragraph needing work is the following:


The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two. There are also the views that the world, including human beings, is all that there is, and the view that there may be also be God, gods, or other supernatural entities, and that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records.

The problem I see with it is that the curiosity and introspection lead to science as well as to metaphysics. Sliding off into a mostly irrelevant discussion of divergent theories of the relation between mind and body is not something we want in the intro.

What is the point of this paragraph? What is it that the editors are wanting to say? My guess is that you want to add culture to biology, society and behaviour - this seems a sensible thing to do - but that is not what this paragraph does. Drop it and start again. Banno 22:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

How about something like:

Humans are incline to attempts to learn about both their existence and that of the world in which they find themselves. This has led to various cultural phenomena, including religion, philosophy and science.

Banno 22:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the intro, that's sort of what I had in mind. (But that would be under the scheme that most details about human nature would be restricted to that article, with only a summary in this article.) --Rikurzhen 23:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps - but the present summary (Beliefs about human nature) gives the impression that the only significant aspect of human nature is religion. Banno 23:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've already written this on the talk page, but it's been completely ignored. I would at least like an opinion or suggestion or something. It is my attempt to completely rewrite the 4th paragraph, in a way the is neutral, and covers what the point of the 4th paragraph is.

Is it too long? Is it crossing over too much into human nature? Please discuss this with me. --Silversmith Hewwo 23:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it differers sufficiently from the present version. It is also likely to piss off the religious, since it uses the "E" word. Banno 23:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
"Evolve" is the wrong word anyway; "gain" (or possibly "develop") would be better. I'm not sure that the human mind has developed in a "creative way", nor that art, music, literature, and technology are aptly described as inventions. All species are unique, and "dominant" is a bit vague" (and, I'd say, PoV). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I tried to avoid POV by sticking to more scientific facts. This article is about the biology of Homo Sapiens, not POVs. I find it strange that you don't find that we are the only species who deliberately create works of art, music etc. relevant/accurate. If it wasn't for our abilities to create, we wouldn't be having this conversation on an internet that was created by creative humans. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't mention God, gods, or soul, for another thing. I still like:

best. (I edited it slightly to address a complaint by SV, btw)

Sam Spade 23:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Sam. Are you referring to my version or Silversmith's? That mine doesn't make use of that horrid construct, "God, god or gods", strikes me as a great advantage. Your version does not mention science as an outcome of curiosity and introspection. Again, I think that the best solution is to start again. Take another look at my suggestion, and edit it to bring out more about "God, god or gods", if you wish. Banno 23:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about silvers, I hadn't read thru yours thoroughly, and would like to see it w wikilinks. For me, the key to this article is in the links, since there is obviously no way were ever going to do the subject justice w one article alone. The best soloution would probably be some sort of condensed merger of all the proposed versions. I agree w you about science needing more mention (and being the result of curiosity) , btw. Sam Spade 00:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think that an introductory paragraph needs links to curiosity, Introspection, monism, dualism, pluralism, Philosophical naturalism, spiritual, belief, God, gods, supernatural, soul, qi atman, theology and philosophy? Pick two or three you think are essential, and we'll work them into another intro. Banno 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Silversmith, thanks for writing that up. The only reason I didn't respond is that I prefer to leave that paragraph as it is, only because it's the consensus version. Banno, your version won't fly because it calls religion a cultural phenomenon. Several editors objected to a previous version that they felt implied that. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
But there is no consensus, as the objections above show... Banno
Curious - perhaps you could direct me to their objections? Banno 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I believe it begins in archive 6, point 12, intro, and continues until now. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. You will have to forgive me if I don't delve that far back, at least for now... Banno 06:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Quite. Now you'll understand why I'm loathe to disturb the consensus. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
But there is no consensus. Banno 07:12, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
If you look back through the archives, most of the editors who took part in the discussion decided they could live with the fourth paragraph as it was. No one was particularly happy with it, but it was agreed as a compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but the problem I have with the "consensus" version, is it seems to be very focused on religion, which I don't think should be the purpose of the 4th. It should be about our unique minds, how we use them to create etc. Sure, religion is an aspect of that, but only one. It's a fine paragraph if you are religious, but it leaves the scientists and atheists rather high and dry. IMO --Silversmith Hewwo 09:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First of all the current version is not the concensus version which lasted for a month or so, this one doesn't even have a link to God. Second, re:Banno, yes I do think most of those links are neccessary, and perhaps a few others. I envision this article as a hub wherefrom one can link outwards from, rather than a summary of humanity ;) As far as what Silversmith is saying, I'd say she is correct about science deserving more emphasis (like say a link or 2), but dead wrong about atheism, which gets far too much coverage already, esp. considering how incredibly rare a phenomena it is worldwide, much less thruout history. Sam Spade 10:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This version was fairly steady, not that its perfect or anything. Sam Spade 10:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have no need to apologize, Silversmith, and I don't disagree with you, but the editors who wanted more religious content argued their case here for several months, so a number of compromise intros were written. Here's one of the compromises I first wrote, but there were objections that it tried to reduce religious belief to a story:

Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects.

As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nations, states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. The self-consciousness of human beings, their curiosity, introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development of the species, which include scientific and spiritual stories promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and, on the other, that all life, including human life, was created by a supreme being. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

There's quite a few things I like about that version. To Sam, I have no problem with God/Gods being in there, as it is true that it is something that has shaped our lives. Some of our greatest creations were built to worship god/s, and the infuence of religion on our lives is more than obvious. I opt for balance. My view for this artilce being more scientific is that there is an article on Human Nature which could cover the less biological aspects moreso than this one. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you want to rewind a few months, I fought (seemingly endlessly) against those among the religious who didn't want the taxobox at the top, feeling it reduced humans to an animal (rightly so IMO, I'm not very anthropocentric, despite, or more likely because of, my theism). My feeling at that time was that this article should be split between Homo sapiens (or maybe Homo sapiens sapiens?) and Humanity. I don't see that happening right now tho, for alot of reasons. Everybody needs to keep in mind NPOV, write for your enemies, were all human ;) After a bit more thought, banno's version might serve as a good foundation for a new stab at this paragraph. Obviiously I think it needs more links / content, but hey, at least its balanced, eh? Sam Spade 10:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human/Archive_13&oldid=1148691973"