Talk:Human/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Archiving to /dev/null ?!

I recently added the auto-archiving to Talk:Human. However, this recent archive seems to be a problem:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHuman&diff=254711994&oldid=254614258 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to /dev/null.)

Obviously, we want the archive somewhere other than /dev/null. Looking through the actual archive pages, the latest seem not to contain recent threads. Actually, looking a bit earlier:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHuman&diff=252905873&oldid=252874544 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to /dev/null.)

This seems to be same problem. How do we fix this? If we can automatically move the erased material to actual archive pages, so much the better. But if manual action to get things going right in the future is needed, let's do that. LotLE×talk 07:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gratuitous Religion

There are 25 references to religion and 13 to spirituality This article has been vandalised by some zealot. It needs a good cleaning up! 88.111.43.90 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If we talk about a creature who is plagued by a disease that comes to define that creature, than that disease should be mentioned. For the creature of man, religion is that disease. It has, is, and will be a large force in humanities development. And as a consequence cannot be over looked or swept away. It certainly should not be approved (if this is what the article does) by it has to be acknowledged.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.112.186 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How dare you call religion a disease. This article is obviously biased towards a THEORY. Furthermore, religion is also called a myth in this article.

Looks like the zealot really does exist. Ok, I have two points I'd like to make to you. One, that in an objective article, not referencing religion in every paragraph is not being biased towards evolution, it is called being empirical, which is exactly what wikipedia calls for. Two, until you can explain the difference between religion and myth, it will be considered as such in an empirical setting. If you want something changed, make a reasonable argument for it; don't just vandalize the page to fit your beliefs. Furthermore, add your signature to your posts instead of remaining anonymous. It's part of the talk page guidelines. Just type four tildes. JSpoons (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to have a normal debate with you, but since you insist on calling me a "zealot". No. (By the way, I wasn't the one editing the article, so please, get a clue.)

Culture

Under the culture subsection there is a table listing human society statistics. Under the column for language the seventh ranked language is Arabic/Urdu. The problem being that the two languages are nothing alike and certainly don't have the same number of speaker thus neither can't share the same spot on the list. I'm not familiar with the actually numbers so I can't really edit it myself. There needs to be a check on the actual numbers and a citation put in. --Zafina (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sentence from end of Culture subtopic

I have deleted the following sentence which appeared right at the end of the subtopic Culture, because the language is very convoluted and I have no idea what the writer was trying to say. "The mainstream anthropological view of culture implies that most experience a strong resistance when reminded that there is an animal as well as a spiritual aspect to human nature." --AlotToLearn (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment and think that something along these lines should be added, but in a more encyclopedic manner and with references. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there was a reference but the link in question doesn't seem to provide the text of the abstract it mentions. So for general users, it's a worthless reference. Rivertorch (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut from Philosophy

I've cut this chunk of text from the Philosophy section, because it's (a) disproportionate to have a whole paragraph on just one of several branches of philosophy (particularly where there isn't one on each of the others!), (b) poor. Metaphysics is not particularly about religion, and what's this stuff about cosmology?!

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of first principles, being and existence (ontology). In between the doctrines of religion and science, stands the philosophical perspective of metaphysical cosmology. This ancient field of study seeks to draw logical conclusions about the nature of the universe, humanity, god, and/or their connections based on the extension of some set of presumed facts borrowed from religion and/or observation.

Ben Finn (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

World population

6,742,108,340? seriously? Where is that from (and when)? 341, 342, 343, 344, 343... Harbinger of Truth (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess it's from the US Census Bureau, and it's a bit outdated, as they're listing the population as 6,748,913,283, as of 05:00 GMT. Unless someone is going to update it constantly (every day at least), it should probably just say 6.7 billion, then it can be updated after another 52 million. Cadwaladr (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have the "increase rate" of the world population, though i haven't been able to find it anywhere. HuGo_87 (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Languages spoken

The infobox summary of humans includes a ranking and numbers of speakers of a few of the most spoken languages. However, those numbers are not cited, and are fairly starkly in contrast with the numbers given in the respective language articles. I know that estimates of speakers vary widely, but we need some indication that there is something more than a guess to those various numbers. If The Reliable Source Times publishes a particular estimate, I'm more than happy to use it even if other sources differ... but let's get some source here! LotLE×talk 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

part of this article was written by humans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.127.176 (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Conservation status

Shouldn't it be under "domesticated"? [My squiggle key is broken.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.170.35 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because humans are, currently, quite far from being extinct or even endangered. Therefore we are placed at the other end of the spectrum from extinct: Least Concern (LC). There is no "Domesticated" category in the IUCN Red List. JSpoons (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Funnily, this is arguable; are there actualy humans living in wildlife? I belive not. This should be clarified elsewhere. HuGo_87 (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are officially designated as least concern, why shouldnt we list humans as such?

Wouldn't be calling humans animals be an opinion based on a theory, though? Oh that's right, we are "reformed" animals.

No we are animals, great apes are animals correct? We are no more special than our primate ancestors and relatives, no theory, scientific fact. Religion is theory/faith Sincerely and truly yours, C6541 (T↔C) at 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't scientific fact, it's based on evolution, which isn't 100%. Like it or not, it is still a theory, and has many holes in it. My concern is with this article not being 100% correct. Science gives us these things as the best evidence we have, yet they aren't anywhere near fact yet. I'm not suggesting we fill this article with religious stuff, but I am concerned that this article is using something that isn't proven yet as fact. Evolution at best is a theory that has holes that have yet to be filled. Don't tell me it hasn't, I've been researching it for the past year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk • contribs)

We are animals. You're not going to get far trying to argue otherwise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific taxonomy, a method for catagorizing life, defines us as "animalia" because our cells, unlike those of a plant, lack cell walls. Since humans are just like animals at the cellular level, that is how biology defines them, separating humans from plants and bacteria. But that distinction is only the second broadest. As more characteristics are considered, humans become their own species, at which point they stand alone. Unless you consider cellular structure the core of your individuality, then science is not dealing anyone any insult, because taxonomy recognizes the many differences between humans and other forms of life. --Yano (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I ever say we weren't? Actually, nevermind. I've raised this question in the past and there doesn't seem to be an answer other than to leave the article as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk • contribs)

If you indented your responses and signed your comments, it would be much easier to tell just what you are saying. But I think you did question whether humans can be considered animals when you (presumably) wrote: "Wouldn't be calling humans animals be an opinion based on a theory, though? Oh that's right, we are "reformed" animals."

Also, the scientific community, like Wikipedia, relies on consensus. A theory embraced by scientists across the board, of many different faiths and backgrounds, is no longer just a theory. --Yano (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also denied by many scientists across the board. Scientists are not 100% on the issue, they are more around 50%. Also the reason I don't have a signature is because I haven't registered.

Just because a lot of scientists agree on something doesn't mean it's necessarily true. It does help, but there is still a lot of doubt in the community. And no, not just by religious folk. Kind of like Global Warming. It's a mixed agree disagree issue that I've observed at least.

I was actually joking in that sentence, I suppose it wasn't clear enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk • contribs)

Please register if at all possible and indent your sentences! In any event, I tire of having to explain this over and over again, but here it goes. A scientific theory does not mean the same thing as hypothesis - which is how it is used in everyday parlance. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is just a "theory" in the same way that the Atomic Theory of matter is "just a theory" or the Theory of Gravity is "just a theory." There is virtually no debate in the scientific community over the existence of evolution - only on its exact molecular mechanism. Please cite a peer-reviewed journal article to the contrary. shultzc (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see your evidence that there aren't a larger number of people in the scientific community who don't agree with the theory past just one part of it.

How about [1]. This is geographically limited, but I would suggest the burden would be on you to demonstrate that a poll of Ohioan scientists is not a representative sample. The first paragraph in the section entitled "Views of Ohio Science Professors" is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't relate Evolution to Gravity. I've already seen that page.

I didn't even know that such a page on Wikipedia existed until right now - that was my own explanation. Regardless, why should I not relate Evolution to Gravity, Relativity, or Cell Theory? The word meaning is the same in every case! shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I just find it disturbing that on an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia which prides itself in fact (mostly) that there would not be a section on this article that perhaps shows the scientific disagreement and skepticism as well as holes of the theory of evolution. Or a redirect to such a page if it exists. And perhaps more than just the Scientific explanation. If Wikipedia only uses the Scientific explanation then that doesn't really make much sense. My point is, there are many different theories on how we came to be and how we have changed, including non scientific views. But on this article, those seem to be compressed to "Culture" only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk • contribs)

You're 100% correct in your objection. This page is one of MANY that reveal (quite obviously, I might add) Wikipedia's laughable bias. And then the one below me cites a Wikipedia article to try and implicitly prove its apparent lack of bias. Pathetic.

You seem to be labouring under a misconception. Try reading evolution as theory and fact. -- Avenue (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I also read that page, that really isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't understand why only the theory of evolution is presented as fact on this page. If it wasn't presented as fact, the first sentence wouldn't read "humans are bipedal primates" and continue to use the theory to explain how we have came to be and changed.

I would repeat Rivertorch's question from below. shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think more than one theory or explanation should be added to explain this. Surely there is no bias here so that only the scientific explanation deserves recognition?

I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that non-scientific explanations should be included here? If so, do you suggest that every article that makes mention of evolution be retrofitted to include non-science? shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I really wish my concerns would stop being treated as if I am just stupid and am not reading the fine print.

No one is calling you "stupid," but at least I am very concerned about your apparent desire to import non-scientific ideas into what is an inherently scientific topic. shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

68.51.41.46 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you all please refrain from having discussions that is not about improving this article about humans. bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article Wikipedia is not a forum thank you. Pro66 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is about including and excluding specific information from this article. More than appropriate. --Yano (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to get this straight - it's very hard to discuss crafting an article on humans if we can't get consensus that humans evolved, or even that they are animals. shultzc (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what I am suggesting. I didn't say "remove the evolutionary explanation" I said "add other explanations".

Are you suggesting that we're not bipedal primates? Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yano you lot are moving away from discussing about improving the article to the point of whether something is or is not i.e like rivertorch's comment above, if you guys wanna make such comment about your theories or thoughts about evolution and scientists or what not then go to each others user talk pages (its what it is for). Shultzc it seems that it is accepted across wikipedia that humans evolved and we are animals so its least likely to have ceonsensus. if you have any questions about evolution or if we are animals then go to wikipedia reference desk and then discuss it there thank you. Now going back to the point of this section, the orignal person has said "Shouldn't it be under domesticated?", no it is listed as least concern. End of topic. Pro66 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe not quite. My comment was by way of a good-faith attempt to discover whether I totally misconstrued something valid and meaningful that the anonymous editor was trying to say. If I misconstrued it, then it potentially could prove important to improving the article. If not, then I second your motion to close the discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be giving my reply to you on your talk page as this discussion page is for improving the article not about a general discussion about our feelings or what not about the topic of the article. Pro66 (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted my responses because this isn't the right place for this kind of talk.

I don't have a talk page to continue this discussion so I guess I'll register, assuming you still have one even if you don't register.

There is a lot of people outside Wikipedia who do not believe in evolution only, or don't believe in it period. And I have heard of Scientists who also aren't in agreement on this issue. But if we can't add other explanations perhaps of a Philosophical and Religious standpoint, due to the fact that I believe this to be more than just a scientific issue, that is fine.

Just seemed kind of bias to me.

I want to make something clear, I was never suggesting we remove the scientific explanation, however, I do feel that this issue is more than scientific in nature and as such deserves more than one explanation from more than one particular source. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it may sound a bit off the subject but evolution is a scientific fact. According to current understanding, we don't need to get to 100% certainty to express something as scientific fact. Same applies to all other things that critics of science refer to as "fact". We are living in the age after Popper and Heisenberg and in this general lack of certainty, evolution is fact enough to be relied on. The article is a scientific article made easy for people of non-scientific background. Our respect of critics of science and its current philosophy shouldn't make us let non-scientific ideas like separating humans from rest of the biosphere leak into a scientific article. Bornbyforce (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC) And I may also add that because of the things others have already discussed, there can be other ideas added with an explanation that humans are considered by some non-scientific classes of thought to be of different origin or not animal or... I think this can be considered a possible solution. Bornbyforce (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, but whatever floats your boat.

That is all I was wondering about, so if non scientific origins can be added that would seem best. Especially considering there is a large number of people who consider human origin more than just a scientific issue. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs and religion are discussed in Human#Spirituality_and_religion. We obviously can't treat any one of these beliefs with more favor than any other, so noting that many such Creation myths exist and discussing them as an important and interesting part of our culture is the best approach. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

Because the Pioneer image was censored, it should be un-censored for accuracy. The line for the vulva should be re-added. 128.146.46.2 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with 128.146.46.2 that the censorship of the Pioneer image makes it unsuitable for use here, I do not thing that we should edit it; we must use a different image. I am also against the use any of merged or averaged images. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Much more importantly, I fear it gives a misleading impression that of the two photographs (as opposed to unclear line drawings or paintings) of individual humans in this article, one depicts the species off their home planet with the subject totally obscured by a rarely worn full-body suit, and the other depicts a microscopic embryo still within its mother. The other reasonably close-up photograph depicts two juveniles who are obscured by being intertwined and the lower half of their bodies being outside of the frame.

I'm sure a wide range of separate, full length, good quality, free-content images of adult individuals of the species in their natural habitat are readily available, and, indeed, I seem to remember their used to be a number of these on the article in the past (including a collage thereof).

It suspected the lack of relevant images results from a series of edit wars, particularly in 2006, over which images to use (based on such irrelevant, arbitrary criteria as the individual depicted, where they live, their ethnicity, their job and their clothing or lack thereof). I don't particularly care if the images change as long as there are some that give a reasonable depiction of the species. However, if stability is necessary lots could be drawn on some of the disputed factors by editors of this article. Or, maybe, someone has produced some kind of pseudo-photograph depicting an average human by merging a number of other images.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 01:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I count four photographs of (groups of) non-fetal humans in natural, terrestrial environments. I think joeblakesley has some unstated (and strange) critera in mind that rules out all those photographs from "counting" in his enumeration. I think I take the prior comment as mostly facetious, or certainly at least spurious.

However, I think one indirect point in the comment is noteworthy. There seem to be too many images that portray artistic representations of humans, rather than simply photographs of humans directly (sculpture, paintings, etc; I guess also the lead image etching counts here too). None of them are bad in themselves, but the number seems skewed to me. LotLE×talk 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether I sound facetious to you, my point was about the lack of a close-up photograph of a single individual (also emphasised in my post above) as would be expected on the article of any other animal species. I think I was quite direct in making my point (probably too so for your liking). I wholeheartedly agree that there a noticeable bias towards artistic depictions on this article. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 13:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed several artistic images that seemed duplicative. So I'm not really concerned about that imbalance anymore. I wouldn't mind the "single individual" photo that joblakesley mentions, if a suitable one can be found. Humans are fairly social animals, so seeing them in groups doesn't seem unreasonable, but an isolated individual would be fine. Actually, the picture of an ancestor hominoid (individual, full body) seems slightly gratuitous to me in the article; replacing that with an an otherwise similar image of a fully modern human would feel like an improvement to me. LotLE×talk 21:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Pioneer image is unsuitable as a representation of the entire species, but not so much for the lack of genital detail as because it is racist (given its intended function). It assumes that white people are the prototype of homo sapiens. It also conveys gender stereotypes. The male is the one who greets, the one to address. It could perhaps serve as an example of self-representation of humans, but not in that prominent place in the infobox.--87.162.35.117 (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, the Pioneer image is the only concrete representation of humanity (i.e., other than TV broadcast signals) to be sent out of our solar system. While the image is problematic in its original usage, that usage is highly notable. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to use it here. Because WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an original reference work, it's not up to us to determine how to depict humanity; our role is to show a sampling of the various notable ways it has been depicted to date. If someone were to suggest an equally notable but less problematic image to take its place, I'd support moving the Pioneer image further down on the page, but I'm doubtful that such an alternative exists. (For the record, I find the image problematic because it is highly stylized rather than anatomically accurate and because of the Eurocentric thing. Certain comments in the archives of this talk page, in which various editors rail against the figures' nudity, are more entertaining than Onion articles, but I can't say I agree with them.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sending a poor quality and deliberately inaccurate image out of the solar system does not turn it into a good one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. For our purposes here, though, isn't "good image" sort of analogous to "obviously true statement" rather than "verifiable, citable fact"? In other words, I suspect that this article and its illustrations should reflect humanity's poor choices as well as its excellent ones (and everything in between). Rivertorch (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting point but I do not think that it is good enough reason to use the Pioneer plaque as the lead image, cetainly without comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the Pioneer image is ever found, it may become the most widely known and recognized representation of humanity. When aliens subsequently google us to learn more, we should use the same image to confirm that they are on the right page. --Yano (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course ;-) Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The image we have, though we have a black/white version of the original, isn't censored AFAIKS when comparing what we have with the original in the Pioneer plaque article. For the quality of the original, it is engraved on good all-round Aluminium stock and it's gold plated. We're not here to criticise what it is but its relevance i.e. we're not art critics, and the technology implicit in that image says more about modern humans than say how accurately depicted the vulva is in, for example, the Venus of Willendorf. In the end the intent of the pioneer plaque is to represent humans: whereas any photo we choose is us trying to identify a photo that represents humans; reliable sources always trump personal Wikipedian views. I choose the pioneer plaque because it matches the criteria of representing humans without any WP:OR. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The image has not been censored by editors here but it was censored when it was first produced, as is made clear the article that you referred to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am replying to the original claim that the image we have is censored. It is not censored by anyone as the image we have is (colour and size aside) an accurate representation of what is currently floating around in space. Your claim that it is censored when it was first produced is not only dubious (Sagan - who's idea it was anyway says why it was designed as it was) it is also irrelevant. What we have is what is right now on the space craft and it is designed to represent "Humans". Show us another image that is that widely recognisable and is designated (by a reliable source) for the purposes of representing humanity. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article, it is quite clear? It says, 'The decision to omit a very short line in this diagram was made...'? That makes quite clear that a decision was made to censor the drawing. All that is not clear is whether that decision was made by Sagan or a NASA official. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In the end we are not art critics; Artists, sculptures and painters have many reasons as to why they have created what they have created. Wikipedia (we) have not censored the image and just display that without criticising the work. That is neutral. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of art but of respect for the human body. You cannot just delete parts and pretend that they do not exist. If showing certain parts is a problem then cover them up. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see this argument is still ongoing. What is the better alternative? It's one thing to criticise the image but another thing to find a substitute that will not generate even more flak. David D. (Talk) 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think almost any image of a human would be better than the one we have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agglomeration

What is the basis for the list of cities in the Human society statistics table? Wouldn't it make much more sense to list them according to this?~ thinking-ape ~ (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, if you maintain the look the article have had on the subject (very objective, like humans didn't write it) you'll agree that it doesn't matter what the city center boundries are. Any area where the population remains dense is more acceptable. The list is on the cities with highest populations in "greater" area rather than city center. I don't agree with the list anyway (there are several cities whose boundries are not distinguishable from nearby cities and you can consider them all part of the same population colony (called agglomeration here).Bornbyforce (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Human impacts on nature

This article never shows the impact humans made on the environment, how much pollution they released into the air, the countless species' extinction caused by humans,how other animals are tortured and negelected by humans. etc. this article is very biased.--Guppy22 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's there:

Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. It has been hypothesized that human predation has contributed to the extinction of numerous species. As humans are rarely preyed upon, they have been described as superpredators.[30] Currently, through land development and pollution, humans are thought to be the main contributor to global climate change.[31] This is believed to be a major contributor to the ongoing Holocene extinction event, a mass extinction which, if it continues at its current rate, is predicted to wipe out half of all species over the next century.[32][33]

Might deserve its own section, though. --Yano (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should show the scientific evidence against some of these, as well. If you go to far with one side you are being biased in my book. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your book is wrong, on all subjects (evidence). --71.241.206.81 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We're all biased one way or another with Humans. I can't fathom why.--70.71.240.170 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Population density

The global population density figures given in the table with the green header don't match those given in the article it links to. I haven't checked which are correct. --71.241.206.81 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens

What's the difference between homo sapiens and homo s. sapiens? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken here, homo sapiens refers to the entire species, while homo s. sapiens refers to the subspecies of which modern humans are a part. Mkemper331 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between this & and other articles

Dates mentioned in different articles on early human history do not agree with each other. Examples:

The article "Neolithic" starts with: "The Neolithic period was a period in the development of human technology, beginning about 9500 BCE in the Middle East[1] that is traditionally considered the last part of the Stone Age."

The article "Neolithic Revolution" says "The Neolithic Revolution was the first agricultural revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering communities and bands, to agriculture and settlement (settlement is currently being questioned). Archaeological data indicate that various forms of domestication of plants and animals arose independently in at least 7-8 separate locales worldwide, with the earliest known developments taking place in the Middle East around 10,000 BC (BCE) or earlier.[1]"

The article "Human" says "Until c. 10,000 years ago, most humans lived as hunter-gatherers. They generally lived in small nomadic groups known as band societies. The advent of agriculture prompted the Neolithic Revolution, when access to food surplus led to the formation of permanent human settlements, the domestication of animals and the use of metal tools. Agriculture encouraged trade and cooperation, and led to complex society. Because of the significance of this date for human society, it is the epoch of the Holocene calendar or Human Era."

So, did the beginning of the Human Era, where agriculture first made its appearance and the first fixed communities were forming, start "about 11,500 years ago" as stated in the Neolithic article; did it start "12,000 years ago or earlier" as stated in the "Neolithic Revolution" article, or did it start only "10,000 years ago," as stated in the "Human" article?

As an added complication, I have read opinions (e.g., "10,000 BC" on the History Channel) that the Younger Dryas period induced humans to turn to agriculture and permanent communities. It isn't clear to me if that happened at the beginning (12,800 years ago) or its end (11,500 years ago).

I am writing a novel involving the beginning of the Human Era and am facing an uncertainty about its date that stretches between only 10,000 years ago up to 12,800 years ago. I think clarification and making these and other articles agree with each other would be helpful to the site. Ed (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A recent simulation of the most recent human common ancestor

There was a study done at MIT and published in Nature that simulated that modern humans have been around for 3000-5000 years... this seems to conflict with this article.

[2] and [3] 64.180.167.130 (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The article says that we all may have a common ancestor from that era but it does not say that modern humans date from then. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Too anthropocentrist?

The article is too anthropocentrist. 200.160.69.14 (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Should an article that is about humans be anthropocentric?--66.162.55.2 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an article about humans but written in a way that basically sounds like "We are great". 200.160.69.53 (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd paragraph

There's a painfully poorly written (and in my personal opinion, totally unnecessary...Religion is already discussed elsewhere in the article...) paragraph about God and religion at the end of the 'Origin' section that doesn't show up in the 'source' for the page, and thus can't be edited. It either needs to be cut or to be rewritten, because right now it's a crime against written language. Example: "Catholics is similar to Christianity except for the fact that Christianity vary in their beliefs, but..." ...Seriously, what's up with that? I'd fix it or remove it, but it's UN-EDITABLE. -- 24.8.142.231 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It has already been removed, which is why you can't find it in the article! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Human = Homo sapiens?

This article gives the impression that "human" is synonymous with Homo sapiens. But aren't all members of the genus Homo rightfully humans, in the same way that all members of the genus Pan are chimpanzees? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think technically since Homo means "human being", "man", or "person". Homo Sapiens are simply called "Modern Humans" so I would think others would be humans too in the broadest sense. -C6541 (T↔C) at 20:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence the hatnote, which reads This article is about modern humans. For other human species, see Homo (genus). For other uses, see Human (disambiguation). KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is absolutely no 'technical' or 'scientific' agreement on how to use the word human!!! That's why, in science, we use the words "Homo sapiens" instead (or more usually, fully modern Homo sapiens). Many, many (most) anthropologists today use the word "human" to mean all members of the genus homo (source: personal observation of lots of anthropologists for more than 30 years). The use of "man" as a synonym for Homo sapiens went out of fashion about 30 years ago. "Person" means something very different than "homo sapiens" or "human" and is very much in the province of philosophy, not paleontology or anthropology. Anthropos is a word that should be used and defined in this article (let's see if that can happen). Homo sapiens are not "simply" called "Modern Humans." First of all, many many people want a division between FMHS and archaic Homo sapiens. But it is true that "the others" (from the Paleolithic onward) are usually called "human" by many/most anthropologists, especially in presentations. In an article, people would use "homo sapiens" and then define how they meant to use "human" if it were to refer to anyone besides HS.Levalley (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

If an undergrad presented this as an essay in an anthropology class...

...I would give it a C, maybe. There are lots of problems. Who is the general editor of this article? Is there one?Levalley (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

For example, why does the lead sentence skip genus and move to family, skipping over all the intermediate categories as if they are not important? Why not start with saying that homo sapiens is a mammal, then? Or an animal, rather than a plant? There are lots and lots of non-homo sapiens hominids, none of them members of our genus. Why not start with explaining the usual binomial nomenclature??Levalley (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Another example: Chimps, canines and elephants are also thought to be capable of abstract thinking, so no big deal there (and NO distinguishing characteristics - we need to go much deeper into WHAT KIND of abstract thinking - and good luck proving the entire species possesses those capabilities; I don't know what the Wiki article on "language" says but in zoology, primatology and anthropology, it is not only humans that have language - we have a special KIND of language (arbitrarily based on phonemes), it is very misleading to use "language" as a distinguishing feature, as if the word itself explains anything. Dozens of human ancestors were capable of upright locomotion and tool manipulation (as are other primates, although none are as bipedal as we are - certainly all the members of the genus are). In the second paragraph the word "social" has no meaning in this context (and apparently no wiki article to expand it). Humans universally recognize kinship - that's much more specific and easier to define. "Social" - meh. Means nothing here. Let's remember, for example, that the species is more than 200,000 years old - but there's not a SHRED of evidence for "philosophy" until around 2500 years ago. Does it make sense to characterize 200,000 years by a brief period about which we think we know more? Education, as opposed to "transmission of culture" has a specific meaning - and wasn't invented until around 6-8000BP (if then, still controversial, certainly by 4000BP - but still a tiny fraction of the total time of being human). Many, many societies STILL have no system of education. Acculturation is the correct term. I'll let the clothing part to go for now, but bower birds using items to decorate their nests (instead of themselves) comes very close to the clothing customs of, say, the Yanomamo. It is also not clear that the earliest Homo sapiens wore clothing - at all.Levalley (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

I believe "descended from homo erectus" is highly controversial. Wouldn't most say homo ergaster? Or homo heidelburgensis? This is really outdated, anyway, and takes no stock of current nomenclatureLevalley (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

If you see a problem.. why not fix it? If there is a nominated person watching over this they can just as easily remove any changes they disagree with. That's the whole aim for Wikipedia, it's community edited. You're obviously in a position to know more about this subject than your average reader, thus perfectly positioned to help us all make Wikipedia the best resource we can. 72.253.129.84 (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Gender bias

Why the pix of the female life cycle and not the male? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Is there a significant difference between the life cycle of female and male humans? We're not exactly a mold species. The females here serve as a illustration of the universal process of aging. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Questioned source

In the Physiology and Genetics section [4] is cited as the source for typical weights for humans. As Article World appears to be an open wiki, which is not a WP:RS reliable source. -- Donald Albury 11:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

Massive deletions from an IP editor went uncorrected for thirteen hours today. I watch this article but not closely. Is this common enough here that semiprotection would be helpful? I'd prefer not to file a request based on one series of edits on one day. Rivertorch (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity of article extreme to the point of ridiculousness

Is it me, or does this article sound as if it were written by Martians to explain what Earthlings are like? Come on, folks, we're describing the human race here. As in, you, and me, and everyone who will ever read this article. There is no need to avoid being subjective on an article like this. I realize Wikipedia strives to be as objective as possible, but this is just ludicrous! If an exception to the rule (on NPOV) should be made, it's here. 207.172.203.208 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)MJR

It isn't necessarily the case that humans are the only ones who will ever read this article. In any case, you haven't made the case that abandoning neutrality would improve things. Can you point to any specific passages whose neutrality poses a problem? Rivertorch (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How many humans on the books?

How many humans have lived overall on Planet Earth since the beginning of times (i.e. 10 million years ago for the first hominid or 200,000 years ago for the first Homo Sapiens)? I've heard 70 billion mentioned, is that an accurate figure for this type of census? 91.82.33.216 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A few billion more at best can be added on: remember the KNOWN world population at the time of christ was a few million, then we had the plagues: war, at worst we can add on like 500 more million: world population was relatively small until the 1800's.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Weasel word spotted in the article!

> However, compared to many OTHER animals, human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous.

The presence of word "other" in the above sentence implies that humans are animals, too. This is POV and shall not be in the article, because it is offensive to not just the religious people who believe in man-only immortal soul.

It also offends the leftist readers, who know from marxism science studies that the ablity to work, think and speak irreversibly elevates humans from the animal kingdom and therefore they cannot be considered animals any more - the large quantity of unique humans capabilities have created an entirely new quality, the sentient being.

Therefore the article should simply say "compared to many animals, human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous" 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Humans are animals. This is not POV, it is biological fact. No credible scientist would dispute this. Cadwaladr (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead picture

I haven't read all of the previous discussion about the picture, but it seemed to me that the consensus was a sort of an agreement to disagree about the picture and go with the plaque as a sort of grudging compromise on the parts of some editors. I don't know, however, if this particular picture was discussed. I'm not necessarily thrilled with this one, mostly because of the lack of pubic hair, which I think should be included if we were to decide to use a photo. Anyway, since consensus can change, I just wondered if there are any new opinions regarding this photo or one like it which basically replicates the plaque picture, but in photographic form. And I suppose I should state for the record that I am actually fine with the plaque picture, just curious as to what other opinions there are now. Cadwaladr (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't blame you for not reading all the previous discussion, since it involves multiple archived threads over several years. You're right about a grudging compromise, but that's what consensus sometimes comes down to. To reiterate yet again my take on it, the image on the plaque is problematic (because it's highly stylized and appears to depict only those of European ancestry) and never should have been sent into space, but that's a personal opinion and not helpful in deciding what's best for this article. Since it was sent into space it is perhaps the most notable image depicting humans that we have to work with, so it's entirely appropriate for the top of the article. Photos similar (but one might hope better, in several ways) than the one in question would be perfectly appropriate for elsewhere in the article, I think. Rivertorch (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the picture in the main article Homo Sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPlaquecloseup.svg), I find it unacceptably Eurocentric. Even statistically, people with this skin pigmentation and proportions are a minority. I think the best illustration could be three "schematically" drawn persons - for example, a man with average Asian pigmentation and proportions, a woman with average African pigmentation and proportions and perhaps a female child with average European pigmentation and proportions. Would be fair, because women are also world's majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.230.74 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Skin pigmentation? Isn't it a brass plaque, i.e. no pigmentation. The point here is not that it is an accurate representation but an iconic one. David D. (Talk) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: it would be also relevant to add more human figures: Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Native American, Native Australian, Pigmean etc. So, could be arranged as a nice family picture - femals and male babes, children, teenagers, adults, elderly ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.230.74 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Uncircumcised and unshaved would be more accurate. Maybe we should just re-add the censored vulval line to the plaque image. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Or we could stick wit the neutral color plaque that doesn't favor one side... You know tje generalized image we sent out just in case some other species picked it (hopefully they see liek we do)--Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything is better than the plaque. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect nothing will create less controversy. David D. (Talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How about a montage of faces, of various ages and races? Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A montage might do it, but you will probably get the ageist, sexist, racist complaints no matter how carefully you put it together. Try it though, you might hit the sweet spot. David D. (Talk) 19:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would a montage of faces better represent the concept of "human" better than the current iconic representation? Rivertorch (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the montage would be better. David D. (Talk) 00:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Most articles on species of animals only have a picture of one animal of that species, why should this article be different just because it's written by the animal it's about? This, to me, seems rather unfair. In my opinion, there should just be a picture of a random example of the species, I nominate Mike Godwin. 71.212.96.177 (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Article quite lacking forward!

The article has zero word on the future of humans, even though futurology is an actual science strongly based on mathematics. The use of an interstellar satellite plaque in the header of this article implies the wikipedia authors do think mankind has a future, yet the article does not even mention it!

At the very least population explosion, environmental woes, deep space travel, artificial intelligence and human info-biotechnological self-transformation should be mentioned in a new futurology paragraph. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be against "futurology" for the most part. Until it all actually happens, then it is still science fiction. All of those items you listed could possibly have their own articles seeing that many of them are currently being worked on. However, all of them should not be simply tacked on here for Homo Sapiens, it would make the article too unruly and what purpose would there be? Just because humans are working on this stuff, does not mean we should put it here (what next, do we need to tack on the complete history of human technology here too?)ZgokE (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Any of the futurology you mentioned would be a fun violation of crystal ball: only with sources. The future is not written nor can we predict it. For example: we say such and such shall happen tomorrow, However, at any moment there could also be a nuclear war that shall stop such and such from taking place. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Who invented Homo sapiens sapiens?

In the Carl Linné article it is stated that Linné divided Homo sapiens into several sub-species/races, neither of which is Homo sapiens sapiens.[5] So who did coin that term? It should be stated in the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that was part of the rearrangement of Homo neandertalis and a few others as subspecies of Homo sapiens. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the current info in the article is wrong, no? Linné should be cited for Homo and Homo sapiens, but not Homo sapiens sapiens. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is the equivalent of an autonym in botany. mgiganteus1 (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

taxobox - least concern and fossils

Is the following sentence appropriate for the opening paragraph?

As of 2008, humans are listed as a species of least concern for extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Especially since it is not even discussed in the article itself. David D. (Talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter really what we are listed?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems appropriate somewhere in the article but not in the first paragraph. Rivertorch (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That is what i was thinking. David D. (Talk) 04:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So why is the ICUN 'least concern' classification required in the taxo box? I see no good reason for this. I see a good reason for have this information for rare species, but for any species of least concern, not just humans, why is this vital information for the taxobox? David D. (Talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I had previously removed the ICUN 'least concern' classification and the fossil record section. For ICUN, my rationale is above. And why the fossil section? Is it relevant for most extant species? What is the goal of such as section, I assume it was designed for usage on extinct species?

Well now they are back again, and apparently the best reason for having them is "like for all other species". Is uniformity really the only reason we have these sections in the taxobox? If so, then I move that we remove them for good. They are not informative, apparently they are only there as eye candy. David D. (Talk) 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Uniformity in infoboxes is an advantage because they're intended as a standardised overview (and can allow for quick comparisons too). Most species articles have an ICUN rating. What's the advantage in removing it? --h2g2bob (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Uniformity should not trump usefulness. David D. (Talk) 06:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Image:Human_body_features.png

Hello!

This page contains an image, Image:Human_body_features.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Human_body_features.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"BP" Date system

Why is it that in the origin section the "Before Present" dating system is used? If we don't want to say "A.D." because of the religious connotations, fine. But then we should use C.E., as the majority of the world uses said system.

It's being used in an archaeological context. That's the units they use. David D. (Talk) 03:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Evolved from Homo erectus?

I'm having a hard time agreeing with this sentence from the subsection "Paleolithic":

"Homo sapiens appears about 200,000 BP (Before Present), in the Middle Paleolithic, descending from Homo erectus."

Some paleoanthropologists today agree that Homo erectus is a "dead end" in hominin evolution. I would suggest, as an RAO supporter, that "Homo erectus" be changed to Homo heidelbergensis or Homo ergaster, since erectus is found outside of Africa, dated over 1 million years old, and has no transitions from that species to another (except for the case of Homo floresiensis). -Ano-User (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that RAO still involved erectus. Can you point us to some sources to the contrary? If there's a reasonable amount of scientific doispute, we should say that, but at a basic level like this, the smaller disputes sometimes need to be glossed over a bit (though, provided it isn't held by only a tiny minority, it should appear in more detailed articles). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seemed kind of forceful in my demand for a name change from "erectus" to "heidelbergensis" or "ergaster." It's just what I learned in Physical Anthropology that makes me want to correct it (assuming that it is correct). Here is a more accurate description of differences between the "Lumpers" and "Splitters" regarding Homo erectus' place in human evolution from Archaeologyinfo.com: "Those who accept the validity of ergaster (splitters) usually consider erectus an evolutionary dead-end that went from Africa into Asia, and went extinct there. Those who see erectus as a modern human ancestor (Lumpers), either see the Asian specimens as a dead-end side branch, or see all the ergaster, heidelbergensis, and erectus specimens as belonging to Homo sapiens" (From Kreger, Homo erectus)

The RAO hypothesis states that migration (of modern humans) within and out of Africa eventually replaced the earlier dispersed H. erectus. Hopefully this will give you a clearer view of what I'm trying to say. --Ano-User (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. That makes a bit more sense. I'm afraid it's been a few years since I did human evolution in any great detail - I'm more zoology.

Basically, this being Wikipedia, information needs to be sourced (If you're wondering why: it's an anti-vandalism/stupidity mechanism, in all honesty: It gives people something to check if information seems dubious, so we can catch any problems a little more easily. Also makes people a little less inclined to throw in half-remembered details, but instead to check them and get it right.) I trust you, but, well, I've always rather wanted to see this article reach "featured article" status - recognition as a really good article, pretty much - and that means showing our work, I fear.

Forgive me, I am rather talking as if you're new to this - which probably is completely wrong. I'm afraid it's after midnight here. Anyway, how about something like "...descended from Homo ergaster (sometimes considered a subspecies of Homo erectus)"? Covering both terminologies is probably a little more useful than either one, since it lets people know that sources may vary in terms, but it means basically the same thing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I understand. It's been a while since I took Zoology, but in a way, it has a lot to do with Evolutionary Biology, especially in considering the fields of population genetics, heredity, variation, Mendelism, and reproduction. I've been on Wikipedia for a while and I'm usually very good at citing my sources when writing research papers or Wikipedia articles (in which I have done only 4), but I thought that making internal links would stand in place of making a reference list.

I like your suggestion of something like "...descended from Homo ergaster (sometimes considered a subspecies of Homo erectus)", but ergaster, according to us "splitters," is the older species. Erectus and heidelbergensis are probably the migratory descendants of ergaster. May be we can say, "...descended from Homo ergaster (sometimes considered the ancestor of H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis, but in other times, considered a sub-species of erectus)." Just a suggestion. --Ano-User (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Earliest human fossils

I am moving back the date on the earliest human fossils found. This was published in "Nature", one of the most highly respected scientific journals. If anyone wants to make changes, thats fine, just as long as this new date and a link to the new discoveries is mentioned in the article. Also - the fossil dates mesh with the biological data.[6]

-- Ruy Lopez (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

There should be a legacy section at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.223 (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed from Sexuality in its entirety

"As with other human self-descriptions, humans propose that it is high intelligence and complex societies of humans that have produced the most complex sexual behaviors of any animal, including a great many behaviors that are indirectly connected with reproduction."

Would need a fact tag at least but is in any case judgmental and likely false, poorly composed, etc. Also on the Lede edits, didn't see that technology was already mentioned further in that paragraph. Stopped of course when editor accused me of denigrating the role of science in understanding the natural world. Lycurgus (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary studies section

I've removed this from the article, since it seemed entirely redundant with the section on "origin", which already deals with the relationship between the great apes in some detail. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Written for Aliens?!?

Don't you guys think it's a bit risky putting this kind of information together in one page? All humans know this stuff, and it's just waiting here for aliens to find out everything about us without doing all the work of research. That could expedite their plans to eat us by hundreds of years or more!

I think the risks of this page far outweigh its benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.6.77 (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

this is my take on WP: the whole of WP should be so structured as to be a primer for an alien species that wants to learn about who we are and what we have observed of our shared universe. so this article is perfect in its tone. i like that we make as few assumptions as possible when writing articles, putting them in context, giving links to broader articles, and mostly: not assuming the reader knows the difference between "family guy" and reality .66.80.6.163 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Life cycle pictures

Is it just me or shouldn't we find a picture of a woman of reproductive age that doesn't look like straight off the pages of a fashion mag? I mean this article is supposed to be scholarly, so shouldn't we find a more natural/normal example of a woman? Someone that isn't an erotic model (follow the link) and someone who's face isn't covered in fashion facepaint. I mean it's bad enough that painted model pics are being pushed on young girls as the norm, but do they really have to find them in their scholarly readings, too? Obhave (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and inserted a different picture, see how people like it. Obhave (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My picture got deleted because I'm a noob and failed at the copyright stuff. I'm reverting to the old pic. Obhave (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess I'll wait until the wikipedia licencing update goes through, that'll increase the options. Obhave (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Something is off in the formatting

I don't know if it's my computer only, but the page I'm getting says "Like most higher primates, humans are social by nature. But Homo sapiens had a larger brain divelopment [sic]," example.jpg inserted here, then, "Humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication--" I'd fix it myself, but I can't find it where it should be in the edit page.--173.49.21.81 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it disappeared when I went back. --173.49.21.81 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Input Output

Could we add this somewhere?

Typical human mass throughput in Pounds per day

Food 2.5 > 0.3 Solids

Water 9.2 > 11 Water

O2 1.8 > 2.2 CO2

Where is the source for this? Is this an average? Can you provide citation or a range depending on size of person of outputs and inputs? What is the reason for adding this? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Planet Destruction

There is a statement at the end of the introductory section that appears to be increadable POV paragraph that uses citation that some would consider questionable, and maybe would best be removed and be placed on an article relating to environmentalism.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the disputed paragraph:

Humans are also the only species which pollute the planet. Humans are, by far, the number one contributors for causing mass extinctions of flora and fauna by destroying their habitats: eg, clearing of rain forests, hunting for "recreation", and driving out vast numbers of important species by filling wetlands with hazardous wastes.

The first sentence not supported by the ref. The other refs are indeed questionable. Discuss. Vsmith (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Other species cause pollution such as beavers and starlings can cause pollution of areas rendering them uninhabitable and destroying habitats. Other species have also caused the extinction of species by eating them all, resource competition, and disease.

67.84.178.0 (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blantant Pro-Human Bias

Is it just me or does this article have a blantant pro-human bias? The humans are trying to portray themselves in a flattering right. Human viciousness and aggression isn't given in detail.

Living in space and the air

The opening section referes to the face that at any given time a small number of humans are air, sea or even spacebourne. This seems a little unnecessary, we could say in the article on fleas that some are living on eagles. I propose removing "as well as large numbers of humans at any particular moment flying in vehicles through the atmosphere, many others traveling over and beneath the oceans, and even a few individuals living in low Earth orbit." 81.101.142.64 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree and have removed it. Not sure what the point of it was. — Satori Son 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

picture

Why is this man's scrotum longer than his penis? An average man's penis is longer than his scrotum and thus this article is misleading about human anatomy.

I assume that you are talking about the lead picture. The reason that it is misleading is that it was censored by the original artist to make it more acceptable to local American sensibilities. The woman has fared even worse, having had bits removed completely. Have a look at the Pioneer plaque article for details. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a dynamic plaque. It changes relative to the temperature of its environment.

--Victoria h (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean they put clothes on when it gets cold??? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Homo sapiens

Is the "s" at the end of Homo sapiens pronounced? I think it is, because I'm fairly certain that Latin doesn't have silent "s", but I'm not sure, because I've often heard people pronouncing it as "Homo sapien", without the "s" sound. --Aruseusu (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd be correct. Homo sapiens is pronounced as you'd expect it to be. The reason you hear "homo sapien" is due to the common occurrence in the English-speaking of trying adopting a word from a different language and then trying to apply English grammar rules such as pluralization to it. For example, the plural of Bar Mitzvah is Bar Mitzvot, not Bar Mitzvahs; cannoli is technically the plural, while cannolo refers simply to a single tasty treat. What is happening here is people hear Homo sapiens, assume it's a standard, English plural, and then use homo sapien to refer to a single human. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Excessive/False/Impressionistic Sentence removed in its Entirety

"Even the most ancient human tools and structures are far more advanced than any structure or tool created by any other animal.

Judgmental and almost certainly false (even insect colonies have some fairly complex instrumentalities) and Sagan is not an appropriate source for human/animal comparative ethology.

---

Lycurgus (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (Postdated)

Diet

Is information about health and sanitation problems really relevant in the Diet section?

For instance: "Lack of food remains a serious problem, with about 36 million people starving to death every year." While relevant to the starvation article, say, this and other comments seem out of place in a description of the human species, mostly because they would be obviously out of place in reference to any other species. "Serious problem," for instance, is used here in a judgmental rather than descriptive sense. With the possible exception of discussions regarding conservation status (clearly not the case here), comments like that can only be judgmental, rather than factual. There are many articles where this discussion belongs, in the context of various opinions regarding the human experience, but human is not one of them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.33.203 (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this for a number of reasons. Nuclear war would be justified as being called a "serious" threat to humans but this "lack of food" sentence makes it sound like the existence of all humans is threatened by a lack of food which is nowhere near the case. Furthermore, the problem is not even a lack of food but a host of problems (political issues, wars, droughts, etc.) which are preventing food production. If this was to be here at all it belongs under some type of "threats to existence" heading but way down at the bottom because it's not even a serious threat. I agree, take it down. This may sound cruel but from a purely naturalistic perspective, how is it a "problem"? --Victoria h (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer image

I have added back in the the Pioneer image on the grounds that it was intended to be representative of humans and so it is more appropriate than any other image. That other species have actual photos of the species can't easily apply here as those other species are not taking the photographs of themselves (lack of technology). Humans view any animal of that species as arbitrarily representative but that is without feedback from that species (for obvious reasons). With humans though we can establish different metrics as to what is representative because we can ask people if 'x' is representative rather than simply assuming because 'x' is a photo of something then it'll do. If it ever comes up then the image we have is not censored. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the Pioneer image, and think it's very appropriate for the article lead. There are actual photos of humans further down, and that's fine too. --Ashenai (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Pioneer image is an inaccurate, stylized caricature. It presents no information on many of the most important human features, e.g., how a human actually looks in 3D, in color, with a human's ubiquitous technologies (e.g., clothing and tools), etc. Just about any photograph of a human would be a vast improvement over the image.

Moreover, your logic is plainly fallacious. You say, in effect, 'The Pioneer image was intended to be representative of humans, therefore it is the most appropriate representation of humans.' This raises the question at once: intended by whom? The Pioneer image was crafted in a particular sociocultural context, amidst controversies, complaints, criticisms, and much fiddling - it was censored (notice that the woman's genitalia have been removed, and the man's appear substantially distorted), racialized and politicized, etc. It was an image created decades ago by a specific organization - NASA - for a specific purpose, and it is an image which is significant in its own right, i.e., it has its own article and a mass of . All of this makes it inappropriate for illustrating Human, for the exact same reason that Mona Lisa would be inappropriate. 'Mona Lisa' is one of the most famous depictions of a human in all history, but precisely for that reason it should be avoided in favor of an unknown, more informative image - a well-known image will not give readers any new information, and so cannot be useful in an article like this. As I said, any photograph would be an improvement, and we should discuss various options if there are any other candidates; but it matters much less which one we choose than that we choose one, if only provisionally, so as to bring this article up to the standard of every other species article. But the Pioneer plaque is unambiguously the worst image we could choose - see Talk:Human/Image and many past talk page discussions - because it is well-known in its own right rather than properly illustrating the subject matter (would you put an image of the White House at the top of our article on Houses?), and it is an inaccurate crude drawing, rather than an accurate photograph, of the article subject. And, obviously, just because something was intended as a representation of humans, does not make it a good representation; I just drew a picture on a sketchpad which I "intended to be representative of humans"; does that make my stick figure an appropriate top-level image for Human? -Silence (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS - the Pioneer plaque is the best image that the consensus to date has chosen. The Talk:Human/Image represents the views of the few editors who haven't worked out how to break the current consensus - it does NOT represent the current consensus. As I highlighted back in October last year the image is on a space craft and it represents the pinnacle of human technological development in that the image will remain the object that has travelled the furthest from Earth that any physical representation of human beings has ever travelled since the dawn of time. The Pioneer image represents the 'sapiens' in the species designation of Homo sapiens sapiens. We are "thinking man". Critical to this is tool use and more so the use of technology to inhabit new ecological niches is ultimately what divides us as a species from other species. The plaque will remain as good a representation of the sapiens in Homo sapiens sapiens as any and will remain unique for many years yet. The socioeconomic context you use is a red herring in that this is the English language version of Wikipedia located on US based servers and using US law. A global view need not apply. On the final subject, the image has not been censored in that the image we have is close to what was sent on the Pioneer craft. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Silence the Pioneer image is awful for the reasons that he states. It was censored, not by an editor here but by the original artist, to suit local US sensibilities. The story of this is there for all to see in the Pioneer plaque article. My problem is not just with the censorship but with the way that it was done, by removing body parts. For the Pioneer plaque itself there was some justification due to the tight launch schedule and the technical difficulties in creating the plaque. There is no justification here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It was not censored. Read the article - Sagan himself wrote that "The decision to omit a very short line in this diagram was made partly because conventional representation in Greek statuary omits it....blah blah blah ....not one Victorian demurrer was ever voiced; and a great deal of helpful encouragement was given.". (Actually you would only see the "short line" if the woman was shaven anyway but if she wasn't and you did a blur on the beaver shot then you would end up with what it is now but that is another matter). So it may have been unnecessarily self-censored but it was not censored per se by an authority. This is pretty tenuous excuse in the end though as the image represents humans and the gauntlet we have laid down is pretty simple - give us an image that represents humans better - NOT just some random image that happens to have a few humans in it but one that really is intended to represent humanity. I don't give a fuck what it is but it has to be representative and to date none of the competitive images have got close. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you not use a composite of images in your box? Since this seems to be a perennial issue. Hardyplants (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts Ttiotsw. I have read the article and it is quite clear. The image was censored, although it is not clear whose decision it was. It may have been Sagan's decision, based on what he (possible incorrectly) feared the authorities might think, or he may have been told to do it, but the fact is that a line representing the woman's vulva was removed from the drawing. It is quite obvious that the woman is shaved, as is the man. Had that not been the case, and the pubic hair was shown, I would have no problem. A body part that would be clearly visible has been erased. This is not acceptable in a lead picture of a human, regardless of whether it has been into space or what it was originally intended to represent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ttiotsw. Over many talk-page threads and much time, consensus has not formed to substitute another image for the Pioneer plaque. This discussion seems to recur three or four times a year. Each time, I put in my two cents:

• Yes, the Pioneer image is stylized and distorted and not properly representational of the human species.
• Many of us think the Pioneer image is rather absurd.
• All of that is beside the point. What matters is that:

1. It's one of the best-known depictions of humanity created to date.
2. Unlike other very well-known depictions, it was created for the express purpose of representing humanity to the universe. That it likely fails in that mission is beside the point because our job in selecting an image here isn't to represent humanity accurately; as encyclopedia editors, our job is to document representations of humanity. (This distinction and several of its parallels are basic to understanding the function of any reputable encyclopedia.)

Only one image can be in the lede, and the (intended) universality of this one makes it particularly suited to lead off the article. I wish we'd send another probe out with a better image, but until we do, this is what we're stuck with. Rivertorch (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Only one image can be in the lede" were does it say this? since a number of other pages utilize composites for complex subjects, I would like to know were this rule exists. Hardyplants (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it should be said that the subject of this article is 'Human', not 'Depictions of humans' or 'Representations of humans'. I do understand that the Pioneer image was created with the intention of representing humans to whoever may be out there but the circumstances under which this was done were difficult and restrictive. The plaque was the best that could be done in those circumstances. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read images in Taxobox than the use of 2 images is rare but it can be done. The guidelines mention that though you can have two images (they use an example of camel that this is used "sparingly, and only when the article is long enough, and it makes sense to include the second image here and not later in the article. ". Given the article is about Humans i.e. the one sub-species homo sapiens sapiens rather than say the camel article which is at a genus and details two species, Camelus bactrianus and Camelus dromedarius, I don't see how a taxobox for a subspecies with no other related subspecies would need more than one image. It feels like a can of worms to imply that races are subspecies of humans because I imagine that for equality purposes we'll would want a selection of photos of different ethnicities. Is this the path we want to start down ? Personally I don't. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Me either. There's a good collection of photos farther down under Life cycle, anyway, which show ethnic differences as well as age differences. Now, if there were one- and two-hump humans, as there are camels, I'd definitely say we should have two pics up top. (Btw, imo, another reason for keeping the Pioneer image is that it may be the least controversial choice. That may sound weird, since we're in yet another discussion about it, but if we had one or even two photos, I think there would be much more frequent conflict, dissent, and drama. Imagine: ethnicity, sex, age, type of clothing (if any), group or individual, posed or candid—all these possibilities and more would provide endless fodder for argument.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree also, but why not just have a picture of a man and a woman. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of ethnicity, sex, age, type of clothing (if any), group or individual, posed or candid, and so on; the choices are endless, and how will they be made? In other words, if by "picture" you mean "photo'", how will we ever find one that could be considered representational of all humans? If by "picture" you just mean "picture", well, that's what we've got now, right? Rivertorch (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the most important above comments to note is "the subject of this article is 'Human', not 'Depictions of humans' or 'Representations of humans'." The arguments that have put forth for keeping the Plaque image:

1. "No one has been able to build consensus for any other image yet" - That's because there are too many replacement candidates of roughly the same quality. On a scale of appropriateness, with 1 being something radically inappropriate like an Elmer Fudd drawing and 10 being the Perfect Image, the Pioneer Plaque, with its explicit misogyny and racism, is a 2; we have hundreds of images that are a 5 or 6 or 7, including the simple and effective one I suggested. So the problem is that there are too many good or decent candidates to build up steam for any particular one of them, whereas the Pioneer Plaque has the unfair advantage of being the only image we've even tried, for more than a couple hours at a time, in the last 5+ years. Fear of the unknown is a natural human instinct, and that includes fear of changing a long-established, habitual image, even a woefully inaccurate one.
2. "The Pioneer Plaque symbolizes human accomplishment and technology, has been sent really far away, etc." - All would be relevant, as noted, if this was an article on human technology, space travel, or artistic depictions of humans. It is not. It is an article on the human species, which means our first and most important goal is to show what a relatively 'ordinary' human looks like, how it behaves, etc. If you think the Pioneer Plaque is such an awe-inspiring symbol of our technology, then move it to the 'technology' section; its irrelevancy (and, worse, its inaccuracy) to all other aspects of humanity, e.g., our biology, our clothing, our habitats and ecology, etc., outweigh its relevancy to a single particular aspect of humans (our space flight program), which arguably isn't even in the top 10 most important areas of human technology (why not a picture symbolizing irrigation, agriculture, water filtration, telecommunications, medicine, etc.?).
3. "We are 'Homo sapiens,' and 'sapiens' means 'thinking,' ergo what defines us as a species is that we think. So our lead image should show a product or symbol of human thought, not an aspect of ordinary human biology or society." - I'm not even sure I need to rebut such a silly argument, but I'll note anyway that 'thinking' is not in any way an aspect of what defines human beings. Humans with severe mental handicaps are still humans; and if a dolphin or chimpanzee or bee hive or something managed to exceed humans in intelligence, adaptability to new environments, etc., that would not make the dolphin or whatever a human. We are "Homo" first, "sapiens" only secondarily.
4. "It's a really well-known image, it was intended to depict humans, etc." - I already covered this claim above. The White House is a really well-known house, yet we would never think to put it at the top of the House article. Being really well-known is a disadvantage for a lead image for any article other than Pioneer Plaque itself. Our goal should be to use an unknown image, so as to keep the focus on the article subject itself rather than on some extraneous side-topic or sub-topic. And being intended to represent humans doesn't matter, because, again, this is not an article called Representations of humans.
5. "The image hasn't been censored because it accurately depicts what's on the Pioneer craft." - If this were Talk:Pioneer Plaque, you'd be correct. But this is Talk:Human. The image is supposed to depict a human, not the Pioneer Plaque. If it correctly depicts the plaque, but misrepresents what humans look like (which happens to be the case), then it's inappropriate for use on this article. It's that simple.
6. "Any other image would be too controversial." - And this image hasn't been controversial? Controversy is not a valid reason to exclude any image; only inaccurate or misleading or irrelevant content is such a reason, and the Pioneer Plaque has all of those in spades. We have many articles with extremely controversial lead images, and those have not been removed merely to oil the wheels. For example, it has been argued that we would need an image of every human race at the top of the article in order to avoid controversy; but, first, how is having a depiction of zero human races an improvement upon having too few?; second, why do we need to depict all the races when this article is Human and not Race?; third, would not this suggest that the most important manifestation of human diversity is race, which is an incredibly racist and biologically inaccurate assumption?; and fourth, does this not disregard the hundreds or thousands of articles we have on biological groups tens or hundreds or thousands of times more diverse than the human species, where we successfully use only a single image of a member of that taxon rather than using thousands of tiny images of each member? If it is not controversial on those articles, then it can only be an artifact of our bias and speciesism if it is controversial here to pick a particular random human example. (Which, again, the Pioneer Plaque doesn't even succeed in doing, since there are no humans in the image; just crude black lines on a white background.)

The job of an article's lead image is not to show every major group that is a subtype of that article; the job of the lead image is only to show an example of the article subject; hence we just use an example of a house on the House article, without worrying about whether it 'represents' every house (as though that were possible for anything, even a crude Pioneer House doodle), and without making a house collage of every different architectural design. The job of the lead image is not to mystically 'symbolize' the 'essence' of the topic; it's simply to visually depict some important features of the subject, in an accurate way. In that respect, almost any photo would be an improvement upon the status quo. -Silence (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The current WP:CONCENSUS is the Pioneer image. It's pretty clear to most people it is a "Human". If people are having problems identifying what a human looks like and the current image is leading them astray then I suspect the Wikipedia article on the human species is the least of their problems. To change it then give us an image that we can all agree is "better" (whatever better is). This is quite a basic content dispute and it's up to the ones wanting the change to justify the change so given that to date no amount of talk has broken the current consensus so I think the next step is to either start an WP:RFC or ask for WP:REVIEW to perhaps crowdsource a new image. Don't use the argument you use above though as they are poor,

• your # 1 - appeal to Appeal to emotion
• your # 2 - I think is a Red herring (logical_fallacy)
• your # 3 - no we are sapiens and just to be sure they say it twice "sapiens sapiens" Ttiotsw (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• your # 4 - irrelevant - House isn't a taxobox
• your # 5 - if it is supposed to be anatomically correct then don't keep giving us clothed humans which is the last picture that was tried.
• your # 6 - is a bizarre claim. If someone can't see that this human then they would not be reading Wikipedia.

In the end we're talking about 1 image in the lede. People can stick as many other images as they like in the article. If by the end of the article the reader is completely confused about what a member of the human species looks like then we have failed catastrophically. To suggest that the Pioneer image helps the confusion as to what the human species represents I think is patent nonsense. Ttiotsw (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a picture of clothed humans. What is objectionable about the current image is that it is intentionally incorrect. I am surprised that you do not consider the intentional removal of a depiction of part of the human body in order to appease (real or imagined) local sensibilities as censorship.

We cannot possible hope to show the whole of humanity in one picture, just as we cannot hope to show all insects in the insect article. Any photo of a man and a woman would be better that the image we currently have which, as an image, has absolutely nothing to commend it.

I can understand that interest and passion felt by many people in the plaque as an icon of human achievement in space exploration but that is not what this article is about, it is about humans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental argument that you overlook is that when it comes to the crunch then everything in WP has to be sourced from someone else not us; now the image we have is very much by a notable human, about humans and intended to represent the image of humanity to others in the Universe. It's a no-brainer across all WP policies on notability and WP:NOR which is probably why it has stayed around for so long. The current image at the most basic level has a role of helping entities *anywhere* in the universe identify a "human". On the issue of clothing; much is made of its supposed "censorship" of a tiny part of the female anatomy and yet clothing is the ultimate arbiter of identity and the vast majority of the clothed female images we probably can gather will cover these private parts. Clothed images will censor the human form more than this image.

I think that you are mistaken if you think that the image "has absolutely nothing to commend it" - a notable human (Carl Sagan) thinks it represents humans. Who are we to argue ?. An alternative image ultimately needs to be considered to represent humanity NOT by us but by someone as notable as Carl Sagan. Now that would be a image worth adding but I've seen no candidate to date that passes muster. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You seem to be a little unfamiliar with the usual conventions of logical argumentation and debate. Realize that citing fallacy pages you've found on wikipedia does not constitute a counterargument or rebuttal of any form, particularly when the page is not relevant to the paragraph you're responding to. For example, you cite Appeal to emotion in response to what is really a disagreement on premises: I made no emotional appeal (although I did describe an emotion, fear, as a side-note - but an emotional appeal evokes an emotion (instead of making a substantive point), it does not simply make explicit reference to one), The substance of my point 1 was not an appeal to emotion, but an essentially (if intersubjectively) factual claim - the claim that no image has been provided because there are a large number of roughly equal-quality acceptable images, no one of which can amass the same level of support as the singular image which lacks quality but possesses (irrelevant) institutional support and the weight of status-quo. Now, either I am right or wrong; if you disagree, you are free to provide contrary reasoning or evidence. A valid counter-example you might have found or demonstrated, for example, would have been to cite an obviously stand-out photo of humans and establish that even a photo every anti-Pioneer editor could get behind would not hold a candle to the popularity of the Pioneer image. This, again, would be an issue of fact, as much as any editorial dispute can be. Emotions have no more to do with this particular argument of mine than they have to do with any argument between humans. The problem is that you disagree with so many of my premises here that you tried to use a wikilinked fallacy (and a suitably vague one, since you couldn't find anything easy like affirming the consequent in my reasoning) to avoid having to directly address any of my points. Unfortunately, this doesn't really work in practice. I could have just responded to your points, as well, by citing dozens of fallacies; but quantity of wikilinks and appeal to 'logico-babble' is not what makes a counter-argument strong.
2. Nor is #2, above, a red herring. In fact, it is doubly ironic that you would accuse #2 of being a red herring, apparently based on the fact that, again, #2 is talking about red herrings - in that #2 claims that a particular argument supporting the Plaque image is irrelevant (red herrings, remember, are simply any irrelevant arguments - so instead of appealing to the logical term to try to impress people, you might be more constructive by saying 'That argument of yours is irrelevant because... X', thus having the added benefit of actually explaining and defending your claim of irrelevancy.. just a suggestion). The point #2 was making was arguing that there are certain criteria which a lead image must meet, e.g., having greater relevance to the article subject than to peripheral matters, and that the Plaque does not meet that criterion. Since that is the form of the argument, and this form precisely corresponds to the topic of this debate (Which is: "What criteria should we use to choose the lead article for Human, and does the Plaque meet those criteria (a) adequately, (b) better than any other available (or potential?) image?), it cannot be irrelevant - it is relevant almost by definition, since its form follows the discussion topic exactly. Now, what my argument could be is, quite simply, a completely incorrect, or horribly unreasonable, claim. I could simply be wrong. By there is a difference between an incorrect claim and a logical fallacy, and if you think I'm wrong on this point, it's on your head to explain why. It is not formally self-evident. :)
3. To add to the irony, your "sapiens sapiens" point is a red herring - unless, hopefully, you were joking. "sapiens sapiens," obviously, is not our trinomic classification name because we're really really "thinky"; it's our classification name because the type subspecies of a species pretty much always just repeats the species name, for simplicity's sake. An amusing example of this is Gorilla gorilla gorilla - the genus, species, and subspecies all repeat "gorilla," I guess because taxonomists either have no sense of absurd humor, or an extremely acute one. :) Regardless, none of this is relevant to what image would best grace the Human article. This isn't an article about the name of our species, it's an article about the species itself; the name is a footnote at best, of little significance compared to actual features of our physiology and society.
4. We aren't discussing taxoboxes, we're discussing lead images. Every article with a lead image is relevant to our discussion, because taxoboxes don't change lead-image policy in any way whatsoever (except, of course, in aesthetic ways - e.g., by slightly discouraging use of horizontal images). And if we were discussing taxoboxes, it would only stregthen my point about the inappropriateness of the Pioneer image, because there is zero precedent on any other species page for preferring drawings (especially inaccurate and low-quality ones that are noteworthy in their own right) over photographs. And, again, there is less than zero precedent on any other bio-article for preferring the drawing (which, almost by definition, will have more subjective and stylized characteristics than a comparable photo of the same subject matter) when on top of everything else it is censored, inaccurate, decades old, and politically and culturally loaded.
5. You don't seem to quite understand what "anatomically correct" means; I apologize if i was unclear. "Anatomically correct" means that if the human's anatomy is visible, it must be uncensored and accurately portrayed. That doesn't mean we have to show bare flesh in every possible context; if we're depicting humans in a grocery store, for example, making them nude just to maximize information content is missing the point. This isn't just an article about human anatomy, so it's entirely appropriate to show humans clothed in various ways (though obviously at least one image on the page should show them nude), so as to avoid misinforming potential readers about how common garments are in human cultures. Compare humans to hermit crabs - we could avoid showing hermit crabs in their shells, in order to clearly illustrate their anatomy in every image. But this would be misleading. It is more informative to show them in a common, normal, natural setting, even if this means sacrificing a few anatomical details for the sake of other visual data. Though we should, preferably, also show an image somewhere of the crab without its shell - and, even more obviously, the worst-case scenario of all would be to use an image where the crab isn't wearing its shell, but the details of the shell-lacking anatomy are censored or inaccurate. That worst-case scenario is what we're dealing with here on Human, and only the anaesthesia of familarity (and of course our cultural biases and expectations) have prevented us from remedying a problem that would not even have been an issue on any other species article.
6. I'm not sure what you mean here, since your grammar is a tad opaque and I don't know which claim you're specifically responding to. Could you clarify? Thanks.

Your argument that 'everything in Wikipedia must be sourced' is a rather bizarre turn, and an interesting one, but I'm afraid it's a quite enormous deviation from Wikipedia standards and conventions which, were we to take it seriously, would require that we remove every image from every article which is not an image also used by another, reputable source which we are citing as evidence of the connection between the image and the article. In other words, you are either proposing that we arbitrarily suspend Wikipedia standards for Human, or you are in effect proposing a new expansion of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, an expansion which would require that a reputable source first deem an image to be an appropriate representation of an article's subject matter, before that image can be used to illustrate the subject. Rather than getting too deep into wikiphilosophical issues this raises, interesting as they might be, I'll simply note the impracticality of this approach. Nor does it actually improve the reputability or relevance of our images. Remember, you are not citing a neutral source; you are not even citing a relevant expert, i.e., an anthropologist. You are citing NASA, a particular U.S. organization (or, even worse, you are citing a particular human being, Sagan, as though being a 'noteworthy individual' somehow makes one a reliable source, even assuming that reliable sourcing is what was at issue here!); what makes the image they happened to choose to depict humans for one particular mission the authoritative human depiction from now till the end of time? Why is a U.S. organization, and not a Russian or Chinese or U.N. or other international image, the source we're appealing to for this 'objective' depiction of the entire human race? In your zeal to escape bias, you are just increasing our bias; in your zeal to avoid having to make an editorial stand or express editorial opinions through our choice, you are actually worsening our editorial bias by several orders of magnitude, precisely because you are making Human an exception to the standards we employ on every other article in general, and on species articles in particular. The problem is that, rather than following Wikipedia convention and just picking an example of a human like we'd pick an example of a kangaroo for the Kangaroo article, you're trying to find some mystical, omni-representational, hyper-objective "Platonic ideal" of an image to encapsulate the human essence in a way that appeals to our highest human ideals and references one of our greatest technological accomplishments. It surprises me that I even need to point out how profoundly inappropriate this way of choosing an image is for a Wikipedia article, how catastrophically more biased it is than simply choosing any old photograph illustrating the subject matter in question. It's advocating a noble agenda, but it's still advocating an agenda, whereas just picking a normal image of a human, even an imperfect one, would be a vast improvement and would follow Wikipedia convention infinitely better.

In any case, I still haven't seen a single persuasive argument for keeping this image here; I have seen even less persuasive argumentation for not even giving an alternative to the status quo a fair try, to see if it's so impossible as has long been assumed by some editors. The Pioneer image has never had substantial consensus support; it's just been kept because no other image has had a chance to garner consensus, most of them not even being given a fair shake. The mountain of problems riddling the Pioneer Plaque have been brought up countless times before, but complacency has prevented them from ever being addressed, and I see now that every time we let these shortcomings slide, it becomes more difficult to root out the problem next time around as people forget the issues that were brought up last time, and become more and more used to the flawed, anatomically and socioculturally misleading, misogynistic and bizarrely racialistic, and frankly just not particularly good-quality, children's-style drawing adorning a very important article on a very important subspecies of (rather gifted) eukaryote. -Silence (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we digress - we don't need a formal debate structure to discuss the lede image. The image we have has consensus from a number of editors and they watch this article for many reasons - I think I started here because of reverting vandalism, same as Giraffe and Peanut butter. It stays in my watchlist along with a few hundred other articles. I don't know the agenda of the other editors but I think my agenda on this article has predominantly reverting vandalism. Your complaints about the current image, calling it "flawed," "anatomically and socioculturally misleading", "misogynistic and bizarrely racialistic", "not particularly good-quality, children's-style drawing ", "censored" and then also accusing the other editors of "advocating an agenda" and "complacency" are uncalled for. You make it sound like we're being unreasonable when it is you that wants to change the image. Give us alternatives images that we can decide.

On the matter of 'roos, I'm pretty confident that if Kangaroos edited Wikipedia then they too would argue as to what image of a Kangaroo would be representative of 'roos. Consider the unique nature of the Human species article as being the only Wikipedia article in which all editors have a conflict of interest by definition of being a member of the group that the article is discussing (it's like having a Staff of Microsoft edit the Microsoft article. Perhaps we should let a machine decide the image ?. How about giving us a list of images and then we use a RNG to decide which image. That way no human made the final decision. For that matter a bot could randomly shuffle the images on a periodic basis. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Give us alternatives images that we can decide." - I have done so. (Though I did so in order to prompt a discussion; your RNG suggestion is the latest in a series of the most bizarrely unWikipedian suggestions I've heard you put forward as a criterion for how to pick a suitable image. Again, I hope you're just joking here. Discussion is healthy and is what builds consensus.)

"Consider the unique nature of the Human species article as being the only Wikipedia article in which all editors have a conflict of interest by definition" - You couldn't be more wrong here. There are hundreds of articles which every editor on Wikipedia will by definition have an interest in. Yet that is a reason to be more careful to stick to Wikipedia convention and NPOV, and to avoid using unnecessarily misogynistic imagery. Just for example: Every Wikipedian has a vested interest in our articles on Society, Life, Technology, Computer, Earth, Language, Sadness, and Encyclopedia. Yet has that prevented us from finding suitable photographs to illustrate all those pages? Not in the least. The only thing that has kept us from doing the same on Human has been a lack of interest and will. It is not any more inherently difficult to accurately illustrate Human than to do so for Kangaroo; and if we had a mix of kangaroo and human editors, one would hope that we'd have neutral and accurate illustrations for both species' articles, rather than for neither or just one of the two. :) It is because we have a natural interest in this article that it is so crucial that we be detached and NPOV, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. That doesn't mean we have to be outright inhuman or pretend to be aliens or anything like that; all it means is that we need to treat this article in essentially the same way we treat other articles. It's that easy. -Silence (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Am the only one actually offended by this image? I just cannot understand how anyone could think that it is acceptable to delete a part of the human body; just pretend that it does not exist. There are many customs and taboos on the way humans can be depicted. If we wish to take account of any of these there are many better ways to achieve this. We could have our humans clothed or partially clothed, that at least would be honest, people do actually wear clothes to cover parts of the body that are not considered acceptable for public display. We could change the camera angle or the stance so that parts we do not wish to be seen will not be seen, a little less honest maybe but at least we tell no lies. Another option, that that artist may have chosen had she realized the fate of her picture, would have been to show the humans with natural pubic hair, maybe that would have been considered less shocking by some. The picture we now have gets the worst of all worlds, in many cultures it will still considered offensive because of its nudity, others do not like it because of what it does not show.. In my opinion is unacceptably dishonest it purports to depict something which it does not. It is intentionally inaccurate and therefore should be ruled out on principle, regardless of its provenance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Martin, you are beating a dead horse. Parts of your argument are persuasive, but they have been made here before without affecting consensus. Now, maybe your argument is absolutely right and prevailing opinion here is wrong, but that doesn't matter. Despite its flaws, which to the best of my recollection no one here has denied, the image we see at the top of the article is there because there is consensus for it to be there. Because consensus is a policy, there needs to be a really, really good reason to ignore it, and preoccupation with admitted anatomical inaccuracy in a world-famous image just doesn't suffice. It has been suggested that RFC is the appropriate next step if you want broaden the audience for your argument and perhaps see the consensus change; I agree with that suggestion. Rivertorch (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me just make this last point to make absolutely clear what I am complaining about. Suppose that another (very conservative) country had been the first to send an image of humanity on a journey out of the solar system. Had the image consisted of two people in the customary dress for that country you might have thought it a bit over-nationalistic. On the other hand what would you have though if they had produce two full frontal, nude and shaved, images, but with all the body parts that were considered unsuitable for public display in their culture omitted? Would you have considered that a suitable lead image for this page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The questions are hard to answer because their premises are hugely improbable. I'm not sure that trying to apply the same reasoning to a scenario that didn't happen and was unlikely ever to happen is anything more than futile, but here goes. If the image in question were selected by highly notable scientists who chose it to represent humanity to the universe, I'd think it might well be an appropriate lead image for an encyclopedia article on Humans. If, instead of commissioning a new image, they'd used an old painting or sculpture that distorted, omitted or obscured body parts, I'd feel similarly. But in either case, I'd either respect prevailing consensus and let it go or seek outside opinions to bolster my own opinion and try to change consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin's points are extremely troubling ones, and should be taken more seriously. Would you editors be so nonchalant if it was the man's penis, rather than the woman's vulva, that had been censored (by completely erasing it as though it weren't an anatomical feature at all!)?. It's not even as acceptable as if both genitals were being censored. Imagine: If the woman had her sex-organ and the man did not, would you find that so unproblematic? Think hard about it.

Now. If one plans to cite a Wikipedia policy, one should first be acquainted with what the policy actually says. To quote Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."

Moreover, solid consensus does not actually exist for the Pioneer Plaque, nor has it ever. I know this, because I've debated this very image many times over the past 4 years. Ironically, I've been one of the main defenders of keeping the image here in the past, on the grounds that we hadn't found a perfect, flawless replacement. Many times I (like other editors) have responded to valid criticisms of the Pioneer Plaque's use on Human by saying that, although the Plaque was far from perfect, it was good enough for the time being. That was my mistake; my natural perfectionism got the best of me, and blinded me to the fact that a merely good image is still a huge step up from a misogynistic, misleading, and in all ways inappropriate placeholder. The only "consensus" that has ever developed around the Plaque in the past was the consensus that the Pioneer was an adequate, if flawed, placeholder until consensus gathered for a suitable replacement. Unfortunately, I and the many other editors who were present for that decision neglected to consider the fact that, over time, new editors come to an article; they aren't familiar with the article's history, and take it for granted that any long-time staple of the article must have absolutely impeccable standing among the community. And, given time, expectations can shape reality. But, sadly, the increase in reputability around the image has been illusory, because none of the actual problems have been resolved over the course of this collective amnesia. I now realize that the solution is not to sit and wait and hope some image will float out of the clouds that everyone will simply adore; nor is the solution to cite a nonexistent 'consensus' and appeal to nonexistent, unworkable, and even anti-Wikipedian justifications for the image, e.g., "a noteworthy person created it so it's a good representation of its subject" (???!) or "it symbolizes our highest ideals" (at best irrelevant, at worst a clear violation of WP:NPOV) or the like. The status quo is simply not tenable. So let's fix this. -Silence (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't appear anything broken to fix. We have an image that shows humans and seems to work with a broad range of editors. If you read a bit down from WP:CCC then you will notice the process to change the consensus.....

* Third Opinions involve a neutral third party in a dispute between two editors
* Mediation involves a neutral third party in a dispute among multiple editors
* Requests for Comment invites greater participation
* Village pump invites greater participation
* Wikiquette alerts offer perspective on impolite or other difficult communications
* Resolving disputes offers other options

I think we can skip the third - this is multiple editors. Have you done these steps ? Look at it from this side and all we see is that a few want to censor the image from this article, we get accused of anti-Wikipedian behaviour and yet we're not presented with many alternatives. Yes you did mention Talk:Human/Image but looking at that I see no one has bothered to expand the alternatives in the past 9 months. Given the vast numbers of 'bots already editing Wikipedia I fail to see how my suggestion is "unWikipedian". that if we e.g. had a pool of suitable images e.g. seasonal ones then a bot could alter the current displayed image to suit the current season in that country based on a heuristic (e.g. RND/PRND/list). Ttiotsw (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your response to my question above Ttiotsw? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs)

Um, this is again rather irregular. Discussion of the image has barely begun; it is entirely possible, if you provide stronger arguments (i.e., ones closer to standard WP practices, conventional image use in other articles, etc.), that you will convince me. One would hope that you, too, are potentially open to persuasion. This is exactly the purpose of Talk pages on Wikipedia: for reviewing proposed article changes and resolving disagreements. The options you listed above are intended for otherwise-intractable disagreements. I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything, least of all anti-Wikipedian behavior. Everyone here, on both sides, only wants to improve the Human article. What I was pointing out is that a number of the statements defending the Pioneer Plaque image's usage have been in direct contradiction to how decisions are ordinarily made on Wikipedia. Irregularities:

i. When a series of serious problems (bias, inaccuracy, censorship, lack of useful information, etc.) was pointed out with an article feature, WP:CON was cited (where it did not actually exist), instead of trying to resolve the problems or explaining why they are unproblematic. Moreover, it was cited in a way that directly violates the actual letter, and spirit, of how consensus on Wikipedia works, and what its role is: "Now, maybe your argument is absolutely right and prevailing opinion here is wrong, but that doesn't matter. Despite its flaws, which to the best of my recollection no one here has denied, the image we see at the top of the article is there because there is consensus for it to be there." (In other words: 'It doesn't matter whether you're right, nor does it matter if everyone agrees that the image has plenty of flaws, because we already have consensus.' Never mind the aforementioned Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change policy that "Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."

ii. In a most strange inversion of WP:NOR, an image's appropriateness and relevance to an article was justified on the basis that it was created by a noteworthy individual: quoth Ttiotsw, "a notable human (Carl Sagan) thinks it represents humans. Who are we to argue ?. An alternative image ultimately needs to be considered to represent humanity NOT by us but by someone as notable as Carl Sagan". (Moreover, his intent to represent humans for alien races has been repeatedly cited, as though that alone shows that it actually represents humans well; apparently 'noteworthy' = infallible? If Charles Manson did a drawing he intended to represent humanity, would that automatically be a good illustration for Human?) This is astoundingly bizarre, and utterly unheard-of as a criterion for determining image relevance in Wikipedia's entire history, as far as I'm aware; an inaccurate drawing of a frog by Carl Sagan (who is neither an artist, nor an anthropologist or biologist, nor a herpetologist) could never be justified for including at the top of Frog, over an accurate photo, simply on the basis that it's Carl Sagan! Carl Sagan is easily one of my favorite human beings in the history of the world. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the Pioneer Plaque's appropriateness on Human. It would only be relevant if this were the Carl Sagan article, or at least an astronomy article!

iii. The choice of Pioneer Plaque has been extensively defended on the basis of self-reference: 'We're humans, so we're justified in making radical exceptions for our own article, which are made on no other species article (and, indeed, on no other article on Wikipedia).' Yet this is a direct violation of Wikipedia's policies stating that we should avoid self-reference and minimize our biases, rather than highlighting and reveling in them. Whether or not you like the Pioneer Plaque, there is absolutely no precedent in Wikipedia for suspending ordinary Wikipedia conventions on the basis that "this article's about us!" Otherwise we'd also ditch our image conventions on our articles for Wikipedia, Life, 21st century, etc. The whole goal of Wikipedia's neutrality principle is to treat stuff about us in exactly the same way that an objective observer would. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy or in long-standing editorial conventions for suspending objectivity and visual accuracy when we're writing about ourselves, just as there is no basis for suspending a global and non-parochial view just because 'we're us,' as suggested by Ttiotsw: "this is the English language version of Wikipedia located on US based servers and using US law. A global view need not apply."

iv. The image has been repeatedly defended based on complete irrelevancies, e.g., that the image is "unique," that it's "on a space craft," that it "represents the pinnacle of human technological development" (which is obviously false anyway), that the image "has travelled the furthest from Earth... since the dawn of time." Leaving aside the non sequitur in using this to justify an illustration for Human (which should tell us visually about human biology and culture, not merely happen to be an important cultural artifact!), doesn't that make it less relevant to Human? In my experience, most humans tend to live on Earth. This isn't an article about space flight.

Human male (left) and female (right)

v. When a very serious problem with the image was raised - the fact that the image was deliberately censored to remove the woman's external, visible genitalia (while leaving the male's genitalia intact.) - this issue was mocked and ignored by editors dismissing the female vulva as "the beaver shot" and making astonishing arguments such as: "much is made of its supposed "censorship" of a tiny part of the female anatomy and yet clothing is the ultimate arbiter of identity and the vast majority of the clothed female images we probably can gather will cover these private parts. Clothed images will censor the human form more than this image", as though an image which explicitly lies about what the human body looks like by removing an anatomical feature is less "censored" than every image where a human is wearing clothes! By which logic, every image where someone is wearing pants is more censored that any image of a naked man where the penis has been digitally erased, leaving only an empty space between the legs, exactly like the one we have on the Pioneer Plaque female on Human (which, incidentally, is the only image of a naked human on the entire Human article!). If this was done to the male's genitalia on the top of the Human article it obviously would not be abided; that it is considered acceptable because is instead being done to a female is a serious indicator of our bias, and completely valid grounds for immediate emergency removal of the Plaque image simply because of the huge potential for spreading misconceptions about female anatomy (which, in fact, most of our readers probably are not particularly well-acquainted or familiar with, and thus are very vulnerable to the misinformation and subtle misogyny spread by such censorship), even leaving aside the message it sends about Wikipedia's stance on censorship and suppressing female (but not male) human sexuality. Really remarkable.

vi. "Perhaps we should let a machine decide the image ?. How about giving us a list of images and then we use a RNG [random number generator] to decide which image. That way no human made the final decision. For that matter a bot could randomly shuffle the images on a periodic basis." ????

All of this is leaving aside the arguments for the Plaque which simply aren't very good ones, e.g., ones that misunderstand the role of lead images by thinking that they need to somehow Platonically, symbolically 'represent' all humans, when in fact lead images only need to provide a useful example of the article subject. But I won't re-list the arguments that just aren't very good here, because they've been rebutted both here and on Talk:Human/Image. What I am highlighting here is the truly strange, idiosyncratic, and, yes, even unWikipedian (though of course not anti-Wikipedian) defenses of the Plaque here. I expected plenty of initial resistance, but I didn't expect it to be so.. surreal. This is just not how things are done here; we don't put censored and inaccurate images on Wikipedia articles merely because the article is about us, the image is heart-warming, has not been deleted previously (not how WP:CON works, I'm afraid.), etc.; we don't select images based on random number generators; and we don't use major dispute resolutions as a first resort, in lieu of any actual discussion of the important issues. As I pointed out, this is the reason Talk pages exist. So - let's talk. These problems are in no way intractable, but they are serious, and we do need to fix them if the Human article is to be brought up to the high standard of encyclopedic species articles. -Silence (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Borderline case of WP:TLDR here, but a point or two in response. Regarding the "series of serious problems (bias, inaccuracy, censorship, lack of useful information, etc.)" you refer to, these matters have all been brought up here before. In some editors' opinions they are serious, but many other editors disagree. In the past, consensus has been that they're not serious enough to warrant changing the image. Of course, you're right that consensus can change, but that is unlikely to result from reiterating old arguments over and over again. There are 28 archives linked to this talk page. I have neither the time nor the patience to search them exhaustively, but I do know that this topic and the pro and con arguments associated with it are far from new, and I am confident that most of the concerns you've raised have been hashed out rather thoroughly before. Maybe you're explaining your position better than others have done before you, but I'm finding the volume of words here daunting, and when I skim it I see words like "unWikipedian", which doesn't exactly induce me to go back and read it more carefully. We're all entitled to our opinions. Rivertorch (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times over the years, but I will reiterate my support for the Pioneer plaque image. I think the consensus remains to keep that image pending the introduction of an image that a new consensus can form around. -- Donald Albury 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but do you have any response to the many problems that have been raised regarding the Pioneer image? I'm particularly curious about the censorship issue, since it's generally not a practice on Wikipedia to spread (much less showcase or emphasize) misinformation.

I would also note that there are plenty of valid alternative images. I've linked to one, the Akha example, plenty of times (and see also Talk:Human/Image), and since multiple people seem not to have noticed (and I'm honestly surprised that no one in the course of this discussion has yet noted even a single problem this proposed replacement has, among all the people who have defended the Pioneer one despite its dozens of flaws!), I'll post it here (above right). However, I don't particularly care what photograph we use to replace the Pioneer image, since I think once we've eliminated the entrenched status quo the floodgates of high-quality images will open and we'll then have plenty of input, and time to carefully and reasonably whittle down a list of, some fantastic photographs of humans. Ultimately a real, satisfactory consensus will be reached, with an image that does not violate Wikipedia standards, policies or conventions like the plaque. But it's not going to happen if we never let Wikipedia do what it does best: be open and free to collaborate and experiment and discuss options, using both talkspace and articlespace, until a solution is reached. The fact that we've been so unwilling to do this with the Human lead image (perhaps because it's so prominent) has, I think, been the main reason we've failed to resolve this problem for so many years; but once we get started letting people actually actively collaborate and try new ideas, I really do think we'll be surprised by how quickly the editing process works to arrive at a vastly improved alternative. But in the meantime, incremental improvements are both desirable and necessary. -Silence (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The main objection has been the claim that the image we have has been censored. The image we have is not censored. Here is an example of if what we had was censored

Spot the difference ?.

. Do you see the obvious difference ?. I'm pretty confident that the image we have is not censored in that it is pretty close to the original image that was provided by the artist or as close a fair-use derivative to make no difference in recognising an example of the "human" species should you see one. If we had a censored image then it would obviously make it grounds for removal. But we don't. So...,

• The image we have is close to what the artist created i.e. it is not censored
• The image is to show what a human looks like to those unaware
• The image is from a reliable source
• There is no original research in using this image

A lede image serves the purpose of allowing us to recognise what a member of the species looks like. Thus what Sagan et al did is topical to us in WP in that the intent was to show what humans looked like to those that did not know what humans looked like ("Ah so that is what Species 5618 looks like !. Looks harmless enough. Small braincases I see."). This makes the Pioneer plaque uniquely placed to be the Human taxobox image. I actually am pretty confident most humans know what a human looks like so the Human taxobox is unique across all articles but it is quite possible that the objecting editors here were unaware of what humans look like and when they discovered that humans were not in fact line drawings that they understandably are complaining and so, yes we should hear that argument. I'd still be pretty amazed how we failed given most biological and artificial vision systems I know of rely on edge detection and so a line art drawing is always a good candidate for pattern matching but I'm no expert so perhaps if the objecting editors explained how their particular vision and pattern recognition systems worked then we can find a compromise image that works for all species-who-read-wikipedia.

If Sagan et al are not notable, not a reliable source or fringe as a source of an image that can be used to identify a human then that is a valid claim but I'm pretty confident he would be accepted as a source but I could be wrong. Why not poll that ? Ttiotsw (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, now — let's not get too cute and forget what's actually being discussed. You already tried this fallacious argument earlier. See Point 5 in my second post to this discussion:

""The image hasn't been censored because it accurately depicts what's on the Pioneer craft." - If this were Talk:Pioneer Plaque, you'd be correct. But this is Talk:Human. The image is supposed to depict a human, not the Pioneer Plaque. If it correctly depicts the plaque, but misrepresents what humans look like (which happens to be the case), then it's inappropriate for use on this article. It's that simple."

We are not, nor have we ever been, discussing censorship of the Plaque. We've been discussing whether or not the Plaque, faithfully represented, incorporates censorship of the human form. No editor on this talk page has ever claimed that the Plaque itself is being misrepresented, nor has that ever been one of the dozens of reasons put forward for removing Plaque from the top of Human. What has been claimed is that the human form is being misrepresented — a much more serious allegation, and obviously one that is much more relevant to Talk:Human, since our job here at Human is to accurately convey as much significant information as possible about humans (including about human anatomy) to our readers.

Based on your argument above, either you haven't been paying close attention to the exchange regarding censorship, or you are disingenuously trying to shift the topic of discussion away from what we've actually been concerned with — the misogynistic removal of the vulva from the female diagram (on the Pioneer Plaque actually sent into space, obviously), while leaving the male's sexual organs unaltered. (The same for this repeated canard about 'reliable sources', which reflects a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia image policies and WP:NOR; "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research.")

I will assume your good faith, and accordingly will remind you that the artist of this image admitted that the visible female genitalia were deliberately censored in it. Quoth the Sagan: "The decision to omit a very short line in this diagram was made partly because conventional representation in Greek statuary omits it. But there was another reason: Our desire to see the message successfully launched on Pioneer 10. In retrospect, we may have judged NASA's scientific-political hierarchy as more puritanical than it is." Mark Wolverton attests that the original version included a "short line indicating the woman's vulva." So, Sagan admits that the vulva was removed out of fear of offending people who were OK with seeing a penis, but not with seeing female genitalia. The facts are right there, plain as day. Cut and dry. This is not a matter of dispute. What boggles the mind is that, having established this censorship as fact, some are still defending the image as an illustration at the top of our article on the human species despite its blatant, and deliberate, inaccuracy. This is about as clear-cut of a case as one finds on Wikipedia: The pic's gotta go. Our job is, among other things, to teach people about human biology (including anatomy) — not to parrot deliberate misrepresentations as fact. -Silence (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Given you understand the past history of the subject and want to change consensus (which you have every right to do) then the next step should probably be more formal WP:DR when you hit an impasse rather than aiming for longer and longer Talk page discussions. If this article was about Human biology then a more accurate picture may be needed. It isn't. It is about "Human" the species. The image we have allows the viewer to identify a human should they ever see one and has clean copyright and has broad support from a number of editors. I think you should start an WP:RFC or WP:REVIEW if you want to break this impasse. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aiming for longer discussions, I'm aiming for a mutual understanding through discussion. As I said, I'm open to your arguments, and hopefully you are open to mine, so there is no reason we can't resolve this simply by assessing the issues and presenting our cases reasonably. If you think outside intervention is needed, feel free to appeal to it. But I don't see what the big deal is, myself.

Incidentally, this article is about human biology — and human culture, society, etc. But the very fact that you suggested a false dichotomy between "Human biology" (which is an article about the field called 'human biology') and "'Human' the species" is bizarre, since 'species' is a biological term! Every species article is by definition biological; humans are alive, are they not? Regardless, spreading misinformation about human anatomy is not appropriate for any encyclopedia article, be it about 'human biology' or the 'human species'. The Pioneer Plaque image belongs on our Pioneer article, because it is relevant and necessary there; it doesn't belong on our Human article, especially not at the top, where it only conceals, simplistically caricatures, and misleads with regard to the human form. -Silence (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why we are still having this silly discussion for the five-thousandth time. In my mind, a short sketch line representing a woman's vulva is really not the most defining feature of human beings, as Martin Hogbin and apparently Silence seem to feel (and write about at many, many thousands of words in length). Maybe Sagan and the Pioneer team should have added/retained an extra little line... I really do not care very much, but inasmuch as anyone might, that seems like it belongs in the Pioneer article or somewhere like that. It continues to seem to me that the fact that we humans are bipedal, with a symmetrical body planned, opposable thumbs, eyes and mouth in the head, divided into two genders, mostly hairless, and, well, technologically capable of launching things into space seems a lot more interesting than the exact angle of some missing line (or whether testicles hang 10% lower than a penis, or whatever it is that is supposedly so desperately falsified in the illustration). LotLE×talk 08:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We have not been the only ones to complain about the unsuitability of the current image.. If you look back of the history of this page you will see several editors who have mentioned the subject. No one is claiming the missing line is representative or a defining feature of human beings. The only reason that it is being discussed is that a decision was made to intentionally miss this part of the body out. Had the plaque had an eye missing, I would be complaining about that. This is not just censorship but censorship in its most insidious form. Had certain parts of the image been blacked out, as in the diagram on this page above, it would at least be clear that he image had been censored. To remove a part of the body, with no sign that it had ever been there is more typical of the actions of a totalitarian dictatorship. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Then start an WP:RFC or WP:REVIEW. The most recent analogy is with the images on Muhammad. Some objected to a particular presentation of Muhammad. The consensus was to have the images they objected to in the article on the grounds that Wikipedia is not censored. The same applies here. We have an image - we're not questioning its creation (in the Muhammad case I'm pretty sure all the images are artists impressions of Muhammad rather than true-to-life) - but that it depicts the subject. Ultimately the grounds for rejecting those appeals is that Wikipedia is not censored. In this same way, it is you who wants to censor the image we have from this Wikipedia article. Though Silence says WP:CCC I seriously doubt that the consensus on the images in the Muhammad will change though periodically some quixotically try. I feel a cross-over to this article for this image.

The grounds for rejection are if it fails in its duty of informing the reader what a member of this species looks like, if it has copyright issues or if there is a "better" image. Better on the grounds of a better copyright e.g. PD verses CC verses Fair-use or it better informs the reader about the human species. The thought and effort that has gone into the Pioneer image to help show what a human looks like make a good candidate and I think its copyright is very good. You have to beat that. If you have failed here in Talk then start WP:DR if you do not like this summary. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As Silence has said, some of the arguments are taking a surreal turn. Objecting to something because it has been censored is not normally considered censorship. A good example of real censorship is what you get if you search on the Chinese version of Google for Tienanmen Square. You do not see pictures of the protests with the tanks blacked out, you just get pictures with no tanks in, taken on the days when there were no protests. That is far worse because it is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's amusing that you'd even try to suggest that I have "failed" here in talk; the discussion has barely started, and already numerous problems have been put forward regarding the Pioneer plaque, while zero problems have been put forward regarding the image I proposed as a replacement. Moreover, most of the support for the plaque has been based on a defense which violates Wikipedia policy, per WP:CON: "Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." Another relevant line from WP:CON, "Consensus is not in numbers": "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." The strength of consensus is directly correlated with the strength of the reasons behind that consensus. If you want to build a solid consensus, then, your task right now isn't to simply have strength in numbers; you must respond to the arguments put forward with some compelling, overwhelming reasons for allowing inaccuracies on the top of Human, and for why the alternative images are absolutely, unambiguously unacceptable. On Wikipedia, editorial decisions are not a battle of popularity; they're a collaborative exchange of reasoning.

As a side-note, I expect an apology for the dishonest tactic used in "In this same way, it is you who wants to censor the image we have from this Wikipedia article." at some point. Equating an editorial decision about using one image as opposed to another (where both have the same content, but one has more of it in the form of greater photographic detail) with "censorship," while at the same time denying that deliberately removing the human genitalia from a nude drawing is (self-imposed) "censorship," is as much an insult to the English language as an unwarranted failure to assume good faith. Both you and I are above such word games. I have not accused you of "censoring" the image you removed from the top of Human, even though it is the exact same action. 'Cause that'd be silly. :]

I also don't know if Lulu expects that I'll disagree with any of his points. If so, you'll be disappointed; I have never said that the vulva is "a defining feature of human beings"; all I've said is that it's a feature of human beings, which is sufficient grounds for eschewing a nude image that has deliberately censored it. If the middle fingers of the humans in the Pioneer Plaque had been removed instead, I'd be just as opposed to its use on Human, even though I don't think that middle fingers are a "defining feature" either. (Although hopefully we would agree that the female reproductive system is a tad bit more important than a particular digit.) Moreover, I agree that "the exact angle of some missing line" is not the most "interesting" aspect of the Human article; I am not discussing this at length because I wish to, nor because it's what most "interests" me. I'm raising the problem because it's an important problem. This isn't fun - it's work. (The fun part comes later.) I'm plenty bored too, but being bored is not a valid excuse for using an inaccurate and informationally lacking (compared to just about any photograph) doodle as the lead image of the Human article. This is not a big philosophical issue; it has nothing to do with how 'important' you consider one part of anatomy or another. It's a straightforward matter: The image isn't anatomically accurate, and therefore isn't serving our readers if its goal is to show readers the human form. The degree or nature of the inaccuracy doesn't matter at all, because there are plenty of completely accurate alternatives available — photos, which by their nature mitigate the subjectivity, simplification, and idealization of a drawing. -Silence (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My two cents; I think the Pioneer image is fine for the lead, especially given it's purpose of giving a general impression of our species to a possibly non-humanoid race. There are a lot of details that aren't going to be captured in a simple drawing. We have plenty of close-up photographs of anatomical parts (Vulva included) on their respective pages. I don't see why the lead image for a broad topic such as Human should be required to show every aspect of human external anatomy. It can be argued that there was a bit of censorship on the part of the original illustrators, but I don't think Wikipedia's use of the image implies censorship in this context. Really; we're talking about a single, short pencil line. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need an image that shows the vulva; personally I don't think we need nude humans at the top of the article at all, since we don't show a nude hermit crab on Hermit crab. Perhaps a more realistic and detailed anatomical image should be added instead of the Pioneer one, in the Biology section. All that matters is that if we show an image intended to represent nude humans, the image represent anatomical features accurately. If we show clothed humans in the lead, their clothes and visible body parts should be accurately rendered; and if we show nude humans in the lead, their bodies should be accurately rendered. As I see it, there are two different choices, the latter being preferable because it is what almost every other species article does:

1. Make the top image a nude anatomical illustration. In this case, the most important thing is that it faithfully and accurately present the human body. This is its function for the article, so the absolute worst situation would be if the anatomical diagram or photograph contained inaccuracies — or, worse still, deliberate inaccuracies stemming from cultural taboos infecting the anatomical accuracy.
2. Alternatively: Make the top image a normal photograph of any old human, clothed and in a human environment, e.g., a field, town, city, etc. This is probably the best choice, because it will show that humans aren't usually seen nude, just as the Hermit crab article does. Moreover, this will completely negate any worries about censorship, since there won't be any visible genitalia to censor (unless we happen to choose, say, a photo of some tribe that does not fully conceal its genitalia in public, which would be fine too). Then we can provide a real, uncensored, accurate anatomical image of a nude human in the appropriate section of the article — the discussion of human biology, etc. This compromise would be the best of both worlds: we'd provide all the same information and more, without any of the controversial censorship and cultural bias inherent in the Pioneer Plaque. And we'd be following the conventions established on every other Wikipedia article, particularly the other species articles, which whenever possible eschew drawings, especially censored drawings, drawings which don't depict an environment around the organism, and drawings which don't depict important normally-seen trappings of the organism, e.g., body hair, clothing, fingernails, etc. -Silence (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't have an issue with the Pioneer illustration, I wouldn't have objections to alternate illustrations that met the criteria that you describe. Do you know of any GFDL illustrations that satisfy that criteria? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I question Silence's assumption that all species lede should use same criteria on the grounds that the purpose of the image in the lede in the taxobox for Human will intrinsically be different from the images of other species simply because all conscious readers of the article are human (at this time). Thus all these readers already know what a human looks like. Adding an image to show what a human looks like is a waste of time. This is why an image that is intended to inform non-humans what a human looks like is a more appropriate image because every human in the world already knows what a human looks like. This cannot be said for any other species (i.e. there is no other species in the world that every human knows what it looks like). Therefore the conventions used on other species articles need not apply on this one species article simply because of the species of the article readership makes the conventions used on other species article not always applicable. Ttiotsw (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ttiotsw, I've already addressed your point that our readers are human. This is not a sufficient grounds for suspending Wikipedia policy, and such reasoning is explicitly discouraged by Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. Our readers are also all Wikipedia users, but we treat the Wikipedia article the same way we treat every other article on an encyclopedia or reference tool. Our readers are all (at least to some degree) English-speakers, but we treat the English language article the same way we treat other languages' articles.

Besides, even if there are some exceptions we have to make for Humans as opposed to other species (and there clearly are some: just look at our extensive culture section!), that doesn't mean that one of those exceptions should be the suspension of Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality, accuracy, and not censoring relevant information, all of which are violated if we use the Pioneer Plaque as Human's sole nude anatomical image. (And, remember, I'm not claiming that we are censoring the Plaque; I'm claiming that the Plaque, by its creators' own admission, comes pre-censored, which makes using it as our only illustration of nude humans on Human inappropriate.) We still have standards. If you think that depicting humans is a waste of time, then why not remove all the pictures from this article? And if you think depicting the vulva (but, apparently, not the penis..?) when we present full-body anatomical illustrations is a waste of time, then you do not comprehend the fact that many of our readers are youths and people from cultures where information about the genitals (especially the female genitals) is scarce or even suppressed. Propagating misconceptions and obscenity taboos regarding female genitalia, especially when we propagate such images in a double-standard mode by not also using censored images of the penis, is directly contrary to Wikipedia's central goal of spreading reliable information to its readers. (Remember: Most of our readers are male, and if you think that every male already knows what a naked female really looks like.... :)) -Silence (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jamie, I collected a list of various candidate images at Talk:Human/Image a while back, and I recently added a couple more upon request. Of these, I think File:Akha cropped.png is the best compromise image; although I'm not completely happy with every aspect of it, it does avoid all the valid concerns and controversies surrounding the Pioneer Plaque, is visually clear and vibrant even at 200px, and treats humans the same way we treat every other species in its article: in a natural environment, with expected trappings (in this case, clothes, accessories, tools, and held objects rather than a spider's web or a crab's shell). It even has both a male and female depicted side-by-side, a surprisingly difficult requirement to find fulfilled in our free-use photos (many of my other very good image candidates have the sole shortcoming of lacking an adult male and female, e.g., File:Bonda umbrella s.jpg and File:IMG 8829a.jpg and File:Cambodia family.jpg and File:Tikar crop.png — though strictly speaking this isn't necessary, since it isn't done on most other species articles, I've made an effort to find such multi-sexed images partly to avoid controversy and partly because it does significantly enhance the image's informational content, as long as the sexes are depicted accurately). -Silence (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of any of those photos, as they focus too much on particular cultural aspects of humanity; i.e, they're really no different than representing humanity as a blonde white couple sitting at a coctail bar. This is why I tend to favor the drawings. I'll admit that the hair is perhaps a bit on the occidental side of things, but the facial features seem to be fairly neutral in terms of racial characteristics. Perhaps we could come up with some sort of compound photo depicting a wide range of humans? (similar to what we do with articles on ethnicities)? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend reading through Talk:Human/Image a bit, as I covered this very issue extensively there. To summarize: It is not the function of any article's lead image to encapsulate or symbolize every possible subgroup or type of the subject matter. For example, on Ice cream we aren't obliged to include a collage of all the different major flavors, brands, or styles of ice cream. All that's needed is a single image illustrating various important features of ice cream. In fact, a collage would actually be inferior to a single image, for three reasons: first, it would introduce bias in which images we exclude, since it would then become more arbitrary that we have included, say, 5 images rather than 6, or 6 rather than 7, etc. (this isn't a problem for one image because our exclusion criterion is non-arbitrary; rather than saying arbitrarily "we're setting a limit at 7", we simply don't allow the possibility of additional images, and thus needn't justify the particular number we settle on); second, it would introduce bias in what criterion we use for selecting images — if we try to include one human of each race, for example, that will show that we're biased toward the view that race is an important indicator of human diversity; and third, it will require that we make all the images smaller than they would have been on their own, thus diminishing rather than increasing the relevant informational content we present, since the information we're trying to present at the top of Human is the basic defining characteristics of humans (e.g., bipedalism, upright gait, opposable thumbs, an enlarged skull, use of technology and culture, complex society and intercommunication, etc.), not a generic hodgepodge of token diversity.

For comparison's sake, look at almost any other species article. Frog is an article about 5,000+ species, yet it settled on just a single image to go at the top of the article. This despite the fact that Frog covers a subject matter thousands of times more biologically diverse than Humans. Same for Vertebrate, Eukaryote, Primate, Carnivore, Mushroom, or for that matter Society, Molecule, Star, City, or Nurse. In all these cases (and billions more — to some extent or another, every article, even a biography article, cannot be fully encapsulated by a single still image), one could make the case that we need a collage. But this is not how images are usually selected for articles, it is not necessary, and it introduces more problems than it fixes. Far better to just do what we do for most articles: Pick some random (but of quite adequate quality) image of the subject matter for the top of the article, and then include other images of the subject matter lower down in the article, so that the end effect is the same as if we'd used a collage, but more gracefully and efficiently presented by distributing the image of different cultures around the page, wherever appropriate.

Also note that, while collages are an extreme rarity among species articles, drawings are absolutely unheard of when there's a viable photographic alternative. So, while there's at least a little precedent for using a collage (even though it wouldn't serve our purposes well here, since we need to show a full human body in as much detail as possible and not just a bunch of faces), there's absolutely no precedent for using crude, detail-lacking black-and-white sketches for any taxon that has available photos. (Also, I'd like to echo your point that the Pioneer Plaque just worsens this problem, because for a variety of reasons it appears to depict white people. Although this evidently wasn't the artists' intent, we've received a large number of complaints about the seemingly "caucasian" features on the Pioneer Plaque. Perhaps part of the problem is that the image's caucasian features, like the hair style, are very prominent, whereas the changes intended to introduce other ethnicities are more subtle — the woman's eyes, for example, arguably seem slightly slanted (maybe?), but not on Human, where the image is too small for that to be noticed. So, one way or another, the unfortunate effect of the image is to give many the appearance of racial favoritism. But at least we can say with some confidence that this is unintentional, unlike the deliberate and intended sexism of the image. That's something, at least.) -Silence (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I did read through Talk:Human/Image; a lot of fair points are raised, though quite a bit is from one viewpoint (User:Silence). Just saying. If I had to chose a candidate image from that bunch, I'd lean toward Cambodian family; it's a simple family scene with a bit of age and gender variability (though it'd be nice if there was a slightly wider age distribution). That said, I think we should keep looking. I certainly don't have my heart set on the Pioneer plaque, as the objections raised are cetainly reasonble. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyone is free to edit Talk:Human/Image, and I'd love to see more viewpoints expressed there (especially arguments against any erroneous points I made). The only reason it's mostly me there is because most people have too much of a life to bother exploring these issues in so much detail. :p But I do think that the arguments there all reflect normal Wikipedia policies and conventions, or at the very least ubiquitous editorial habits. Likewise, I encourage anyone interested to join me in continuing to search for better alternatives; even once we've removed the Pioneer image to replace it with whichever photograph is most adequate for the time being, we can continue trying images for some time until a new status quo is attained. There's nothing wrong with a little image instability once every decade or so on an article :P The world will not end; indeed, it's positively helpful and healthy to see what good ideas people can come up with.

Also, aesthetically at least, I agree with you that File:Cambodia_family.jpg is the most appealing of the proposed images. It's a great composition, and full of useful information (though possibly it might be improved for our purposes by cropping one of the extra kids out..?). The only reason I haven't promoted it is because it has lots of children, but no adult male, which could make it controversial. Since the editors here seem to be very controversy-averse (almost to a fault), I figured the easiest compromise image would be the one most similar in basic content (other than the nude one I listed) to the current Plaque, but with the extant problems remedied: File:Akha cropped.png. Still, I care much less about which particular photo we choose, than about us choosing a photo at all in order to bring the article up to the standard of every other species article on the wiki. I don't want us to get so bogged down in the imperfections of the alternatives that we forget the anatomical inaccuracies, lacunae of visual information, and latent misogyny expressed in the Plaque. As I noted above, we have a lot of mediocre-to-quite-good photographs, vs. an atrociously uninformative and biased drawn caricature. Not to beat an undead horse, but the disparity between the Plaque and the photos outweighs any disparities between the photos themselves by an order of magnitude. -Silence (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)