Talk:Human
Latest comment: 3 days ago by Cullen328 in topic Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Q1: Why does the Human article use the third person? Aren't we humans?
A1: The third person ("Humans are..." or "They are..." as opposed to "We are...") is simply the conventional mode of writing for Wikipedia and other reference works. We realize this may cause some phrases in Human to sound quite strange — "a majority of humans professes some variety of religious or spiritual belief" sounds almost like it was written by space aliens. However, the occasional strangeness this approach may lead to is still preferable to the alternative of inconsistency.
If we were to use "we" in the Human article, it would mean sometimes switching strangely between persons as we narrow our topic of discussion. For example, even if an editor were female, she would be forced to write things like "We humans, and especially those females...." Whenever a subgroup of humanity became the article's focus, we would need to switch to the third person; a sentence about humans would use "we", but a sentence about adults, Asians, engineers, or heterosexuals would need to use "they". It is far simpler to just consistently use the third person in all contexts, even if this doesn't always seem completely natural. A related issue is the fact that, as a general rule, Wikipedia prefers to avoid self-references. In addition to being human, all editors on this site happen to be English speakers — yet we treat our article on the English language the same way we treat every other language article, in order to avoid bias and inconsistency. Likewise, we treat Wikipedia the same as other websites and reference tools. Analogously, we ought to aspire to treat Human in much the same way that we treat every other species article. Ideally, we should make exceptions of Human only where objective, verifiable facts demand that we make exceptions (e.g., in employing a lengthy behavior section). This is the simplest and easiest way to avoid bias and to prevent editorial disputes: When in doubt, follow the rest of Wikipedia's lead.Q2: Aren't humans supposed to be purely herbivorous/frugivorous despite our modern omnivorous habits? Aren't we jungle apes albeit highly intelligent and largely furless jungle apes? Most jungle apes eat no meat or very little.
A2: No, we really are natural omnivores. Contrary to popular belief, we humans did not evolve in jungles. We actually evolved on open grasslands where fruit-bearing trees are nowhere near as plentiful as in the jungle, where most of our surviving close relatives evolved. Evolving in such a place, we would have always (for as long as we've been humans rather than Australopithecines and other even earlier fossilized genera) had to supplement our diet with meat in addition to plant material. We evolved also eating plant-derived foods to be sure; the Savannah (grassland) has some trees with edible fruit although comparatively few and far between, and grain-bearing grasses are far more plentiful there than any tree. (Some evidence suggests that the first bread and beer were made from these tropical grains long before recorded history.) Even so, the grassland being much less fruit-rich than the jungle caused us to evolve as true metabolic omnivores, not pure herbivores/frugivores. See the Archived Debates on this subtopic for source documents. Q3: How was the lead image chosen?
A3: The current lead image was added on 15 September 2009 following this discussion and given this explanation. In short, an editor looked at commons:Category:Couples and picked one. Due to alphabetical sorting, this one came up early (the filename starts with "A"), so they picked it. They were looking for an adult couple standing side-by-side. The use of this image has been discussed many times over the years, including but not limited to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The current wording of this FAQ entry was decided following this discussion. See also our policy on photo galleries of people. Q4: Is it possible for an infobox image to perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity?
A4: No.
Q5: Is it possible for the text of this article to perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity?
A5: No.
Q6: If we can't make a perfect representation, should we still try to make the best representation we can?
A6: Yes. Of course. Because Wikipedia is a work in progress.
Q7: How should the infobox image best represent humanity?
A7: The lead image should illustrate important features of the subject — in the case of Human, these include an upright bipedal gait, hands specialized for manipulating tools, and use of cultural products such as clothing.
Lead images can attempt to encapsulate the broad strokes of the diversity and variation in its subject (e.g. Frog, Primate). The current consensus is that attempting to do further like that for humanity is not practical. There is a guideline MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES that exists due to issues on this topic in the past, stating that we may not assemble a gallery of many images into the infobox. And regardless of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, by picking just one image, we leave space for showing important details of that image which would be obscured if we shrank it in order to fit multiple photos in. Sometimes, what a collage gains in diversity, it loses in detail and clarity. In this case, the current consensus is that the topic covered at Human is best served with a single image — a collage of faces, for example, would fail to illustrate the human body. Q8: Shouldn't the lead image show more major groups of humans?
A8: There is no good way to decide which groups of humans are the "major" ones. The consensus is that showing more groupings (such as along ethnic lines) is contentious due to the risk of unverifiable species-wide generalizations. As a middle ground, we currently just show examples of a male and a female human to represent sexual dimorphism in humans.
While many Wikipedia articles on diverse subject matter (e.g. Spider, Bird) do attempt to encapsulate that variety through galleries and selections of images, we are prohibited from doing so on this article per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES even if we wanted to. Other articles on diverse subject matter sometimes similarly have few examples, or even one example, rather than a collage in their infobox (e.g. Whale). Q9: The current image is [blurry] / [low resolution] / [JPG artifacted], shouldn't it be replaced?
A9: The current consensus is that this isn't that big a deal. When viewed as normal at thumbnail size at a glance, you can't really tell.
Q10: The current image shows two people, not one. Doesn't that violate MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to begin with?
A10: The current consensus is that group photos probably do not violate MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. That guideline is based on a RfC, and is to be interpreted narrowly. It specifically only prohibits galleries or photomontages to illustrate ethnic groups or other similarly large human populations. The consensus on this page is that a group photo does not count. Past discussion of this can be found here.
Q11: Could the lead image be a different photo? Perhaps a group photo with more than two people in it? Or a photo of an individual?
A11: There is nothing prohibiting that, it is just not the current consensus to do that on this page. It would likely take a large discussion and very strong arguments for why the alternate image is an improvement.
Q12: Other ethnic groups have lead images such as a flag or map (e.g. of population density). Could that be the lead image (instead of any image(s) of humans)?
A12: There is nothing prohibiting that, it is just not the current consensus to do that on this page. There already is a population density map at the bottom of the infobox.
Q13: Why isn't the lead image more abstract or symbolic?
A13: Because any attempt to symbolically or nonliterally depict humans will subtly express an editorial opinion about what the "essence" or "nature" of humanity is. Even if we pick a famous artist's work to put at the top of Human, the fact that we chose that particular work, and not another, will show that we endorse certain non-encyclopedic points of view about humanity. The only real way to avoid this pitfall is to not pick an image that is even remotely symbolic or nonliteral — a completely literal, straightforward photograph simply depicting a human, with no more "deep meaning" than our lead image for Brown bear has, is the most neutral option available.
It is also worth noting that most abstract depictions of humanity remove a great deal of visual information. Wikipedia's purpose is educational, and our readers include non-native English speakers, young children, neurodivergent people, and other readers who will be best served by a clear, unambiguous, and factually rich depiction of the topic at hand. Imaginative works also tend to be much more subjective and idiosyncratic than photographs, reflecting the creator's state of mind as much as the subject matter itself. The purpose of an article's lead image is to accurately depict the article's subject matter, which in this case means accurately depicting a human. |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Human 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Human 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This  level-1 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Homo sapiens was copied or moved into Human with this edit on 14:31, January 19, 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
 | Other talk page banners | ||
| |||
Should the picture be updated?
editI think it could be more fitting to have the picture be of (a) human(s) in a more current environment, such as at a computer. This better represents the current state of humanity, which is highly integrated with technology. Paperclip petter (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- The lead picture? What percentage of "people" worldwide use a computer or work in an office environment? Vsmith (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Here are the most recent sources I found from a quick search. I haven't checked these and couldn't find much info on google scholar.
- "A total of 5.19 billion people around the world were using the internet at the start of Q3 2023, equivalent to 64.5 percent of the world’s total population." (https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview)
- 47.1% of households had a computer as of 2019 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/748551/worldwide-households-with-computer/)
- This is a little less than I was expecting, so maybe it's not time yet.
- To be clear, I do think the current lead photo is beautiful and fitting and I like that it's not western-centric. I think these are also qualities that the photo should have. Paperclip petter (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Given the wide diversity of humans, and human behaviors. I think it would be a great idea to have a mosaic with the current image at top, and then a few others. Maybe some farmer in a banana plantation. Or villagers in rural Mongolia performing religious ceremonies, and so on, in that vein.
- You'll never capture to full gamut of humanity from one, or even a few pictures, but I feel this would be the next best thing. VoidHalo (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I like this Idea too! Paperclip petter (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- What difference does it make if the picture has people from the west are in the photo or not? Human is a value neutral term in this instance. 24.47.223.204 (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're replying to a year-old comment. Remsense ‥ 论 05:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. While many people use computers (and other tech) daily, humans have primarily been either hunting/gathering or farming for a greater portion of their history. A photo with an agricultural or nature background is appropriate. LaggyMcStab (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- 100% of people who will look at this article use a computer. Sinistrality2023 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am the 0.0001% that uses a phone to see this article. 2001:448A:4006:20A9:55A2:4519:A9B3:584F (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's still a computer. 185.139.138.106 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I used a phone to write this very talk page article. So, I'll second that. VoidHalo (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- The picture should be updated to one of sub Saharan Africans. As they are the earliest homo sapien. 67.81.247.227 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. New Boojum (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. New Boojum (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the current image is not terrible, but I would say it's "bad". See Talk:Human/FAQ and Talk:Human/Archive_35#Argument_made_in_the_FAQ, and consider MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I personally would like a montage / gallery but it might be "politically impossible". I feel as though a good way to get the ball rolling would be to move the population density map up to be the main and only image in the infobox. For example like on the article Jews there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead. Many comparable featured articles use a gallery in the infobox, such as Frog, Spider, Bird, and most importantly/comparably: Primate. Others have a single example like Whale or Brown bear or, most comparably, Man and Woman. Maybe we want to show those two images from Man and Woman. Or maybe we want to show just one example. At this point I'm rambling, but I think the current image has got to go eventually. Leijurv (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. The current image isn't horrible by any means. It gets the point across very effectively. I'm just saying that a mosaic would be even better. But not that the current image necessarily has anything wrong with it. VoidHalo (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. A mosaic/montage might look good on larger screens, but on anything smaller it can just become a collection of tiny, meaningless postage stamps. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Primate looks great on my laptop and phone. Leijurv (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- The mosaics used for lead images on 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)
- 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)
- Agreed. The current image isn't horrible by any means. It gets the point across very effectively. I'm just saying that a mosaic would be even better. But not that the current image necessarily has anything wrong with it. VoidHalo (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'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)
- Agreed, ideally we would use a featured picture on Wikimedia commons or something like that. Howard🌽33 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, I see no reason to keep using a low-quality photo from 2009. Howard🌽33 18:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, ideally we would use a featured picture on Wikimedia commons or something like that. Howard🌽33 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees that it would be nice if every article were improved. The trick is to propose an actual improvement so a meaningful discussion can occur. Bear in mind that very few readers would need a picture of a human to know what the topic of the article is. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- What if we did my idea I mentioned above:
For example like on the article Jews there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead.
Maybe someone should WP:BOLDly move the population density map from the bottom of the infobox to the top, replacing the current image? Leijurv (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)- I think the better comparison here would be gorillas and monkeys, which are species (just like humans).
Jews are members of a religion, so the comparison is weaker. Bremps... 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)- True, the pages for gorilla and monkey have a single image, but other species with variation like cat and dog have collages. Humans have tons of diversity and variation that could be shown like that. Leijurv (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think the better comparison here would be gorillas and monkeys, which are species (just like humans).
- What if we did my idea I mentioned above:
- There were lengthy discussions about the picture, all now archived. And turned out the picture is good enough, because is fulfills basic requirements like showing humans of both sexes, standing in a posture that shows most body features, and humans being in possession of tools (in a way, computers are just another tools). Plus millions of humans depends on subsistence agriculture and farming for living even today, so I think the picture isn't outdated. I'm against changing the picture, if there isn't a concrete alternative that is better. --Bananice2 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well said, Bananice2. There is always an instinctive urge to critique, which can be a great thing, but there's a big difference between thinking something isn't good enough and actually finding a solution that improves it meaningfully. The image serves every practical purpose that could be asked of it.
- It is slightly lower resolution than you'd hope, but it's still serviceable. 138.64.65.74 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I’m jumping in, I think the page’s image should stay the same way it is, we could picture them in different environments such as deserts (my father spent most of his life in the deserts) or forests (if Germany has forests, they’ll be top 1 on my bucket list), other than that, it should stay same. Cometkeiko (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- It could use an update.....I would suggest something where someone is standing. I highly discourage use of a montage as seen at Primate.... as these photos are so small on phones they're indistinguishable thus deter readers understanding. Moxy-
02:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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-
- 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)
- 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)
- The picture is good, fine, and representative. Remsense诉 14:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, picture on this page is iconic. I would agree we could have more pictures, including a gallery, but generally think the current one should be included in some capacity. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think this specific image was chosen due to its representative aspect across different world regions and ages. While humans may be generally more acquainted with computers now, this has not always been the case. In contrast, humans have been farmers for millennia. I think if the image should represent humans across history, then the image chosen does that job well.
- This all depends on what you think the image should represent, though. And if you think it should represent humans as they are right now, then it's true that computers would be a more accurate symbol for technological advancement in the modern age. However, it is important to recognize that not all people have equal access to the latest technology, and the world is still built on the large population of farmers. Gherickson (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The photo itself has a low resolution and quality compared to other Wikipedia articles so I agree that it should change. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is primarily intended for thumbnail display, and as such its resolution of 331×554 seems adequate to me. Remsense诉 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- On Commons, to be a good image you need at least two megapixels, this image is less than one tenth of that, and it is very JPEG artifacted. For instance if I lean in even a little bit I immediately see the JPEG "shimmer" effect around the woman's hair. Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is primarily intended for thumbnail display, and as such its resolution of 331×554 seems adequate to me. Remsense诉 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- If we're debating this again, I would say the most neutral decision would be a picture of Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger, such as File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, the most neutral decision is clearly Danny Devito.
Danny DeVito head shot
- I disagree, the most neutral decision is clearly Danny Devito.
- GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG would be very funny because it's Jimmy, and it's a high quality image, and I can't see anything wrong with it, and someone should just WP:BOLDly replace it in. :) Leijurv (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, one of the things WP:BOLD doesn't say is "go for highly visible things that are clearly against existing consensus". Many people above are fine with the image, and I'm embarrassed that I let that stay on the article for even the couple seconds it was there. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 21:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think this or this is better. We shouldn't use any famous figure per WP:BIAS. Additionally, we should keep both male and female, because it just feels like the right thing to do. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- The present picture is fine, and I don't mean to come off the wrong way with this, but I've read enough distinct, distinctly weak alternative arguments that it seems like editors are going out of their way to compose them rather than naturally assessing the article. Remsense ‥ 论 20:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think this or this is better. We shouldn't use any famous figure per WP:BIAS. Additionally, we should keep both male and female, because it just feels like the right thing to do. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- It should be updated, to reflect the increasing urbanization of human populations. These rural folks are not representative anymore. 68.199.125.5 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree. Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species.
- Including more modern technology is not important. Modern technology is not important to us as a species overall, just basic tool use which is already shown in the image. We lived for millions of years using only basic tools, and if all electronics stopped working tomorrow, humans would still survive because of our ability for tool use beyond computers.
- Additionally, using images that display the human form would not be ideal. Those who are interested in learning specifically about the human body or its figure should be able to find pages directly related to that, but that would not make sense to use a representation of humanity overall. Huhbilly (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- A representation of humanity is fairly abstract. As humans would mostly agree our minds are what make us human, or our nature as collaborative social creatures, maybe a screenshot of this talk page discussing the topic would be the best possible solution. It represents what humanity is like, overall, in my opinion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- People have been raising legitimate concerns about the picture quality. If you're gonna be so insistent on using third-world farmers, then the least you could do is pick a high quality photo. There're tons of them on commons that would be a better replacement Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- The image is displayed at thumbnail size. There is no meaningful difference in an image's fitness for this purpose if has 400 pixels of revolution or 3000. This has already been pointed out multiple times, and I wish this thread had been allowed to have been archived already, because it's going to do nothing but attract further repeated non-arguments and provoke further disruption like the deeply embarrassing Jimbo stunt above. There is more to image quality than resolution, but here they seem similarly immaterial. There are no serious arguments here as far as I can tell: that might be my personal opinion, but the fact remains that I've yet to read a single convincing point from anyone concerning the image, and I'm normally someone who's embarrassingly quick to change their mind. Instead, there's been a months-long trickle of well-meaning people who nevertheless can't help but articulate in different way the core fact that they do not know what they are talking about here. Please let this thread die. Remsense ‥ 论 22:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, for what it's worth, I really resent your representation that the image selection has merit specifically because the subjects are "third-world" (???) Remsense ‥ 论 23:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the quality of the image does matter. I reiterate that I can clearly see JPEG artifacting around the woman's hair and the man's face on my laptop, if someone has a desktop or larger monitor it will be even worse. It visibly appears low-quality.
- Huhbilly said
Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species.
and I think that's what Dunkleosteus77 was referring to. I think this is a reasonable argument and if we pick a single image (no gallery, no rotation, etc), I think this is a solid point that tool use / physical labor / farming are good and representative, and I agree that it gives merit to such images, including the current one. Note that all of Dunkleosteus77's suggested images fulfill this. I'm not sure where you are taking offense, possibly just using the phrase "third world" as a euphemism for being poor and/or subsistence farming? Anyway, their actual suggested images look fine to me. Leijurv (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)- The artifacting is a concrete visual issue: I will tamp down my earlier polemic and grant that. With that said, I feel all of the potential replacement issues have more fundamental drawbacks, either they do not depict both a man and a woman (I feel this to be necessary), or they are not full-face portraits that clearly show most of the bodies.
third world
- It's immaterial so I won't say anything more about it, but I mostly couldn't see what it was being used as a shorthand for unless it does in effect mean those things—as otherwise its more precise actual meaning is beyond irrelevant to the task at hand. Remsense ‥ 论 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let's go for an example, let's consider the infobox of commons:Category:Couples: commons:File:A_Dagomba_couple_from_farm_02.jpg. This would be an improvement in my opinion, without straying from the same general idea as the current photo (man and a woman, farming, rural, clothing, tools). It is higher resolution, 6.8 times more pixels (however, we would probably crop it in a bit). Admittedly, if you zoom all the way into the faces, there is still some artifacting, but it's much better than the current one. So nevertheless, I think this would be an improvement. I skimmed through some categories of a few thousand couple photos on Commons and this image was the best in my opinion. My personal view is that a gallery is best but I recognize the overriding authority of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY disallowing that. With that constraint, my view is that the second-best option is probably a group photo, and realistically the best group photo will probably be a man and a woman. I also would be okay with having no humans in the infobox at all, instead the reader could view the gallery that's down in the "Human life stages" section, and the infobox would just contain a population density map (like Dutch people for example). Leijurv (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- No way, the current photo is iconic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're back!! haha Leijurv (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02.jpg is the most viable suggestion yet, so I hope I don't come off as stonewalling when I say I think it is still less ideal—as it more prominently features both goods (the basket and bowl) and more prominently implies activities that seem more particularized, to the effect that I feel it is less neutral and less representative of humans at-large. While the man in the present image carries a banana stem over his shoulder, and the woman carries a bag strapped across her torso, these elements seem less particularized, owing in part to their being less prominently featured in the photo—the focus remains clearly on the man and woman themselves, with everything else pictured parsimoniously "coloring in" key aspects of humans we want to illustrate, but not really catching the reader's attention in their own right.
- I think File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02.jpg is perfectly adequate for illustrating the concept of "couples", but so much is wrapped up in the concept of "human" such that it's one of the few topics that begs scrutiny of this kind on all levels. I really don't want to come off as finding any argument to retain the status quo like I said, I really am trying to assess merits objectively, so I trust you take my argumentation in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 04:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- To restate your position to ensure I understand: in the current image, the woman does have a bag, and the man does have a banana stem, but those elements are not very prominent or eye-catching in the image. The man and the woman are clearly and unambiguously the focus. Whereas in my suggestion, the bag and the bowl and the logs are quite prominent in the image, taking up literally a large fraction of the image and drawing the eye. I think this is a fair complaint, and I appreciate the
most viable suggestion yet
. I think it looks a bit better if you crop, like this: commons:File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02 (cropped).jpg, what do you think? Are there any other criteria or characteristics that you'd look for? Any other images that you'd point to for such characteristics? And, do you have a thought on eschewing a human / couple in the infobox, instead leaving illustration to the ten images under "human life cycle"? Leijurv (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- To restate your position to ensure I understand: in the current image, the woman does have a bag, and the man does have a banana stem, but those elements are not very prominent or eye-catching in the image. The man and the woman are clearly and unambiguously the focus. Whereas in my suggestion, the bag and the bowl and the logs are quite prominent in the image, taking up literally a large fraction of the image and drawing the eye. I think this is a fair complaint, and I appreciate the
- No way, the current photo is iconic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Let's go for an example, let's consider the infobox of commons:Category:Couples: commons:File:A_Dagomba_couple_from_farm_02.jpg. This would be an improvement in my opinion, without straying from the same general idea as the current photo (man and a woman, farming, rural, clothing, tools). It is higher resolution, 6.8 times more pixels (however, we would probably crop it in a bit). Admittedly, if you zoom all the way into the faces, there is still some artifacting, but it's much better than the current one. So nevertheless, I think this would be an improvement. I skimmed through some categories of a few thousand couple photos on Commons and this image was the best in my opinion. My personal view is that a gallery is best but I recognize the overriding authority of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY disallowing that. With that constraint, my view is that the second-best option is probably a group photo, and realistically the best group photo will probably be a man and a woman. I also would be okay with having no humans in the infobox at all, instead the reader could view the gallery that's down in the "Human life stages" section, and the infobox would just contain a population density map (like Dutch people for example). Leijurv (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, for what it's worth, I really resent your representation that the image selection has merit specifically because the subjects are "third-world" (???) Remsense ‥ 论 23:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- The image is displayed at thumbnail size. There is no meaningful difference in an image's fitness for this purpose if has 400 pixels of revolution or 3000. This has already been pointed out multiple times, and I wish this thread had been allowed to have been archived already, because it's going to do nothing but attract further repeated non-arguments and provoke further disruption like the deeply embarrassing Jimbo stunt above. There is more to image quality than resolution, but here they seem similarly immaterial. There are no serious arguments here as far as I can tell: that might be my personal opinion, but the fact remains that I've yet to read a single convincing point from anyone concerning the image, and I'm normally someone who's embarrassingly quick to change their mind. Instead, there's been a months-long trickle of well-meaning people who nevertheless can't help but articulate in different way the core fact that they do not know what they are talking about here. Please let this thread die. Remsense ‥ 论 22:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Question
edit--Why isn't "human being" written into this article? Just curious. Is all.
--MadeForLaw (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Being" is a synonym for organism, as in "living beings" or "sentient beings." Calling us "human beings" is a bit redundant feeling in this century, as the word "human" is largely understood to mean the same thing, at least in my opinion. Rather then using it in an academic context, I'd imagine it is more commonly used in philosophical, and literary when we are trying to lean on older ways of speaking to invoke more emotions. At least in my opinion, I'm not an English professor and only did a brief Google search to establish this opinion, if others have more concrete explanations or reasons for doing it differently, I'm open to the suggestions. As a native English speaker, "Human" is fine and how I'd refer to members of the species in academic writing. "Human being" is what the protagonist of a film would yell in a monolog directed at the villain, "How could you delete these Wikipedia pages, they are for human beings!" If someone called me a human being, I'd assume they were trying to be persuasive in some way. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Being" can't be a synonym for "organism", since plants are organisms, but not "beings".
- At least in my idiolect, it's often more natural to use the singular "human" as an adjective, whereas "human being" is clearly a noun phrase. So if I imagine a context where aliens or robots might be confused with humans [note plural], I would ask "Is it human?" [adjective] or "Is it a human being?" [noun phrase] but much less likely "Is it a human?". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Using Meriam Webster for my conclusion that "organism" is a synonym, although it doesn't explicitly say "organism." Definition 3 is "a living thing" and uses the text "a sentient being" as an example. This implies that there may be "non-sentient beings" like trees. Not likely to be used in an encyclopedic context, I can see using "living being" to describe a tree in particular in a poetic or religious contexts. If the terminator showed up tomorrow, I would ask "How can we be sure it's human," not "How can we be sure it's a human being." That could just be my way of speaking, but using "human being" would seem overly theatric to me in almost every situation. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- FYI you two: this is a sock of an LTA. WP:LTA/GF36 Has been reported to SPI and blocked. wizzito | say hello! 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting us know! Was trying to respond in good faith, but does seem like an odd question. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- FYI you two: this is a sock of an LTA. WP:LTA/GF36 Has been reported to SPI and blocked. wizzito | say hello! 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Using Meriam Webster for my conclusion that "organism" is a synonym, although it doesn't explicitly say "organism." Definition 3 is "a living thing" and uses the text "a sentient being" as an example. This implies that there may be "non-sentient beings" like trees. Not likely to be used in an encyclopedic context, I can see using "living being" to describe a tree in particular in a poetic or religious contexts. If the terminator showed up tomorrow, I would ask "How can we be sure it's human," not "How can we be sure it's a human being." That could just be my way of speaking, but using "human being" would seem overly theatric to me in almost every situation. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of dexterity in the introduction?
editThe page currently says that humans are characterized by bipedalism, hairlessness, and large brains. I feel like dexterous hands are also a flagship ability of modern humans. Our hands are noticeably more dexterous than other great apes, and leagues above most other mammals. It allowed us to make all the things that resulted in civilization (e.g. fire, tools, efficient throwing). Organocopper (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend looking at the reliable sources already cited in the article, and see if they give this prominence as you are. We make editorial decisions based on what sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want this to be public page 2001:14BB:679:2A2A:9408:F67C:72AF:2C1C (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done. This page has been repeatedly vandalized going back 20 years. Semi-protection will be maintained. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}