Talk:Human/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Sociality, or lack thereof

"Humans are highly social beings and tend to live in large complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families and kinship networks to political states." (Emphasis mine)

Humanity is an incredibly diverse species which currently and historically includes extremely non-social examples such as Anchorites, Hermits, and secular loners of various inclinations.

Humanity also includes individuals who pair-bond, but are otherwise non-social.

Extrapolating from a subset of humanity which is parasocial or eusocial to make a generalization about "humans" as a whole is inaccurate and doesn't belong here without appropriate context. Even if a citation exists for this claim the ample number of counter-citations available here at wikipedia itself show this to be inaccurate and an overgeneralization.

Please note that even solitary animals such as the jaguar can be social when they are born, raised, and trained in a circus. This situational fact says nothing about their underlying nature, nor does it change biologists' classification of their sociality. 2601:648:8402:88C0:C858:EBBE:D992:F228 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The quoted sentence is from the lead, and I think it is clear from reading the article that this is a fair summary of the extensive discussion of the social nature of humans in the article, and the associated references for the individual claims. As you emphasised it includes the word tend, indicating that not all humans adhere to these social norms. The fact that Wikipedia pages exist for alternative approaches bears no weight (given over 6 million now exist). Feel free to suggest alternative phrasing for the sentence, or other content of the article, and we can see what consensus comes out of it. However, I do not on the face of it agree that it is incorrect. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  20:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Spaully, I'm editing from my work computer now. The word "are", indicating innate universality is my major issue with the quoted text. Here is alternative phrasing: "Humans are culturally social tending to live in large complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families and kinship networks, to corporations and political states."

This phrasing does not speak to the biological socialness of humans, or subsets thereof, but of the cultures which have been historically created by us. It also removes the undefined superlative "highly". I think we can all agree that various insect and molerat species demonstrate a higher degree of biological sociality than even the most inbred hierarchical human groupings. It's only historically that human groupings have exceeded those of herbivores and various bird species in terms of socialness. Stating an absolute about the social innateness of humans over something that has only happened recently (outside the timeline of biological evolution to realistically change us) is unsupportable.

I don't want to get into the article claims themselves. I don't have the time to read them and I know the sheer amount of them would just trigger me. :)

Please note also that it's not just the wikipedia pages that are citations against the innateness of a particular degree of sociality throughout all humans, but the references on those pages as well. Sociobiologists by their personal and collective nature are incentivized to generalize socialness, especially when it comes to their own species.

If someone with a login could edit this in I'd appreciate it. Thanks, 128.3.105.34 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Current wording:

Humans are highly social beings and tend to live in large complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families and kinship networks to political states.

Your proposed wording:

Humans are culturally social tending to live in large complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families and kinship networks, to corporations and political states.

Just picking out in quotes your proposed change - I understand your reasoning and your request amounts to a small change, but don't think I know enough about it to judge if it is an improvement, so I will leave it to subsequent readers to change. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this change. Humans are overwhelmingly and innately social. Hermits and the like are the exceptions that prove the rule and are often a consequence of that sociality. Religious hermits do so as a result of religion, which is an aspect of human culture (sociality) and a result of socially learned religious teachings. Even "loners" are far more social than a wild big cat, unless they live in the wild and hunt and eat raw food (even something as low-tech as firemaking is a socially learned technology), which would probably kill them. I note that the IP has offered no WP:Reliable sources for their claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Publication is a social activity, of course we loners and non-innately-social pair-bonders will be less likely to publish. At least get rid of the "highly", please, for the reasons mentioned previously. 2601:648:8402:88C0:C858:EBBE:D992:F228 (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a list of citations:

1) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30266934/ (Dealing with theoretical loners in the cooperation game).

2) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2398449/ Loner adolescents less likely to be deliquent. "little attention has been focused on those adolescents with low peer involvement. These are the students who are viewed by classmates as “loners” or “nerds,” those students who simply do not fit into the culture of their classmates." (emphasis mine - little attention has been paid to loners by researchers, thus the dearth of information on the existence of loners in humanity. Again, I made this point with the Jaguars - put them into a social system and they will behave socially, despite their innate preferences, just like us.)

"It is often assumed that students are either highly attached to peers or to parents. But some research suggests that there are those students who are low in interaction with both groups, and who spend considerable amounts of time alone [l]."

This paper mentions various negative things about loners as well as the positive.

3) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21142996/

"They were categorized into three groups depending on their online life-styles: a Social group (SG), anIndividual group (IG), and a Loner group (LG)."

"The final percentages were: a social group (SG): 32.4%(males: 33.3% females: 31.5%); an individualistic group (IG):41.3% (males; 42.2%, females: 39.8%); and a loner group (LG)26.5% (males: 24.5%, females: 28.5%)"

"The first group, the social group(SG), displayed higher scores for community orientation(0.79), extroversion (0.70), and interdependence (0.53) factors.Those who were included in this group valued their online relationships with others. The major purpose of their Internet use was to maintain their relationships with others using interpersonal services such as online communities, personal homepages or blogs, and instant messenger services. The second group, the individualistic group (IG), had higher scores for sensation seeking (0.53) and independence (0.64)factors, while displaying a lowered interest in community orientation (�0.41) and interdependence (0.21) factors. Those who were included in this group attended to their self-interest, ignoring the responses of others. The third group, the loners group (LG), displayed the lowest scores on the seven factors. Those who were included in this group tended to be skeptical about all online values and held an apathetic attitude toward their online experience."

"The group differences in the level of cyber ethics were noticeable. The IG with its characteristic of sensation seeking and independence reported the lowest scores, while the LG with its characteristic of apathetic attitude toward the Internet reported the highest scores." - this agrees with paper 2's findings.

Yes, I know these are all primary sources. Other than anecdotal blog posts I haven't looked much for other sources. As a scientist I find it much easier to search Pubmed than to search a library for secondary sources. But this should at least indicate that humans, as a whole, are not innately "highly social". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8402:88C0:C858:EBBE:D992:F228 (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also @Crossroads: "even something as low-tech as firemaking is a socially learned technology" - Jaguars, a solitary animal (not even solitary but social), train their young. Not all learning is social, or at the very least not all teaching is done by social species. 2601:648:8402:88C0:C858:EBBE:D992:F228 (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Good article

@Aircorn and @Boghog: I have been looking at this article, and I see that you two have made many recent edits improving the article. I believe it would be improper for me to nominate this as a good article, so I am asking you if you believe that would be appropriate. I believe the issues raised in the previous good article nomination have been resolved. Tol | Talk | Contribs 22:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Aircorn deserves the lion share of the credit for careful editing, I just cleaned up the refs. For reference, here is the last GA review: Talk:Human/GA1. It seems that most of the previous shortcoming have been addressed. I am willing to help, but I don't feel qualified to take the lead in the bring this article to GA. Boghog (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright; I will be interested in his or her comment. I rarely expand articles, so this is not anywhere near my area of expertise. Tol | Talk | Contribs 21:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. Away at the moment so just replying on mobile. My edits have been aimed towards getting this article up to good standard. I recently contacted the previous GA reviewer (can someone else ping them here, not sure how to do so on mobile) on there talk page and they still feel the focus is to much on evolution and pre history. I will probably look at trimming that some more when I get back. I do feel the rest is pretty good though. Thanks boghog for the cite clean ups. 122.56.198.167 (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have pinged him. Tol | Talk | Contribs 23:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I told this to Aircorn on my talkpage so I'll just copypaste it here: I don't think the human article nears GA specifically because it's far too heavy on anatomy and evolution than anything else. Like, the technology section stops at the Neolithic. For prehistory, I'd like to retain it to only a small subsection of History and for it to only include basic and minimal concepts. Like, humans descended from australopithecines and H. erectus, maybe a quick note about the extinction of other recent human species, the transition to sedentism, then the Neolithic Revolution. Then we move to the Ancient history (or Classical history) subsection, Post-classical, then finally Modern history. This is because we simply have so many records from these time periods, and most humans indeed lived in recorded history, it seems WP:UNDUE to lean so hard into prehistory even though this is how the species lived for the longest amount of time. According to this, like 99% of humans who have ever existed lived in recorded history, so it doesn't make sense to delve so far into prehistory. This includes every section, namely in Culture. And these are just my critiques on how you handle the past (like you never mention reproductive anatomy). I would say the greatest failing of the human article is that it was written by paleontologists (or at least it reads that way), when it actually requires an all-hands-on-deck approach from just about every WikiProject. The most effective way I can see human getting to quality status is if you reach out to some of the broader WikiProjects and organize a massive collaboration (namely WP:WikiProject History, WP:WikiProject Military history, WP:WikiProject Economics, WP:WikiProject Politics, WP:WikiProject Arts, WP:WikiProject Music, WP:WikiProject Anatomy, WP:WikiProject Psychology, and WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality), though this is by no means an easy task   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. I agree with most of what you say. Still not sure about the Undue, but there is definitely too much focus on pre history in many sections. Will work on it some more soon. Will drop some notes at the wikiprojects, but I have generally found it most effective when someone motivated just mucks in and is bold. Of course any extra help or opinions will be appreciated though. Aircorn (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Aza24's comments

Hi all, I'm seeing this from the Arts project post. Wow, tremendous work thus far—though I agree with some of Dunkleosteus's sentiments (who, himself, got Neathanderthal to GA). However, I'm not sure if the information on the scientific aspects is too heavy, or if the scientific topics are fine and the issue is that other topics have too little—if that makes sense. Some comments:

• I'm not aware that "rationality" is really a field in philosophy, a more accurate, and extremely prominent one would be logic, that should probably be included in its own right anyways
  • The source says Its critical role is realised only when it is conceived to be closely related to all the other philosophical fields such as metaphysics, axiology, and rationality It also says student of philosophy will typically be taught many of the sub-disciplines of philosophy including metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, epistemology, philosophy of language, political philosophy, and many others.student of philosophy will typically be taught many of the sub-disciplines of philosophy including metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, epistemology, philosophy of language, political philosophy, and many others. which is more relevant, so I changed it to logic and wikilinked. Aircorn (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• There might be something to be said about the fact that for most of recorded history cultures have been led by religious (or philosophical equivilants), until perhaps very recently (this may be some speculation on my part, but it's how I understand it).
  • You are likely right, but I am not finding a decent source for this from a quick google. Aircorn (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Even though the article should doubtlessly be brief, something certainly needs to be said about later technologies, namely, flight, paper/printing (perhaps look at the Four Great Inventions), space travel, internet, just for starters. Even if recent, some of these achievements are so significant that they would seem odd not to include, even if only brief word or two
  • Given this feedback and the above from Dunkleosteus I will look at adding more modern tech to the technology section. Aircorn (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Went a bit listy, but hope this provides better coverage. Aircorn (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• (History section) The colonization of Africa and parts of Asia should probably be mentioned; something like "the flourishing of the arts" should probably be before mentioning the Renaissance. There also seems to be a lack of contextual dates given in the section, i.e. for the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Renaissance, Mongol invasions etc.
  • I made a specific mention to the Scramble for Africa in "colonizing new regions". Not sure what you mean by "flourishing of the arts"? I didn't want it to become too bogged down with dates as sometimes this seems to interrupt the flow. I will add a few key ones though and try and tie the paragraphs to them. Aircorn (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Historians have identified two major scientific revolutions in human history. " Wow—Westernmania! The Islamic Golden Age and Han Dynasty (see Science and technology of the Han dynasty) seem like glaring omissions
  • Okay. Added them in and reworded Aircorn (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• The link to Scientific Revolutions is not what you think it is BTW
  • Fixed Aircorn (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• "In the middle east Islam became the prominent religion (a period known as the Islamic Golden Age)" is a bit nonsensical. The Islamic Golden Age was a flourishing of Science, Philosophy and the Arts; sure, it helped the spread of Islam, but there were plenty of other, just as important factors (see Spread of Islam). To define the Islamic Golden Age as when Islam became a prominent religion in the middle east is misleading, at the least.
  • Its mentioned under science now Aircorn (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• The Art section should probably be called "The Arts" for completeness's sake. But anyways, the overview is nice, but lacking in some perhaps crucial aspects. For instance, it might be worth discussing briefly how all the arts can be combined into forms such as film or operas/musicals. Briefly mentioning the arts' use in ritual/religion and political agendas (which is kind of discussed but vaguely) seems important as well
  • Okay, added an intro paragraph. Aircorn (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• " reading and writing does not come naturally to humans and must be taught" sounds quite a bit misleading, and is poorly sourced. Universal grammar is by no means fringe, and if anything it is among the most prominent views on the subject.
• The war section feels minuscule, and it doesn't seem stressed enough that we are the only animal that actively, repeatedly and consistently kills their own species. I may be ill-educate on this though
  • Are we though?[1] With qualifiers (most of the other animal killings aare infantcide, whereas we concentrate on killing adults). Never been sure about this section. It might be better to expand it to violence in general or even include things like crime, punishment slavery etc. Aircorn (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Every territorial species shows these patterns of aggression. Chimps are known to have gone to war (I think we got at least 1 article on a chimp war), it's just they don't seem as common because human hunting has decimated their populations, so border disputes aren't as common. Now that gorilla populations are on the upswing, we're seeing violent behavior that we once thought was wholly uncharacteristic   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• "storytelling may also have been used as a way to provide the audience with moral lessons and encourage cooperation"–Well, it is? Why do we talk about it like humans were from thousands of years ago?
  • Made it more a present thing. Aircorn (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just some initial thoughts. Aza24 (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As someone who studied linguistics at university level I assure you UG is a fringe view in overall linguistics even though Origin of language is disputed. (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Fringe seems like a stretch, maybe not the majority view. Either way, sourcing to The Atlantic for such a claim seem dubious. Aza24 (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Maybe I am not seeing something, but Universal Grammar seems to apply to language not writing and reading. I will look for some better sources though. Aircorn (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Final comments

@Dunkleosteus77, Aza24, Tol, Buidhe, and Boghog: and anyone else watching. I will be looking to nominate this article by the end of the week. Any further comments welcome before then or during the review once it is open. Aircorn (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I still think you're going too deep into prehistory or anatomy in the Culture section. For example, almost your entire discussion on art focuses around neurology, evolutionary pressures, the oldest examples, rather than art history, art theory, music theory, dance theory. Again, I'd like to see evolution or prehistory minimized to a small paragraph or a couple sentences, and then we move onto recorded history, symbolic meaning, beauty, things of this nature. The arts is not about neurology or natural selection   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I sympathize with the above comment, but honestly, things like Art and music history may be more or less impossible to sum up succinctly—mainly because the topics are so diverse and unique around the world that there are not unifying features in say, the evolution of Chinese art and European art (until, perhaps the last 150 years). Plus if these topics were to be included, I'd seem odd to not include religious history and possibly even the history of Language. I wonder if a more apt solution would be to add something about the modern manifestation of these things. Akin to how the "Religion and spirituality" section has modern statistics, maybe the arts section could include something brief about how art museums and concert halls are wide spread throughout the world, and how music has become widely accessible due to technology or something. Aza24 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand, but this is probably near the limit of my ability at the moment. Somewhat surprisingly, the biggest issue has been finding sources that give an overview of the topic, as most of the more reliable ones are more focused on a single aspect. I don't want to be stuck at this article for months on end and even if it is not at GA level it is still vastly improved from when I first started editing it. The criteria aren't really that strict in any case, and I have enough experience there to know that this is close to meeting them.

I am not really comfortable reducing the evolution section more. Elephant, Hippopotamus and Giraffe (all FA's) for example have a similarly sized section (not including the anatomical adaptions sub section, which I feel is important). As for pre history vs recorded history I am also not comfortable going any further. Two thirds is recorded history so it is already weighted in that direction. I could start a RFC if you want on these two issues.

The reason it probably seems to rely heavily on evolutionary aspects is A) that's more my area and B) I was trying to tie the concepts back to humans. For example we had basic uncited definitions of what things were:

• War is a state of organized armed conflict between states or non-state actors
• Art may be defined as a form of cultural expression and the usage of narratives of liberation and exploration (i.e. art history, art criticism, and art theory) to mediate its boundaries.
• Music is a natural intuitive phenomenon based on the three distinct and interrelated organization structures of rhythm, harmony, and melody.
• Trade is the voluntary exchange of goods and services, and is a form of economic activity
• Literature, the body of written—and possibly oral—works, especially creative ones, includes prose, poetry and drama, both fiction and non-fiction.

They mostly commented on them as abstract things instead of actually explaining human involvement in them. MAybe I went to far, but I prefer it this way as it generally explains how the concepts came about in humans and how it has affected humans. Aircorn (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Will look into putting something more into art, but it could be a bugger to cite. Aircorn (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph of Evolution is haphazardly structured. It starts with the split from other Hominini (chimpanzees) but then goes all the way back to gibbons and then works down to chimps again. In addition, saying gibbons and orangs "were the first groups to split from the lineage leading to humans" seems poorly worded as the lineage leading to human could stretch back to the first lifeforms. LittleJerry (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair. I think Primates is the logical starting point. Aircorn (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My problem is you find it more important to say "Beyond simply passing down knowledge the use and sharing of imaginative fiction through stories might have helped develop humans capabilities for communication and increased the likelihood of securing a mate" instead of "The arts make use of symbolism, themes, motifs, and so forth to portray or consider some aspect of the human condition, which encapsulates the essential components of human existence."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also the evolution section is incredibly outdated. For example (one of many) the statement “ the evolution of a power and precision grip, a change first occurring in H. erectus” is sourced to something from 1965, before Homo habilis or even a second Australopithecus species were even described   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Conservation status/environmental impact

Doesn’t anyone find it interesting that we can’t view the species H. Sapiens objectively? Most of the biological/ecological entries list conservation status, native environment/location, and areas in which invasive presence pose an environmental threat. Let’s face it. H. Sapiens is an invasive species, posing vast degrees of threats to environments around the world. It also preys on specific flora and fauna in complex social structures, and even has aggressive tendencies towards specific species. H. Sapiens has relative control over the entire planet, but is not above ecology. People read the page, but should they not be given an objective ecological view of the species? This dives into some ethics, as people don’t normally think of themselves as something bad, but collectively, WE are. Should humanity stay sheltered from the fact that it’s role as a species is different in a negative way? Why? Axeyop (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We can copy some stuff over from Holocene extinction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I entirely approve of making this page more objective/adding more about ecology. Humans are a biological species, not some magical exception. Joe (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Holocene extinction is briefly mentioned in habitat, what else do you propose adding? The other points are covered somewhat in other sections. Adding conservation status doesn't make much sense as it is a human construct. Aircorn (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Adding conservation status doesn't make much sense as it is a human construct." Phylogenetic trees are also human constructs, shall we dispense with phylogenetic trees in this article? Maps are human constructs, shall we eliminate those as well? Geological periods are human constructs, do we want to get rid of all mentions geological periods as well? If we can't have conservation status in this article because it's a human construct, we can't have any of those things either. Come to think of it, language is a human construct, and this article is just chock-full with language! I say, we should get rid of all human constructs on the Human page immediately and just leave it as a blank white slate.

I am more convinced than ever that this page should have a conservation status for humans. Joe (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This has come up a few times,[2] lets just RFC it Aircorn (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoting the well-written FAQ at the top of this page (emphasis added):

Another method some editors use to help maintain a neutral point of view is to imagine being an extraterrestrial writing about a strange species called "human." How would your perspective be different? Do be careful not to overdo it, though — too much "alien mode" will just make the article seem even more bizarrely worded!

In other words our job is to write an article respecting the range of perspectives on humanity in published, reliable sources – not to act out a creative writing exercise in pretending we're alien encyclopaedists. It can be helpful to pretend we're writing about Just Another Species as a heuristic, but the ecological perspective is not intrinsically more "objective" than other ways of studying humanity (notably the humanities), and that body of reliable sources reflects the reality that we are all, in fact, humans, writing about humans, for humans. Adding a section or infobox on "conservation status" would be an example of taking the 'alien' POV too far, because there isn't an outside entity trying to conserve us as a species, and the concept of conservation itself is largely defined in terms of counteracting human impact on nature. – Joe (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC conservation status of Humans in the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Strong consensus against including this claim, especially since it isn't currently listed by IUCN, unlike other species. Some editors indicated that they would change their opinion if it were listed by IUCN. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Should this article have conservation status in the infobox. Aircorn (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• No per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE the purpose of an infobox is to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. There is no mention of the conservation status or conserving humans in the article. It is not even alluded to. This is because doing so would make no sense as humans are responsible for deciding the conservation states and conserving other animals. The article already discusses how widespread and numerous humans are and the infobox illustrates this with a map. This is a much better representation than a graphic showing least concern, which at best is redundant, and at worst silly. Aircorn (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure we really need an RfC but no, per above. This would be taking the 'pretend you're an alien' writing device too far. Also what would we put in it? – Joe (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, see 'Conservation status/environmental impact' discussion above (also, I already added a conservation status in before this RFC was created, along with a source. If the outcome of this discussion is a 'no' consensus, someone should get rid of it, but maybe consider moving the RS somewhere else in the article). To address concerns that have already been brought up, or which may come up, I will say:

1) Wikipedia shouldn't assume everyone reading the Human page knows everything there is to know about humans, including human abundance and/or conservation status. There's nothing silly about that, and further, if one is inclined to think that it is easy to infer Homo sapiens' conservation status from the rest of the article, I'll refer you to user Joe Roe's above post. He is no doubt aware of human abundance, yet he asked 'what would we put [in the conservation status]?' I assert that humanity's Least Concern status is actually not obvious or inferable from anything already present in the article.

2) This is not an article about magical homonculi endowed with supernatural properties that set them apart from all other life forms, and which therefore require special treatment, rather, this is an article about Homo sapiens, the mammal species, and it should not be treated differently from other such mammal species articles. Humans are only special in that they are of particular interest to most, which is all the more reason for including more info, not less. It is common practice to include conservation status when a conservation status has been assigned (as it has been for humans), so any argument that humans represent a 'special case' is little more than special pleading to my mind.

I assume user @Axeyop: will be in favor of this, since it was one of the points he brought up in the above section. Joe (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The conservation status has been a part of this article for quite a while. I removed it a couple of weeks ago.[3] The status quo should probably be to include it. That is part of the reason I decided to go for a RFC. Aircorn (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• The conservation status is a tool invented to describe the risk of animal species going extinct. Wikipedia always defers to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, which does not list humans. I don't think any serious body has ever listed humans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• No It's silliness and wikihumor. There is no valid source currently (the link does not work), and no mention in the article body. It says Least Concern (IUCN 3.1)[2], but the IUCN does not list homo sapiens currently. It takes the idea of writing about ourselves from the third person too far. Leijurv (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Inquiry I have a different concern - is the conservation status of humans "least concern", or "domesticated" (as on Domestic pig)? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

there is no conservation status for humans   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• No simply per WP:NOR. If the IUCN doesn't list the species (us), then making up a category is original research. The link in the current version does not appear to verify the claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• No - per Crossroads, there is no source for this information. If it did become sourced, I would be in favor of including it, per JoePhin. (If IUCN is the source preferred in other articles, it should probably be the source here too.) --Equivamp - talk 00:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW it used to be included at IUCN (see this link) Aircorn (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, nevermind, I'm changing my answer to No, User Aircorn's link shows that my source is old and is no longer recognized. I would still argue for it strongly if the IUCN listed humans as LC, but they don't anymore, so: nevermind. Joe (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• No - cannot be sourced. Nobody has identified any WP:RS for legitimate tracking/reporting of the status. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• No There are no sources to backup the information. Sea Ane (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• No source, no content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

no mention of The Holocaust in history section

I feel that there should be a mention of The Holocaust in the history section. I feel the murder of 6 million jews is historically significant enough to warrant a mention. Especially since Hitler is mentioned by name. 73.147.208.152 (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• the problem is which genocides do we deem important enough to mention by name, and which aren't important enough?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  11:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• I dunno. We don't mention the Poles, Ukrainians or Cambodians either. We barely mention indigenous genocide, and to be fair, that's more on the order of 100+ million. You're not going to get a handful of paragraphs on all of human history that's going to please all comers. GMG^talk 12:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Alternatively then, I'd suggest removing the mention of Hitler by name. he's one of two proper names in that section and to me, it feels disrespectful to mention Hitler without mentioning his crimes against humanity 73.147.208.152 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree that in general this section will always have these issues, but the specific problem here is that we mention Hitler by name but not any of his crimes. It also does seem a bit off that he is one of only four individual people mentioned in the entire article (as far as I can tell – Linnaeus, Franz Ferdinand, Hitler, and Darwin). I'd say in general the paragraph on the 20th century is overly-detailed compared to the others, so I will have a go at condensing it and we'll see if that solves the problem. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Homo sapiens sapiens versus Homo sapiens

At the moment, the opening sentence is using "Human (Homo sapiens)", I think we should be using the subspecies name, which is more specific "Human (Homo sapiens sapiens)". Do others want to comment? Blockhouse321 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

the only reason you'd use H. s. sapiens is if you've classified extinct human taxa as subspecies of H. sapiens; i.e., it only makes sense if you're also using H. s. idaltu, H. s. neanderthalensis, and H. s. heidelbergensis   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

removal of bipedal evolution

It seems strange to remove the paragraph on the evolution of bipedalism, which is one of the most important adaptations of humans. Heck its a defining characteristic mentioned in the first sentence of this article. If the important was outdated, then it should be updated. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the principle behind the removal as that subsection was a bit too specific for an overview article, but can also see the case for mentioning it in more detail per above. Either way it is quite unbalanced now. What about leaving just the first paragraph, expanding it with more on bipedalism and encephalization and folding it back into the evolution sections (i.e. removing the subsection). The expanded content could be merged to the human evolution article if needed so we don't lose any information. Aircorn (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It'd be best to delete the section heading and keep just the first paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Then the evolution section would be too short. LittleJerry (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

there's no sense in filling sections for filling's sake. I feel the past is amply discussed relative to other topics, especially since it's interspersed throughout the article (like Middle Paleolithic is linked in Religion and spirituality)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Aircorn, its been resolved. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

I would like to edit the page about humans. 2409:4073:219E:37D0:5572:AD9A:89E9:D73C (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's semi protected so you either need to make an account or you can suggest here the edit you want to make. Leijurv (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph in the section on Evolution contains this non-word: contrained. Same section, second paragraph has a sentence with “ evolved 2 million yeards ag was the first archaic human species to leave Africa and dispersed across Eurasia, the first archaic human species to do so.” — with typos, missing words, and redundant phrases. Completely unreadable. Wmikemerc (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I adjusted those sentences, thanks for catching that. --Equivamp - talk 04:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Human/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 20:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Add alt text to every image in this article.
  • Alt text is not a GA requirement. I will work on them if you insist, but it might take a while. Aircorn (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• "In common usage the word" → "In common usage, the word"
• "2.8 million year old" → "2.8 million-year-old"
• Remove the comma after "branched progression".
• "In the 5th century BCE history" → "In the 5th century BCE, history"
• "In Africa the Kingdom" → "In Africa, the Kingdom"
• "In West Asia the Achaemenid Empire" → "In West Asia, the Achaemenid Empire"
• Add a comma after "the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476".
• Add a comma after "this same time period".
• "super powers" should be written as one word (see article).
• "early 1800's" → "early 1800s"
• "enhancing exchange of resources" → "enhancing the exchange of resources"
• "Through invention humans" → "Through invention, humans"
• "overconsumption and combustion of fossil fuels has" → "overconsumption and combustion of fossil fuels have"
• Remove the comma after "in some individuals".
• "Through history human populations" → "Throughout history, human populations"
• "body weight and body type is" → "body weight and body type are"
• Add a comma after "the 23 pairs of chromosomes".
• "hundreds of thousand" → "hundreds of thousands"
• "harbour" and "labour" → "harbor" and "labor" (consistency)
• "which are private" → "that are private"
• Remove the comma after "development in the human".
• Add a comma after "in developing countries".
• "to a painful labor" → "to painful labor"
  • Not sure about how this improves the sentence. Aircorn (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Remove the comma after "time periods".
• Add commas after "for example" (both times).
• "Central African Republic" → "the Central African Republic"
• Add a comma after "the developing world".
• Remove the comma after "in human culture".
• "and the way in which they are prepared" → "and how they are prepared"
• "more lower" → "lower"
  • I feel more is needed here. Aircorn (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Add a hyphen between "chromosome related".

• "debate over what extent" → "debate over to what extent"
• "processing of the things in experience" - reword
  • Done Aircorn (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• "the mental processes'" → "the mental processes"
• "which can be defined" → "that can be defined"
• Add a comma after "in which case".
• "behavioural" and "practised" → "behavioral" and "practiced" (consistency)
• "as of quality" - reword
• Resolve the tag.
  • That has been resolved Aircorn (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• "all the diverse human societies" → "all diverse human societies"
• Remove the comma after "locally occurring".
• Is "auditively" a word?
  • It is [4]. Changed to audibly as that is more common. Aircorn (talk)
• "Art is a defining characteristics" → "Art is a defining characteristic"
• Is "musics" a word?
  • I think this is alright in this case. We are talking about multiple different ethnic musics, not a single type ethnic music. Aircorn (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• "humans musical abilities" → "humans' musical abilities"
• "synchronised" → "synchronized"
• "30,000 year old" → "30,000-year-old"
• "humans capabilities" → "humans' capabilities"
• "species of animal" → "species of animals"
• "In many societies it is" → "In many societies, it is"
• "social organizing principle" → "social organizing principles"
• "who identify" → "that identifies"
• "Also there is no" → "Also, there is no"
• "on what" → "of what"
• "ethno-political" → "ethnopolitical"
• "obtaining power and ability" → "obtaining power and the ability"
• Optional for this article but try to archive references.

Thanks for the review. Will work through these. Aircorn (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, life got in the way. Many of these were done by other editors while I was away. I have made the other changes or have left a comment above. Thanks for reading the article and your useful review. Aircorn (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Argument made in the FAQ

This talk page's FAQ makes an argument in reference to other articles, but if you actually look at those other articles, its argument holds no water.

It says The function of a lead image is not to encapsulate the full range of its subject's diversity and variation. Indeed, there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia that even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject. then gives a list of articles then This is why the overwhelming majority of articles covering diverse subject matters do not employ collages. What a collage gains in diversity, it loses in detail and clarity.

This simply isn't true anymore. It links to Star, and says The lead image for Star would need to depict every star. Well, that page has an image of many stars in the night sky, then an image of our sun, then a constellation. That's clearly showing the variety of stars instead of a photo of just one. It says the lead images for Quadruped, Carnivore, Frog, Primate, Eukaryote, Life, etc. would need to depict every organism in that group. And Thus, at the top of Bird we only illustrate one bird (Petroica boodang), and at the top of Molecule we only illustrate one molecule (atisane). Well...

• Quadruped is indeed just a Zebra, but it isn't an infobox image, and the article itself is a stub, with that being the only image
• Carnivore has a selection of images with no one being highlighted as an infobox
• Frog's lead image is a drawing of 8 different kinds of frog (and it's a featured article)
• Primate has a collage of 10 different kinds of primate (and it's a featured article)
• Eukaryote has a collage of 6 different kinds of eukaryote
• Life has just one image, but it has many different kinds of plant in it (the analogy might be a single group photo, but of many people)
• Bird has a collage of 15 different kinds of bird (and it's a featured article)
• Molecule has a selection of images with no one being highlighted as an infobox, and the atisane image has been moved down to a subsection

I removed the "Bird" example last year for reasons above. When I looked just now, I saw that nearly all the examples cited in the FAQ are incorrect. Instead of just removing more and more of them, and weakening the FAQ, which I thought would be unfair, I am bringing this up here so that better arguments can be drafted. That is also why I linked to the revision before I removed the first outdated example (something I admittedly should not have done without giving a closer look to the rest of them).

All of these things used to be true. It just seems that in the broader community, the consensus has moved away from arbitrary single images to represent a wide/diverse variety of subjects, and towards collages. In 2011, when this FAQ was originally written, Bird had just that one bird, Molecule had just atisane, Primate had just one primate, Frog had just one frog, Eukaryote had no image at all. So I'm not saying the FAQ was wrong when it was written, but it needs a better argument today.

Indeed, there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia that even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject. ... This is why the overwhelming majority of articles covering diverse subject matters do not employ collages. What a collage gains in diversity, it loses in detail and clarity. It just seems like this is no longer correct. On top of those examples such as Primate (featured article), I think relevant articles to compare to would be Mammal (good article), Tetrapod, Chordate, Animal (good article), Ecology (good article), Spider (good article), Plant, all of which use collages to demonstrate the diversity of their subject matter.

The current argument makes a number of Nirvana fallacy based arguments, most clearly in Q2. It argues that we cannot possibly do justice to the wide variety of humanity (or at least its "major groups"), so we shouldn't try. However, the Human article itself contradicts this, as the images in the sidebar and particularly in Human#Life_cycle intentionally show great variety. This argument towards having a single image isn't specialized to a collage in an infobox, I could copy paste that same argument to justify why the whole article should be images of the same two people over the course of their lives. This indicates to me that it's a bad argument. I also point to MOS:IRELEV where we are guided to Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities. The Human article clearly follows this, such as in the Life cycle section. That page also guides that there shouldn't be collages for ethnic groups or similarly large human populations, but the Human article is more similar to "Running" than to an article on an ethnic group, as clearly this is an article with numerous images of persons without discrimination towards a specific ethnic group or similarly large distinction of peoples.

The couples category now has 39 subcategories and over a thousand files, so it's very hard to believe that Q4 of the FAQ is still accurate, which is that the only other image that could reasonably be used was that specific one linked in the FAQ, which was deleted 8 years ago.

As a P.S., I really don't understand why people say the image is high quality (the FAQ says this too). Looking at the Commons guidelines for a quality image, the bare minimum is 2 megapixels and no visible JPG artifacts. This image is a 46 kilobyte JPG, 331 by 554. That's 0.18 megapixels, or, less than one tenth the resolution to be considered a quality image. It's also clearly blurry and JPG artifacted to my eyes. This is not high quality, and I think the FAQ should, in this case too, be updated with a better argument. Instead of saying something that is clearly untrue, there should be a justification for why a low resolution image is okay.

tl;dr Talk:Human/FAQ needs to be updated with better arguments relating to the lead image, as the current ones are outdated and no longer apply. Leijurv (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The biggest foreseeable problem is if you do a collage then it becomes "why didn't you include xyz race/ethnicity/culture/etc." For example, if we include a single Native American, then how could you choose which tribe over another tribe? If we include 2 Native Americans, then again from which tribe(s)? Then we're back to here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I see that concern. However, I'd point you to this section in the article: Human#Life_cycle. We have a selection of ten people from various stages of life, and this section works just fine. The talk page is not plastered with arguments of who to add or remove, which races/ethnic groups/tribes are or are not included. I think this is evidence in the direction that a collage is simply better than a single person or pair of people. Any complaints of "X group is not represented" are made worse by having fewer images, and made better by having more images. I see this as a bit of Nirvana fallacy in which we have an opportunity to improve the representation of the diversity of humanity from a single pair of people to perhaps a dozen or more, but the concern is that it wouldn't be perfection. I think it's okay to improve the article without bringing it all the way to the ideal of perfection with no further future discussion needed. Leijurv (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Readers can just scroll down the article to see more images of humans; we don't need a collage as the lead image. Some1 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The negative impact of a single non representative lead image is indeed mitigated by having more images lower down in the article. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be better to have a number of images, instead of one promoted above all the rest. Perhaps we should have no infobox image, and just the lower images? I fear your argument would apply against the idea of collages in general - perhaps you're opposed to the general idea of having more than one image sharing an infobox. Leijurv (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the reasoning and arguments made against using collages in Talk:Human/FAQ (yes, some examples are outdated, but the main, general points are still there). Specifically, these points: The function of a lead image is not to encapsulate the full range of its subject's diversity and variation. and If our goal in choosing an image is not to illustrate every major "type" of humans, but simply to depict any old random human, there is vastly less potential for our biases to infect our selection. If we tried to create a collage of every different human "race" (a questionable biological designation at best), we would simply be showing our own bias toward the racialist notion that the most important difference between humans is racial. (Why not focus on showing different body types, ages, religions, or hair colors instead?) I don't see collages as an improvement on this article. Some1 (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that this can be summarized as just "outdated examples" (i.e., all we need to do is update the examples). For example, look at the three bullet points on top. For the sake of neutrality and consistency, this article will tend to default to conventions in use on all other articles. The FAQ suggests that we look at other articles to inform how the infobox should work. However, those other articles are now using collages. We could pick out other articles that are further analogies away from Human, but that would be cherry picking. An article's lead image should provide accurate, straightforward visual information about the article's subject. However, an article's lead image is not meant to represent or symbolize every possible permutation of its subject. It functions only as an example. (emphasis mine) That doesn't seem to be true. This argues against the very idea of having a collage of images in an infobox, in general. But clearly, as I have demonstrated, the consensus has shifted over the last decade away from this and towards collages. Again, I really strongly think that the FAQ suffers from the nirvana fallacy. The function of a lead image is not to encapsulate the full range of its subject's diversity and variation. Indeed, there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia that even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject. If this were a requirement, it would mean ... And so on. Clearly this is unfeasible. This argues that since we can't show every single human, therefore, we shouldn't strive for variety. Seems like it is almost textbook fitting into Nirvana_fallacy#Examples. In reality, we can improve the infobox without needing to make it literally perfect... clearly. Imagine if Animal had literally only one image up top, of a cat. Would that make the article better? I think clearly no. Same for Cat, imagine if it had just one image of a cat. If there is visually apparent variety, it seems very reasonable to me to have a collage that is engineered to convey that variety through images. Leijurv (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict. The function of a lead image is not to encapsulate the full range of its subject's diversity and variation. It isn't to literally "encapsulate the full range". This is written as a bit of a strawman. A collage of a bunch of naked people would be worse than clothed because most people wear clothes. But we don't need to include literally every possible clothing configuration. So, I agree with that statement if you read it precisely. It is indeed impossible to get the full range of diversity. At the same time, MOS:IRELEV. We should still strive for variety. We can do that while understanding that it is impossible to include all possible variety. WP:WIP

If our goal in choosing an image is not to illustrate every major "type" of humans, but simply to depict any old random human, there is vastly less potential for our biases to infect our selection. I disagree. This image was chosen by one person, a decade ago. They claim that they picked it since it was near the top of the list. We don't know. Perhaps they were biased. It would be better if we discussed the how best to represent humanity with actual thought put into the benefits and tradeoffs. A transparent process that people can participate in. WP:5P3. Not a random arbitrary choice from a decade ago that we are locked into, even in the face of clear evidence that the image is low quality.

If we tried to create a collage of every different human "race" (a questionable biological designation at best), we would simply be showing our own bias toward the racialist notion that the most important difference between humans is racial. (Why not focus on showing different body types, ages, religions, or hair colors instead?) I don't disagree. We shouldn't try and create a collage of each race. We should focus on ages, perhaps body types, unsure on religion, probably hair color. Thankfully there is great variety on commons so we can probably hit all of these with a dozen or so images. Nothing special about race or ethnicity. We should care about visually apparent variety/diversity and strive to show that in our infobox, in my opinion. Leijurv (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There are different types of cat breeds and there are different types of dog breeds. From Dog: Dogs are sub classified into breeds, which vary widely in shape, size, and color. Are humans "sub classified" the same way? Some1 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion? No I don't really think so. Dog breeds have a lot of genetic drift between them, humans in comparison have very very little genetic differences across our population. But I'm not a biologist that's just a surface level take.

But we don't need such a sub classification in order to recognize that there is visually apparent diversity among our species. Like, look in the article itself, we have People in hot climates are often slender, lanky,[234] and dark skinned, such as these Maasai men from Kenya. and According to Allen's rule, people in cold climates tend to be shorter, lighter skinned, and stockier, such as these Inuit women from Canada. as image captions.

Even if we had never discovered DNA or genetics, we could still reasonably have such a Dog article showing that this species has extreme variety visually through such a collage. Unlike other species which pretty much all look the same. No?

For example, even though almost every species has a male and a female, we only give them their own photos if they look different from each other. As I said below to Kolya. We just need to demonstrate the variety of the subject matter, if&how such variety can be seen visually. Leijurv (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Better examples for comparison to the species article Homo sapiens would be other species articles:

• Plumbeous water redstart
• Olive baboon
• Australian green tree frog

These all have either one image or an image of a male and female. There are no biologically recognized races and the subject of this article is not human diversity. The quality of the photo is fine when one is not zooming in. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would hazard that humanity has greater visually apparent diversity than those species. Perhaps Felis silvestris catus or Canis lupus familiaris are more applicable? I'm not specifically arguing for having more races, but rather visual diversity in general (age, gender, culture, clothing, activity).

Biological recognition is not and should not be the standard for having multiple images - for example, if there were no biologically distinguishable breeds of cat, the cat article should still show something like its current collage of how they do look quite different from each other. And if there were biologically distinguishable breeds of cat that looked exactly the same as each other, there's no need to have two identical images for a biological distinction you can't see.

In other words, perhaps the reason why some of your examples show a male and a female is that they look visually different from each other, so it makes sense to have an image of each. If males and females looked identical to each other, I don't think we would need a photo of each.

The quality of the photo is fine when one is not zooming in. I'm not sure what to tell you, when I view the article normally on my laptop I can see that it's low resolution. For example, if I pull up Human in one tab and your example Plumbeous water redstart in another, and switch between them, the sharpness versus blurriness is plain as day. If I look at it closer than a glance, I can see JPG artifacting. Since it's clearly subjective opinion how much of a problem this is, that's why I brought up the Commons quality image standards, where this is nowhere even close to their minimums. Leijurv (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The cat and dog lead images are the furthest from what we should be doing. Humans do not have recognized breeds. The closest would be the outdated groupings Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid.

We don't typically have lead images of species of animals of various ages and engaging in various activities; those images would be later in the article. This is just the lead image. If you can find an image of higher quality which fits the same criteria as the existing photo that would be something to consider. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, consensus is against galleries and collages of humans, per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't need recognized breeds or recognized biological differences or any such thing in order to realize that there is great visually apparent variety among humans. As I explained with the example about male/female. I'm not arguing that humans have breeds. I'm arguing that humans have diversity that you can clearly see in an image, like cats and dogs, unlike your example of the frog and the bird.

We don't typically have lead images of species of animals of various ages and engaging in various activities Well... look at cat? Cats in various different poses. Dog, dogs doing different things, herding sheep, leashed, nursing.

I think the reason is MOS:IRELEV. If we have a number of images, might as well also have variety in action too? Seems like a positive thing to me.

Copy pasting from my earlier response:

I also point to MOS:IRELEV where we are guided to Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities. The Human article clearly follows this, such as in the Life cycle section. That page also guides that there shouldn't be collages for ethnic groups or similarly large human populations, but the Human article is more similar to "Running" than to an article on an ethnic group, as clearly this is an article with numerous images of persons without discrimination towards a specific ethnic group or similarly large distinction of peoples.

The lifecycle section in the article right now is just fine, even though it's a gallery of humans. The reason is that it isn't a gallery of an ethnic group, or similarly large subgrouping of people. I am not proposing a gallery of an ethnic group. I'm proposing a collage of humans, indiscriminately. Not humans narrowed-down to a specific category. Leijurv (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason to use a picture of modern-day humans with all of the consequent arguments and justifications as above instead of a reconstruction of an ancestor (or three) of all modern day humans? 2601:648:8402:88C0:C858:EBBE:D992:F228 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

that's like you couldn't decide which breed of cat to show on cat so you just put a skeleton instead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI - I've brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images#MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY_and_single_images. Leijurv (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)=== FAQ Update === I updated the image FAQ based on the above discussion, [5] using some input by User:Volteer1 at Talk:Woman Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, though I don't think this came from my input, those examples didn't come from me :) ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I started out with your examples but I ended up changing them.

I also just added MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to the FAQ.[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

These aren't good examples or arguments. If you want to do the FAQ thing immediately then all right I guess, but it isn't just a matter of changing the pages it links to. It actually needs new and better arguments.

A general anti-collage argument won't cut it because from 2009 to today, many articles on diverse subject matter (including animal categories) have moved to collages. While you can and have cherry picked articles to support the current argument, it makes the argument weaker. For example, brown bears basically all look the same. I wouldn't be surprised if Pig moved to a collage. Pig isn't even a GA, Bird and Frog are both FA. Molecule has a procession of images, there is no single infobox / lead image. It's hopeless to continue juggling which examples this FAQ links to because the broader community is slowly moving towards more collages. Pointing out some articles that don't use collages is a bad argument against collages if said articles are in the minority, low quality, or hard to find nowadays. And especially if that represents a trend continuing over time.

The FAQ needs an argument that is specific to Human, because, as we discussed elsewhere, collages are permitted on other articles not about humans. So, for the argument to make any sense, it needs to stop leaning on a general anti-collage argument that doesn't work anymore, and start leaning on specifically the problems with collages of humans, such as MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES.

Here's some points I think should be covered:

The current FAQ begins with For the sake of neutrality and consistency, this article will tend to default to conventions in use on all other articles. That's got to be removed, since we aren't doing that anymore. We are instead using the MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES exception. However, an article's lead image is not meant to represent or symbolize every possible permutation of its subject. It functions only as an example. This is definitely not true. The counterexample to this general statement is every article using a collage today. Frog, Bird, etc. (both are featured articles) The premise of Q1 needs to be changed. It's strawman-baiting + nirvana fallacy by suggesting that collage proponents want to represent "all" of humanity without compromises. The function of a lead image is to illustrate important features of the subject — in the case of Human, these include an upright bipedal gait, hands specialized for manipulating tools, and use of cultural products such as clothing. This is a good argument for this specific image. However, it is undercut later in the FAQ where it says that this image was chosen at random. All the examples in Q1 need to go. We don't need to rely on shifting consensus in other articles to make a strong argument here. By picking just one example, we leave space for showing important details of that example which would be obscured if we shrank it in order to fit multiple photos ... In this case, the topic covered at Human is best served with a single image — a collage of faces, for example, would fail to illustrate the human body. These two sentences are good. I would prefer if they represented actual discussed consensus on this page, but I can see the point and I don't see any problem with making this argument. As noted in Q1, no article on Wikipedia tries to visually encapsulate every permutation of its subject matter. This is another nirvana fallacy. Wikipedia is a WP:WIP. Some articles do nowadays try to visually encapsulate most permutations of its subject matter within reason. Q2 needs to talk more about MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. It needs to explain why it applies to this page, why that guideline was reached in the first place, and what the problems are with ethnic galleries. In fact, MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES should be the main point of the argument, since the other anti-collage arguments don't work anymore. There needs to be something about how this is a photo of two humans. The FAQ talks about any old random human, but the image has two people in it. Need an argument for why that is okay. Why do sex differences mean two examples is ok? Also need an argument for why low-res is okay. FAQ should cover all the F asked Q. Using the examples that you gave earlier, here's what I think about using a collage for what it's worth. It balances practicality with accuracy. We cannot show literally every example of the subject (practicality), but at the same time it is more accurate if we show more of the diversity of the subject (if such diversity exists and can be seen in an image, of course). Per MOS:IRELEV: Strive for variety. One random image is very practical, but not that accurate. A dozen or so is much more accurate, and really still quite practical. Simply: galleries aren't that bad. For example, Olive baboon. Essentially, you see one you've seen them all. I might argue this article would be better with just one image in the infobox. Another example, Plumbeous water redstart. Still, you see one you've seen them all, except that the male and the female look different. So, we have an infobox image of each. This also seems perfectly reasonable to me. Even though I'm sure all these birds are genetically unique, you can't see that in an image and there's obviously no point in a collage of indistinguishable images. Primate. There's a lot of variety and the collage does a good job at showing off a practical selection of that variety. It conveys to the reader the diversity of primates without becoming unwieldy. Cat and Dog. These are single species, but we still have a collage because these particular species have a ton of diversity that comes across in a photo, especially for Dog there is a lot of physical variety (whereas for Cat it's mostly fur color). At the same time, even though the male and female of "cat" are genetically distinct and can be scientifically defined and all that, we don't show male and female cats, for a simple reason: they look exactly like each other. Clearly, the infobox image should, where reasonable, be a representative image illustrating an example of the article's subject. However, in cases where the subject matter has a lot of visual variety, it makes more encyclopedic sense to put this in the infobox with a diverse selection of collaged images.

I've moved the edit to Talk:Human/FAQdraft2. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I went and made all the edits I want to make on the live FAQ. Perhaps we can work on it together there? Leijurv (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I have started work at Talk:Human/FAQdraft2. Despite my original argument that Human should use a collage, I find myself writing a FAQ against the argument I made myself just a few weeks ago. As I said on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, While I do, in general, think collages can help an article, I respect the consensus and collective wisdom of the community that it's a problematic huge can of worms when it comes to groups of humans (per WP:FENCE). Therefore, I am not in any way attempting to overturn MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. So I'm returning to why I originally came to this page and my original message about the FAQ which is simply that its arguments need to be improved, but it still will argue in the same direction (against a collage). Leijurv (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Please again see WP:WALLOFTEXT. This is too much information to process, and I suspect much of it you've already said. I don't agree with your changes but I need to discuss one piece at a time. I feel like the small changes I made took care of the problem, but we could add some more about MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. We don't need perfection. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES should be the main thrust of the argument. If it weren't for that, we could have a collage just as easily as other articles like Primate or Cat. So it should probably take the driver's seat on the FAQ.

I don't think that small change you made was an improvement to be honest. It weakens the argument by grasping at more obscure and lower quality pages (e.g. Pig isn't a FA). It also left in the list of articles that are no longer in support (e.g. Frog, Primate).

I'm perfectly willing to talk about changes one at a time; that's why I gave a bulleted list.

I'm in full agreement on "we don't need perfection". Both on a meta-level (the FAQ doesn't need to be perfect) and on a direct level (the FAQ should stop making a perfection-based argument). Specifically, I mean that the parts about "all humanity" "full range" "every aspect" "every permutation" should be removed since they suggest that since we can't make a perfect lead image to represent humanity, we shouldn't try to make a lead image that better represents humanity and should just settle for any old random image.

What do you think about Q7 - Q10 that I've added? Leijurv (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

About this: I don't mind you collapsing my comment in this case. I think that was helpful, thank you. Probably should have done it myself. Leijurv (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really like your proposed Q7 to Q10. I feel like they could be incorporated into the other questions. I still think my changes are an improvement which we can build off of. I don't think it weakens the argument to show other examples where single images are used. The argument is that single images have strengths which collages lack. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a preference towards simple questions / simple answers and against mammoth answers to leading questions. But I'm glad that you think that those points should still be incorporated elsewhere. I did build off your changes - I copy pasted your edited version, not the original.

My point is that the current main overall argument is not salvageable. It simply is no longer true to argue that other pages don't try to visually summarize their subject in the lead through collages. The whole Q1 and Q2 need to be rewritten.

We can probably still have examples of articles that have a single image. For the example to make sense, I'd say it should be the following things: 1. I'd prefer if it was FA or GA so that we don't have to worry so much about the image being unstable and changing in the future. 2. It should actually have variety. Brown bear has practically no variety, so it isn't surprising it's just one image. Not a good article to point to, because humans have far more variety. Something like Quadriped, but if it were a GA/FA. Leijurv (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I said Q7 to Q10 could be incorporated; I haven't decided. I started Talk:Human/FAQdraft3 which we can start with, which may be easier than reverting your edits to draft2.

I would argue that Brown bears are variable; we don't need perfection. But we could use Chimpanzee, Red fox, Coyote, or Whale, which are GAs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Among those, Whale is the best.

What do you say to My point is that the current main overall argument is not salvageable. It simply is no longer true to argue that other pages don't try to visually summarize their subject in the lead through collages. The whole Q1 and Q2 need to be rewritten.?

I think this is a clear example of an edit I made that follows from that: As noted in Q1, no article on Wikipedia tries to visually encapsulate every permutation of its subject matter. This is a good thing. While some Wikipedia articles on diverse subject matter (e.g. Spider, Bird) do attempt to encapsulate that variety through galleries and selections of images, we are prohibited from doing so on this article per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES even if we wanted to. Leijurv (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, about "We don't need perfection", I repeat I'm in full agreement on "we don't need perfection". Both on a meta-level (the FAQ doesn't need to be perfect) and on a direct level (the FAQ should stop making a perfection-based argument). Specifically, I mean that the parts about "all humanity" "full range" "every aspect" "every permutation" should be removed since they suggest that since we can't make a perfect lead image to represent humanity, we shouldn't try to make a lead image that better represents humanity and should just settle for any old random image. The anti-perfection, pro-WP:WIP idea favors my position that the anti-collage arguments on the FAQ are bunk, because they fundamentally rely on the idea that "we can't make a perfect image, so we shouldn't try, we should instead just pick a random image". Leijurv (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It is still true that no article on Wikipedia tries to visually encapsulate every permutation of its subject matter. Yes, many articles try to show diversity, but that's unrelated to the question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The key word is "tries". Animal tries. Plant tries. They don't succeed in showing literally every type of plant or animal. That is an impossible standard that shouldn't be on the table, not even worth discussing here nor in the FAQ. It's a silly nirvana fallacy. Back when the FAQ was written, Animal and Plant just had one example, as I showed in my initial message. Times have changed. If you think "we don't need perfection" then I can't help but think you must agree that we should remove these silly comparisons to some idealized world where we can show literally every variant of animal on one page. Leijurv (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The question, Q1, is, Is the lead image supposed to represent all humanity? The answer is no. No articles attempt to represent the entirety of their subject. That they try to show diversity is a separate question, more related to Q2. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I argue that it needs a full rewrite. One of my initial bullet points (collapsed now) is The premise of Q1 needs to be changed. It's strawman-baiting + nirvana fallacy by suggesting that collage proponents want to represent "all" of humanity without compromises. I agree that the answer to that question is no, because it's a bad question that presupposes that we are looking for perfection. As we both agree, we are not. Therefore the question is bad. Leijurv (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't share that concern. It is making an important point. But what question are you suggesting we replace it with? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to remove the implication that perfection is required, desirable, or even on the table to begin with. For example: Is the lead image supposed to represent humanity? to which the answer becomes "yes". Then the answer can actually explain the interesting question of how to do that. I removed the "all" from "all humanity" because of this perfection argument. A1 uses that argument to conclude that we should have a single example of a human. The answer currently says Representing all of humanity, without making anyone feel excluded, is an impossible task. This has got to go. I've brought up nirvana fallacy a dozen times, I don't want to keep repeating myself but it really does make the argument properly: sure we can't represent literally everybody, but we can still do a better job than just one person. For example, we can show a group photo of two people. I'm sure you agree that a man and a woman is better than just an image of an individual. By the current FAQ A1 argument, we should remove the current couple photo and switch to an individual person. Leijurv (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the lead image is supposed to represent humanity, but that's a completely unrelated question and unnecessary to ask. There is a difference between representation as in illustration and representation as in speaking on behalf of a group of people. The lead image is not supposed to illustrate variety; that's just one thing it may do. We are not supposed to show everyone; we are not able to show everyone; we are not interested in trying to show everyone, because that's not the point of this and it just causes too many problems, see Q2. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

We can do a better job explaining this status quo than the current FAQ does. I'm not trying to change the status quo. Take a look at what I've just done with Talk:Human/FAQdraft2.

a completely unrelated question and unnecessary to ask. It's necessary to ask how to best represent humanity, not if we should represent humanity. The FAQ should explain the frequently asked questions about this particular point. For example, why do we show variety between biological sex groups, but not ethnic groups? We should explain it in the FAQ. We are not supposed to show everyone; we are not able to show everyone; we are not interested in trying to show everyone, because that's not the point of this and it just causes too many problems Yes. For crying out loud, yes. So why do you think that part of the FAQ stay the way it is, where it asks this rhetorical question then makes an argument based on it that we should pick one random person as our infobox?! It says, incorrectly, We are fully justified in just picking some human off the street as an example. We don't even do that on the article, we have two people, not one.

We cannot perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity. --> Yes, I agree. That's obvious.

We cannot perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity, therefore the best we can do is pick one random person. --> No. That does not follow. It's not an argument. X does not imply Y. We have an entire article Nirvana fallacy on why X does not imply Y! If we want to argue Y, it needs a better basis than X. We have many other options without needing to "attempt the impossible", such as: pick two people (article currently does this), pick no image at all (many ethnic groups do this), pick a population density map (many ethnic groups do this), etc.

Therefore, the FAQ should not make that faulty second argument. I would like to remove that faulty argument from the FAQ. I've seen no argument for why this is wrong, unless I'm forgetting something you've just ignored every time I bring up "Nirvana fallacy" and not replied to the argument I make around it. Leijurv (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

We're discussing Q1 and you quoted Q2, and if you want to add a question about how we are to best represent humanity, that is not a reason to eliminate or change Q1, so let's focus on Q1. You keep citing the Nirvana fallacy, but I am saying that part of why we choose to not show diversity is because it is unnecessary, not just because it is impossible. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Q1 and Q2 overlap in content, were written by the same author, and rely on the same through-line to build up the argument.

I quoted Q2 to support the fact that the FAQ suggests we pick one example of a human as the infobox. Q2 says We are fully justified in just picking some human off the street as an example. Q1 says By picking just one example, we leave space for showing important details of that example which would be obscured if we shrank it in order to fit multiple photos. Please imagine I quoted that instead, my argument is unchanged. Both suggest we pick just one example.

I am saying that part of why we choose to not show diversity is because it is unnecessary, not just because it is impossible Hm. You said earlier The question, Q1, is, "Is the lead image supposed to represent all humanity?" The answer is no. No articles attempt to represent the entirety of their subject. That they try to show diversity is a separate question, more related to Q2. I'm getting a bit confused by the positions here, relating to what counts as a Q1 issue versus a Q2 issue. I thought your statement earlier was that showing diversity best-effort was Q2 but just now you've said that we ought to focus on Q1 with diversity being possible but unnecessary.

Focusing on Q1, see what I said earlier. Q1 says Representing all of humanity, without making anyone feel excluded, is an impossible task ... there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia that even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject ... By picking just one example, we leave space for showing important details of that example which would be obscured if we shrank it in order to fit multiple photos. Q1 is clearly engaging in a fallacy. It is imagining a world in which we have to perfectly show all diversity, in order to show any diversity. For example, it says If this were a requirement, it would mean..., then lists some silly impossibilities that would result if we required articles to show every possible variation of their subject. This is a silly argument that isn't on the table to begin with. It comes up with an absurdity ("show every example") then uses it to argue against something practical ("show more than one example"). The article literally shows more than one example, today. For these reasons, the argument made in Q1 is faulty and should be rewritten. I have made an attempt at it here. I would love to hear your thoughts on what I might have missed from the old FAQ.

I am admittedly getting frustrated by what I'm perceiving to be the dynamic here. I have brought up probably over a dozen individual points where the FAQ could be improved and it's starting to feel like WP:SQS (something I mentioned in my initial posts on this page) where I'm not seeing any points of agreement at all. For example, instead of engaging in the argument that Q1 currently relies on faulty logic and should be improved, you point out a technicality that I quoted Q2, while Q1 says nearly the exact same thing at the end. For another example, buidhe and I agreed in the above section that the current image is low resolution. I wrote a new entry in the FAQ that quoted you, agreeing with you, that it wasn't that big of a deal according to current consensus, yet you still said you don't really like the new entries. Could you help me out a bit here? :( Leijurv (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it's really hard to follow you because you're discussing many ideas at once.

I repeatedly engaged with you over the Q1 argument and I disagreed with you.

It seems odd to have a question in the FAQ about the resolution of the current image, but that could be mentioned in Q4...it just seems obvious without stating that although the image size is less than ideal, people have been happy with it.

I've also made suggestions for improvements, and I don't know if there are any points of agreement there. So we could start there... Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it's really hard to follow you because you're discussing many ideas at once. I want to be fair by avoiding (as much as possible) the practice of picking only the "easiest reply" to what you said, and ignoring better points that you made. This ends up with me, well, replying to your whole message.

You definitely disagreed with me, but I'm not seeing much engagement. I see I don't share that concern. and It is making an important point. This is just telling me that you disagree. I've laid my soul bare by fully explaining in minute detail my problems with Q1/A1, I would love if you could tell me where I'm going wrong in that, rather than just stating that you don't share the concern. Specifically in that last paragraph Focusing on Q1, see ... faulty and should be rewritten, I think it would be really helpful if you told me where in that reasoning I went astray. It seems clear to me that the argument in A1 rests on faulty logic and we can&should rewrite it to make the same end point in a stronger way.

and I don't know if there are any points of agreement there. So we could start there... Sure. Here's an example. You said you wanted to keep a modern example of where a single image is used. I suggested it should be a good article about a diverse topic that nevertheless uses one image. You suggested a few examples. I agreed that Whale was a good one, and I added it to Talk:Human/FAQdraft2, take a look. I would like to do more like that, but instead of swapping out individual words and phrases, I would like to improve the overall argument being made.

But sure I'll respond to draft3. I don't think it's worse, but it doesn't address the fundamental issues that I am trying to put forward here. I like your change to It only functions to exemplify its subject. because it highlights the idea that instead of just one example, we can have several (such as the article does right now). I think we should go further and make the argument support that, because right now the argument supports one example. I like the addition of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. That guideline was created 7 years after this FAQ was written, and now it's sort of the core of the issue here. I think it deserves more than a passing mention. In my draft, I've made it clear how important this guideline is. Leijurv (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You're cherrypicking my answers. I repeatedly explained my reasoning against Q1; almost all of my responses have been related to Q1. So you agree with the "exemplify" change; you agree with changing Bird to Whale. Do you agree with changing atisane to PTCDA and Frog to Chimpanzee? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what I said was was ambiguous. I think Whale is a good example, but I don't think the overall sentence and argument where you put it should exist. I added Whale to draft2 but in a different way. I don't think molecule is a good example, as I explained earlier today with Molecule has a procession of images, there is no single infobox / lead image. I chose Whale over Chimpanzee because honestly I don't know that much about the variety of chimpanzees, but when I scroll through the chimpanzee article they mostly look the same to me, while Whale has a ton of variety in the article images (e.g. beluga whales look totally different from all the others).

Q1 makes a point that it is impossible to perfectly represent all of humanity. This is a fine point. My draft2 makes it too. The problem is that A1 uses that as a jumping off point to argue that one example is best, and many examples are bad. You also said The argument is that single images have strengths which collages lack. but I kept those sentences in draft2.

Could you please tell me in your reply if you actually agree with A1's argument in favor of a single example? I have been assuming that you do not, since you support the current image which has two examples, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Most of A1 spends its time on the hypothetical world where every article is required to represent all the diversity of its subject, and describing how that is impossible. I find this to be fundamentally faulty. Is there any way we could compromise where you tell me what specific parts of A1 still make sense and should be kept? Or, if you think the argument in A1 is sound, could you tell me where specifically I went wrong where I argued it was faulty? (in the above paragraph Focusing on Q1, see ... faulty and should be rewritten) I really want to work together on this. Leijurv (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Chimpanzee is used in A3, which is about artistic/symbolic vs literal photographic images, not about diversity, but besides, chimpanzees are diverse.

The lead image at Human is just one example; it's an example of a couple.

I feel like I have addressed your Q1 arguments. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, chimpanzee is reasonable there in the one on artistic/symbolic images.

This is certainly two examples. To quote the FAQ: Fortunately, this article is not called "humanity", but simply "human". We are fully justified in just picking some human off the street as an example, rather than getting wrapped up in unverifiable species-wide generalizations and categories. The idea of a couple could be called an unverifiable species-wide generalization. Or, in my words, this article is not called "human couples", but simply "human".

I feel like I have addressed your Q1 arguments. No, absolutely not. For example, you said let's focus on Q1. Sure. I then wrote a paragraph explaining why the argument in A1 is faulty, as a direct reply. Instead of any kind of engagement with that paragraph, you said I repeatedly engaged with you over the Q1 argument and I disagreed with you. I asked you a second time to reply to the paragraph, since I wrote it at your request to focus on Q1. You said I repeatedly explained my reasoning against Q1. I then asked you a third time to reply to the paragraph. Now you've said I feel like I have addressed your Q1 arguments. You have not. What you have done is claim over and over that you've addressed it. Now I ask a fourth time.

If you've really addressed that paragraph (Focusing on Q1, see ... faulty and should be rewritten) it should be easy to link me to the diff where you explained where I went wrong, and I will apologize for having missed it. I wrote it at your direct request to focus on Q1, so it begins with Focusing on Q1. Leijurv (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We could use Vitamin instead of Molecule.

"Example" refers to a single photograph/image. It is one image, which is a couple. We could change the sentence to: "We would be fully justified in just picking some human off the street as an example", for clarity. Obviously the chosen image is not of people "off the street".

I repeatedly attempted to address Q1: [7] [8] [9] [10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Example" refers to a single photograph/image. Well no, it doesn't. As a simple example, File:Pepole_montage.jpg is not a single example of human. File:Coloured-family.jpg is also not a single example of a human. Neither is this image of a couple. When you actually think through the arguments in the FAQ and how they support "one example", it is clear that they refer to what the article is about. at the top of Bird we only illustrate one bird ... at the top of Molecule we only illustrate one molecule Examples of what the article is about. Examples of "human". If the article showed the current image, versus if it showed a different man next to a different woman, the end result is the same. It shows a man and a woman. Two people.

All four of those diffs come before you asked me to focus on Q1, and I wrote a simple explanation of why it's logically faulty in reply. Therefore, they cannot possibly address that paragraph. I read through them to make sure there was no time-travel afoot, and indeed none of them explained where I went wrong in a paragraph I had not written yet. Leijurv (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what your goal is here. I have attempted to correct any inconsistencies, vagaries, etc., with the FAQ while maintaining the spirit, but I feel like you are focused on the letter of the FAQ rather than the spirit, and rather than correcting vagaries you want to rewrite it to say something which I don't think was intended.

You misunderstand me. I said that "example" in the sentence you cited referred to a single photo/image. File:Pepole_montage.jpg is not a single photo; it's a montage. But yes, File:Coloured-family.jpg is an example of a photo. You're conflating concepts just because the wording is vague. We're not getting anywhere and this feels like a waste of time. It shouldn't be so arduous to just update the FAQ. I've made suggestions I don't think more is necessary besides adding in a line or two about MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. If you want to concisely restate your argument for changes to Q1 I can try to address it, but I don't have much confidence that we won't just talk past each other again. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, here's where the miscommunication might come from: I don't think the spirit of the FAQ should be maintained. If we replace a word or two, update an article link to a current example, etc, that is lipstick on a pig. For example, see the top bullet point conventions in use on all other articles. If the conventions have shifted over the last 12 years (which they have), it isn't enough to just update the examples to the scarcer and scarcer examples of the old way of doing things. The whole thing needs to be updated. I will try and not talk past you. I think I might have been confusing when sometimes I disagree with you but agree with the FAQ, and other times I agree with you but disagree with the FAQ.

I don't know what your goal is here ... We're not getting anywhere and this feels like a waste of time. It shouldn't be so arduous to just update the FAQ. I feel the exact same way. From your perspective, I am making a million tiny little confusing nitpick arguments on the FAQ and on you, I imagine. From my perspective, you are defending something written in 2009 and mired in the wiki of that time. I fully agree that it shouldn't be a big deal to just update the FAQ, which is why I have trouble with (what I perceive to be) a status-quo bias. I feel as though I have brought up a number of reasons behind getting rid of certain sections and arguments and explained these reasons in depth, but all I get in reply is a disagreement, or just pasting what the FAQ says and saying you still agree with it.

Let's have a fresh start. I was going to suggest that you tell me what you don't like about draft2, but perhaps later. You've asked if I can concisely say why I'd like to rewrite most of Q1/A1. I've kept some good bits in draft2, but most of it has got to go. Here's my reason why:

The main thrust of the argument made in A1 is to hammer home the point that we can't "represent all of humuanity without making anyone feel excluded". It imagines how impossible that is. It says that if that were the requirement, all these absurdities would result, Star listing every star, etc.

The problem arises when it jumps to "and therefore we should show only one". I disagree with this leap of logic. It comes up with an absurdity ("show every single one") then uses it to argue against something practical ("show more than one").

It's a bad argument, a faulty logical step. I'm not saying it's an argument based on incorrect premises, I'm not saying it's an argument that arrives at an incorrect outcome. The actual argument itself is what I take issue with.

We should have at most one example in the infobox. We shouldn't show more than one example. The argument for why needs to be improved. Today, many other infoboxes have no trouble using collages. So, any argument implying that a single example is always better than a collage doesn't make sense anymore. The reasoning, today, here, really is mostly MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES.

As we both agree, showing every example was never on the table to begin with. As you said We are not supposed to show everyone; we are not able to show everyone; we are not interested in trying to show everyone, because that's not the point of this and it just causes too many problems. A1 spends time in fantasy land laughing at how dumb it would be to show everyone. Let's just... not. We can make a much stronger policy-based argument for a single example without that silliness. If you're wondering what that could look like see the first few QA in Talk:Human/FAQdraft2. Leijurv (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You wrote that the FAQ says that we can't "represent all of humanity without making anyone feel excluded" and "it jumps to 'and therefore we should show only one.'" It doesn't say that. I understand that you don't think my draft addresses the core issues, but the question is if it's an improvement on the status quo? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm hearing that you dispute that the FAQ makes this problematic leap to begin with. The function of a lead image is not to encapsulate the full range of its subject's diversity and variation. Indeed, there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia that even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject. It is saying here that a lead image cannot summarize every aspect of its subject. Then, we have Clearly this is unfeasible. Even if it were possible to depict so much in an image, it would be less useful than just showing an example. Thus, at the top of Bird we only illustrate one bird .... It is saying that since it's impossible to show off "so much" in the lead image, we should show one example. "Thus" the stuff about Bird only showing one Bird. To me, this is pretty clearly making a A then B argument where since showing all of humanity accurately is impossible, we should do the "one example" thing like Bird or Molecule. No?

Anyway. Let's remove this drawn-out hypothetical. We both agree it's absurd and not on the table.

If the "imagine how crazy it would be if we had to show every example of everything" doesn't support into the rest of the argument, then we don't need it. Shouldn't be any problem with removing it?

If it does support the rest of the argument, then I believe I have made a clear case that that's faulty and relies on a fallacy.

Either way, it should be removed.

draft3 barely changes anything, so it's hard to say. On the one hand, fewer of the examples are directly wrong. On the other hand, perhaps it's better to have a clearly outdated FAQ that an editor will discount, than a FAQ that makes faulty arguments that misleads an editor, with no warning signs of it being outdated :( I've replied in depth to many parts of your draft. In mine, I actually kept this bit about stating that we can't perfectly represent all of humanity, but I clearly explained how it doesn't imply our choice on the lead image. I've played along with all your requests to resummarize what I don't like about A1 and still don't like about your draft. But I feel like I have no idea what the problem is with what I'd like instead. Could you let me know why you don't like draft2? (OK if you dont reply immediately, I get it if its better to keep just one thread going at a time) Leijurv (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We both agree it's absurd and not on the table. I agreed with no such thing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You said We are not supposed to show everyone; we are not able to show everyone; we are not interested in trying to show everyone, because that's not the point of this and it just causes too many problems and I am saying that part of why we choose to not show diversity is because it is unnecessary, not just because it is impossible.

Whatever, I see you've gone and cherry picked my individual comments. I suppose that's what I get for trying to compromise, yeah? Never mind that I said it's hard to say when you asked if draft3 is an improvement over the status quo. After how many times of me asking you to say something, anything, about the draft2 I wrote? Not a single thing in there. Even your last edit says Add MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES per previously mentioned diff. We probably need more than a bare mention, but this is a start. while my draft2 talks about NOETHNICGALLERIES in depth. This is like arguing with a brick wall. I could probably go and revert your changes again and cite WP:BRD and WP:NOCON WP:QUO but that would make me just as much of a WP:SQS as you're being right now, so I won't. Let's just go ahead like you've done and make edits to the real FAQ. It doesn't really matter anyway it's just a FAQ.

I'm also going to make some edits to the FAQ. I won't be able to cite cherry picked diffs of you agreeing to them, because, well, you have avoided agreed with anything that I put in my draft2 (and, in fact, avoided saying anything about it at all). I'll do it in good faith according to what you've said. So, obviously, nothing as drastic as what draft2 looks like now. I hope you will learn towards WP:PRESERVE and avoid blind reverting. I'm sorry for doing this, I was young and naive then, and imagining we would have a productive discussion on here. Leijurv (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the tldr version of this entire debate sums up to: those who support collages want to promote diversity, and those who oppose say diversity collages have NPOV issues   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

More or less. When I look at other pages, from cities to animals (New York City to Primate), that have collages, and I think about why they are there and what purpose they serve, I believe that the collages work well to do justice to the variety in the subject matter, better than a single image could.

However, with the anti-collage arguments, it's much more complicated than NPOV. If you look at the arguments in the RfCs behind MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, it's far more nuanced. Why did they only ban collages for groups of humans? Why not all collages? Shouldn't all collages assembled by wiki editors have just as much NPOV / OR issues? It's a complicated topic to be sure.

However, with respect to this FAQ, I have essentially backed down at this time from arguing for a collage on Human.

I believe we should all actually be in agreement on this. I have turned and I am attempting to write anti-collage arguments on FAQdraft2 for this page. See here for why. Leijurv (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion is upside down (WP:BIKESHED). Does anyone have a proposal to change Human? If not, don't talk about the FAQ. If yes, please give a concise proposal in a new section. If that leads to a change which conflicts with the FAQ, then the FAQ can be updated. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is (was) running concurrent to #The_leading_photo, which is about the article itself.

But why shouldn't we fix an outdated/wrong FAQ? Leijurv (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: The current FAQ was put in place in March 2020 in this diff. I propose we just revert that and go back to this revision. A FAQ draft from 2009 should never have been blindly applied in 2020. My initial edit where I noticed the FAQ was seriously wrong was two months later [11] in May 2020. The FAQ doesn't need to say any of these contentious things about galleries.

I actually think it would be correct to WP:BRD revert that FAQ all the way back. The only edits since then are vandalism, removing the draft line, adding an anchor, and our reverted updates.

Then we could actually talk about improving the article rather than a meta/internal help page (the FAQ). Leijurv (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop. If your goal is to change the lead image then focus on that. Leave the FAQ out of it which apply to the current image. Your new draft version just makes the current image look bad and you're not interested in making changes to things we agree are less than ideal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

My draft version treats the current image accurately. I am thrilled that you have finally said something about draft2. The current FAQ is full of crazy and faulty arguments justifying it. you're not interested in making changes to things we agree are less than ideal Wait I have no idea what you mean by that lol. I've just gone and spent multiple days talking over potential changes to the FAQ with you. I'm clearly interested in making changes. You've gone and made a number of changes based on individual comments where I agreed. ????? Leijurv (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your rewrite which was made up of changes which weren't specifically discussed, and which have the effect of weakening the reasoning behind the current lead photo. [12] I would suggest you focus on what image you would like to see here instead of changing the FAQ or MOS, but we could discuss your edit proposals individually. I would support saying something more about MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, but not what you had added. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your rewrite which was made up of changes which weren't specifically discussed I made a number of individual edits. I did not simply put in draft2. Example, my first edit: [13] Why revert this? What was the problem with this splitting up? Or this edit? All the question content was preserved. It appears that a number of these edits have no effect on the argument for the current photo, and some (e.g. [14]) strengthen it. The real reason is what you said, that I made changes that weren't discussed with you beforehand. Take a look at #3 and #4 in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

When I made this edit, which I have apologized for before, it was a procedural thought in my head that we could work together on an alternate draft, then move it in once it was done. This turned out to be clearly misguided. Once you made draft3 instead of editing draft2, I should have self-reverted that, since clearly my idea was not going to be followed. I'll learn from that and behave differently in the future. Sorry.

Look at WP:PRESERVE and WP:DONTREVERT. Any chance we could follow Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad, and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest.? Also look at WP:GASLIGHT and "bad-faith negotiating" on that page. You claim that I agreed that draft3 was better. See here. I said it's hard to say. I also said perhaps it's better to have a clearly outdated FAQ that an editor will discount, than a FAQ that makes faulty arguments that misleads an editor, with no warning signs of it being outdated. For that reason, I do not agree that your changes are better on their own. If I acted like you, why shouldn't I restore 1026170174? If what we're doing is reverting any edit that the other person hasn't explicitly agreed to beforehand; by the same token, you didn't get actual agreement from me to make those edits. If I were able to make edits in good faith to improve the FAQ, of course I'd prefer to build on top of your draft3. But if the choice is genuinely between your draft3 and the old FAQ (and no other options), I'd pick the old FAQ. Seems that way if I can't even temporarily remove the question numbers without a revert.

I would suggest you focus on what image you would like to see here I did so here.

we could discuss your edit proposals individually If you genuinely mean it, then please go ahead, feel free. The diffs are all there in the history of Talk:Human/FAQ. But can you appreciate why I no longer believe this? The only reason why these changes weren't specifically discussed was your abject refusal to talk to me about them. Up above in the previous thread I essentially begged you to tell me what in my draft2 you didn't like. All I've gotten is a dismissal that it is a net weaker support of the current image. That isn't an argument. You don't point out any particular words or phrases or arguments that are bad. You don't mention any arguments that I wrongfully removed that you think should be kept. I don't even think it counts as WP:ENGAGEment. It's just a conversation ending "no I don't like it". I've asked many times to work together on this but you write as if my suggestions are beneath you, not even worth talking about beyond you saying no, and I should just go away and give up the moment you drop the "I disagree". What if instead we explained what we don't like about the other's edits and then came to a compromise conclusion? Leijurv (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel I have been extraordinarily patient engaging with you and making edits [15] based on your criticisms. I've asked you repeatedly to avoid WALLSOFTEXT, and I would ask you to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and understand that I went through all of your edits and disagreed with everything with as much detail as I can in an edit summary. I'll wait for Aircorn's comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You imply, again, that your applying draft3 to the FAQ is somehow something I agreed to. It is not. You took a selection of individual statements where I pointed out problems, pulled out specifically only the ones you agreed with, then assumed I would agree with the end result. See WP:GASLIGHT and the previous bullet point "bad-faith negotiating".

It's sort of funny that even after this last message where I explicitly call out your refusal to talk to me about my proposed changes, in reply to a message where you offered to discuss your edit proposals individually and I said please go ahead, there is still no reply of any kind to my proposed changes...

I would ask you to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH I probably would have stopped talking to you a week ago if it werent for my assumption of good faith, don't worry, that's still intact.

as much detail as I can in an edit summary See WP:REVEXP: If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. If the real answer is that you simply can't be bothered to explain why I'm wrong more than a few words for all those edits, then I think my above accusation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR / lack of WP:ENGAGEment rings true even stronger.

I'll wait for Aircorn's comment All right. Leijurv (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I feel too much effort is put into discussing such a small part of this article (one where any number of alternatives would be just as good as what we have now). I will say that since this is about rewriting the FAQ it would be better to trim it down to just what is necessary. We don't need to make the arguments as to why this picture is chosen and link to examples, we just need to link to the discussion that closed it and maybe the few key policies and guidelines. We have a thousand words just on the lead image. The key points are being lost in all the noise. Aircorn (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Thanks. I'm happy that someone else has weighed in. In my opinion, FAQs should indeed lean towards describing the current consensus, perhaps backed up with links to past discussions / applicable guidelines, and lean away from actually making an argument in and of themselves. I think I improved that in Talk:Human/FAQdraft2, although OTOH it is net-longer, since I added more simple question/answer entries while breaking up the current big ones. But, I suspect you and I are in agreement that a good part of the FAQ's argument about the current lead image should be removed. Might you be willing to elaborate? I hope a third opinion could help with Kolya's and my disagreement. Leijurv (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It just needs to say

• How was the lead image chosen?
• The current lead image was added in 15 December 2009 following this discussion. The use of this image has been challenged over the years (link to whatever talk page posts seem relevant), but consensus has been to keep the current image.

It is not the FAQs place to make arguments or put up examples. It just needs to provide a quick link to thecurrent consnesus (something that 1000 words on a lead image failed to do). Also it is frequently asked question, not adding questions that have not been asked. You could add a second question about a gallery as that comes up a few times, but the rest is superflueous and less is always more with these things. Aircorn (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Okay, how does this look? Talk:Human/FAQdraft2 I've collected a handful of discussions and linked them. I'd support this over the current FAQ, how about you? Perhaps in the future we can add talk about a gallery, but it seems pretty clear that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES prohibits it, so not much to say there. Leijurv (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It is explaining the reasoning for how the image was chosen, and the existing FAQ are about galleries vs single images. I don't support these changes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Or should it still include Why does the Human article use the third person? Aren't we humans? and Why don't you include more information on...? I would agree either way. Leijurv (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

For the 3rd person point, I would prefer we word it so that we don't have to use "they" or "humans do this" or in some way, awkwardly phrase it so it sounds like a martian wrote it, which wouldn't be difficult at all. For example, "The dental formula of humans is" → "The human dental formula is" or "During sleep humans dream, where they experience sensory images and sounds" → "Sleep induces dreams, which normally involving sensory images or sounds". There's no reason we have to treat humans like goats and declare each section is about humans by explicitly saying the word "human" in every paragraph and every section.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Just clarifying, are you suggesting that the FAQ entry on third person should be removed/expanded/replaced/rewritten? Or just the bit about the "extraterrestrial" perspective? Leijurv (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: @Dunkleosteus77: Might I get a clarification on what you would like to see in the FAQ, as above ^? I see there that Aircorn wants a simpler FAQ and Dunkleosteus77 wants to update the FAQ's section relating to writing in the third person. I updated Talk:Human/FAQdraft2 according to what I think Aircorn was suggesting (by vastly simplifying it), but both of you can feel free to update that however you like (I might have misinterpreted). Leijurv (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop writing FAQ which give arguments against the lead image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Um... no? On both counts. That FAQ does not give any arguments against the lead image, in fact, it links to the consensus discussions in favor of the lead image. You just don't like it; I describe your behavior relating to the FAQ and the image as WP:SQS. Leijurv (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well it seems we've reached yet another stalemate in the never-ending saga of changing the lead image (MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is most certainly to avoid racism, and I have no feasible way of getting around that), and we shall yet again default back to the current image until further notice   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to write this in the above section #The leading photo? This discussion was just about what the FAQ ought to say. Also it isn't a stalemate. Kolya has made his changes, so we aren't at the previous status quo anymore. Pending clarification from Aircorn, perhaps further changes might be made. is most certainly to avoid racism Well, bigotry in general. It is also applied (by very experienced editors) on pages like Talk:Woman for example. Leijurv (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The FAQ should be a simple summary of past consensuses so we don't keep having to rehash the same conversations. It has become too bloated at the moment and reads more like a !vote in a RFC than a summary of one. I would trim it right down, but honestly there are more important things to do here than argue over a header that is barely read. Aircorn (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright! May I then assume that you support Talk:Human/FAQdraft2 where I've tried to make that happen? (but not strong enough of support to want to argue [which is fair, given how long this section has become between kolya and me]) I also see Dunkleosteus77 made an edit to it, which could perhaps be considered WP:EDITCON? But please let me know if either of those ideas are mistaken! Leijurv (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep. That’s much better. Aircorn (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool! I agree, so I've put it in. I also assume Dunkleosteus77 agrees since they edited the draft2 after I suggested to do so (and it removes the question that they took issue with). :) Leijurv (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

We can simplify the FAQ without removing all the information which lets people know the rationale of the decision. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Kolya, frankly, it's simple. In March 2020, an old FAQ draft from 2009 was made live, and from what I can see, this was just done WP:BOLDly with no consensus. This FAQ is frankly bad, something I noticed two months later but only got around to bringing up the many reasons I see just recently. For example, it says that it follows consensus of other articles. That consensus has changed. Your fix was to cherry pick different articles supporting the old view, which are becoming more scarce. This is untruthful, a lie by omission, not a true fix. Vastly simplifying, or even removing, the FAQ is certainly on the table. Your position that this shouldn't happen because it weakens how much the FAQ enforces the current image status quo is simply WP:SQS and ignoring WP:CCC. That isn't policy-based or guideline-based, it's just your opinion. Your opinion alone does not outweigh three other editors' opinions. (four, if you count how you reverted the change made by Some1 and myself, also simply because you disagreed). This includes your opinion that the FAQ should be edited without removing all the information which lets people know the rationale of the decision. Aircorn and I disagree, we think that all that information should be removed. If someone is curious they can read the real discussions on the talk page that are linked.

It was Aircorn, not me, that wrote this new FAQ here. They also reiterated that the FAQ should not make these arguments, but rather link to where they have been made ([16] [17] KISS edit summary means KISS principle). I just put in links. Aircorn also explicitly and specifically agreed with putting in this draft here. Dunkleosteus77 suggested that the FAQ saying that third-person should be used is unhelpful here. I also agree with that. Dunkleosteus77 also tweaked the draft2 here, see WP:EDITCON. Finally, I asked for any corrections to that understanding here and have gotten nothing in 4+ days.

Also, your position that the FAQ ought not be changed without changing the image is silly. (For example, how you cited Johnuniq's comment to say that the FAQ should not be changed). For example, Aircorn wrote this new FAQ, and Aircorn does not support any change to the image. So that new angle of WP:SQS doesn't work, sorry.

This is on top of the mass reverts of my edits that I discussed above, where you could not be bothered to explain why you reverted, and made a hollow offer to discuss it with me that you did not follow through on even though I accepted and reminded you. You also explained the revert as I reverted your rewrite which was made up of changes which weren't specifically discussed which is textbook WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. and This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. and An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior. This latest revert is yet another example of you acting like you WP:OWN the FAQ, since the revert is opinion-based (not policy-based nor guideline-based) and goes against the opinions of multiple other editors.

tldr summary: There is consensus to vastly simplify the FAQ and remove all that information. Aircorn wrote this FAQ and I agree with it. WP:CON: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. We can continue editing from the basis of the simplified FAQ if you like. But continuing to argue from the basis of the full FAQ is not on the table. I see you made one such edit. Feel free to apply that diff to the real FAQ and we can WP:BRD. I personally think that one's fine and wouldn't revert. Leijurv (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing consensus for your version. It sounds like just you and Aircorn support it. Johnuniq said you shouldn't be changing the FAQ because you don't like the image; I agree. Some1 said regarding the FAQ: some examples are outdated, but the main, general points are still there, which seems to indicate they at least partially support the FAQ as they were. I will restore the longstanding version of the FAQ pending discussion. Pinging previous FAQ editors @LaundryPizza03, Cybercobra, The Mysterious El Willstro, and Richard-of-Earth:. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like just you and Aircorn support it. Yeah, if it's just Aircorn myself and you discussing it, and Aircorn and I agree, that counts. If you bring in many other editors, that could indeed change. Also Dunkleosteus77 wanted to edit/remove one of those questions that you added back, so call it 2.5 editors.

I'm not sure if you're reading my posts because I directly replied to your citing of Johnuniq, I said Also, your position that the FAQ ought not be changed without changing the image is silly. (For example, how you cited Johnuniq's comment to say that the FAQ should not be changed). For example, Aircorn wrote this new FAQ, and Aircorn does not support any change to the image. So that new angle of WP:SQS doesn't work, sorry.

If you genuinely want to work from that long standing revision that you just restored, and edit from that starting point, I'd be fine going along with that. Is that what's happening here? Leijurv (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm hearing that you'd be fine with working from the long standing revision. I don't want to work from that version; I want to work from the more recent version which you reverted. Can we do that? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That's what I thought, which is why I was confused that you reverted to it. And no, I wouldn't support that, because remember a month ago when we went back and forth for a few days? The fundamental problem is that you want to make cosmetic trivial edits to wording and links while keeping the core argument and message, and I think that the core argument is rotten. Aircorn wants it gone entirely, which I also think is fine. See what I said last month: You imply, again, that your applying draft3 to the FAQ is somehow something I agreed to. It is not. You took a selection of individual statements where I pointed out problems, pulled out specifically only the ones you agreed with, then assumed I would agree with the end result. Also, it's funny that you call it the more recent version when it's from 2009. It is not the "more recent version". It was unilaterally copy pasted from a draft from 11 years in the past. Aircorn's FAQ is the more recent version, I'd like to work from the more recent version. Leijurv (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with making more than cosmetic changes to the draft3 version, but so far you haven't offered anything I've agreed with. The draft3 version is based off of a version which has been present since March 2020, so I think we should work from that, especially considering how many editors support that version, when only two support your version. I'd be happy to remove the question Dunkleosteus77 opposed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with making more than cosmetic changes to the draft3 version I mean... are you? From past experience I'm not sure I believe that. Recall when I made a dozen edits, you reverted all of them, said that you had good reason for doing so but it couldn't fit into an edit summary (what??), I asked you to explain on here, you said you would but never did.

so far you haven't offered anything I've agreed with Looking back at the discussion a month ago, the problem was that you wouldn't entertain any idea if you thought it made the argument in favor of the lead image weaker. Many times, you were mistaken. If the FAQ makes a bad argument and I want to rewrite it to be stronger (and, more importantly, more accurate), it isn't reasonable for you to blanket oppose any such change. See all the times where I practically begged you to say anything about draft2 and what you didn't like about it, and all I could get out of you was that it made a net weaker argument for the lead image. We did that whole long discussion where you had me trying to justify individual word and phrase changes to draft3, can we do it the other way around where you look at draft2? (referring to this revision by the way).

Also, March 2020 isn't that long ago in the context of a rarely edited FAQ. I noticed the problems just 2 months later (removing the Bird link in May 2020) but only brought it up on here recently. Leijurv (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterization of our discussions. Your drafts do not inform readers about how the image was selected. Aircorn said draft3 version was too long, so I suggest we work from that by simply trying to shorten it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific, I can give diffs to back up why I think this way. Making a guess on what you mean, here is the diff where you said No consensus for this rewrite which weakens arguments for the current lead image. I interpret this as you saying that the reason why you dislike the rewrite is that it weakens arguments for the current lead image.

Aircorn said draft3 version was too long Not quite, Aircorn then went on to say a very specific thing: We don't need to make the arguments as to why this picture is chosen and link to examples, we just need to link to the discussion that closed it and maybe the few key policies and guidelines. That isn't just saying it's too long, it's saying that the argument shouldn't be there in the FAQ to begin with. And It is not the FAQs place to make arguments or put up examples. It just needs to provide a quick link to thecurrent consnesus (something that 1000 words on a lead image failed to do). For this reason, I think we ought to entertain the idea of an "additive" approach, writing up a FAQ from no argument, rather than whittling down the FAQ from draft3's long, sprawling, flawed argument that shouldn't be there to begin with. Leijurv (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wait, are you denying that this happened? Recall when I made a dozen edits, you reverted all of them, said that you had good reason for doing so but it couldn't fit into an edit summary (what??), I asked you to explain on here, you said you would but never did. ???

Here's the reversion, see the ten edits before that for mine. Here's me calling you out for it, and pointing out that you reverted many edits that were objectively entirely unrelated to the lead image. Here's you saying that you couldn't be bothered to explain what was actually wrong with the edits and you could only say the bit about the image argument because it's all that could fit in the edit summary: I went through all of your edits and disagreed with everything with as much detail as I can in an edit summary. And finally here's me pointing out how ridiculous that is, reiterating that you offered to discuss the changes and never did: It's sort of funny that even after this last message where I explicitly call out your refusal to talk to me about my proposed changes, in reply to a message where you offered to discuss your edit proposals individually and I said please go ahead, there is still no reply of any kind to my proposed changes.... Leijurv (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to move forward not go over our past disagreements.

We can change the draft3 FAQ answers to make them read as rationales rather than arguments. We should let people know how and why the image was chosen. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to move forward not go over our past disagreements. I'm sure you do, because it's unreasonable behavior such as what I just documented above ^ where you still, to this day, refuse to say a word about my edits and apparently don't think they're even worth your time discussing? Please tell me if I'm missing something.

We should let people know how and why the image was chosen. The best way to do that is to link to the discussions on this talk page that actually chose that image, and have maintained that choice to this day. There is no need to put in that long and flawed argument in the FAQ. That was the rationale of one wiki editor, Silence, in 2009 for the current image. It was not representative then, and it is certainly not workable today. Leijurv (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributor, per WP:TPG and WP:NPA. I've said you are missing something.

What do you mean "flawed" argument? That is the rationale by which the image was chosen. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't discussed you personally, nor made any personal attacks. To be clear, it's okay to discuss conduct and content, just not the contributor. I'm trying to understand why still even now you won't say a word about what I added to the FAQ (I am still waiting). I, too, don't enjoy a meta discussion, but you've forced me into one by continually ignoring me on this, all the while reverting my edits.

That is the rationale by which the image was chosen. I'm not sure that's even true. My understanding is that this is Silence's opinion on why this should be the lead image, and no one else had edited the page meaningfully (cybercobra made a small addition): [18].

What do you mean "flawed" argument? Take a look at the collapsed section higher up on this page called Here's some points I think should be covered. If you want to refresh on what I think should be changed and why, I'll summarize the biggest point in bullets so that it's unambiguous.

• The FAQ suggests that it follows the consensus of other articles. This is basically an appeal to broader consensus. (That's fine.)
• Those other articles, and the broader consensus, have changed since 2009, as I documented in depth at the top of this section.
• As such, the argument relying on broader consensus from other articles is no longer valid. You could make it appear to still be valid by cherry picking some new articles to cite, but a lie by omission is still a lie. Generally, the community has moved away from single images and towards collages for articles on visually diverse subject matters.

Given these points, the FAQ should be updated to the present day. And to be clear, cherry picking small tweaks doesn't cut it. I think it would work to simply link to the various discussions on this talk page that have reinforced the consensus on this image over the last decade (which Aircorn supports). Bringing the FAQ up to current standards can only strengthen the argument for the lead image. Leijurv (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

[I]t's okay to discuss conduct and content, just not the contributor. That's not accurate; it is not ok to accuse others of misconduct on talk pages. Please stop saying I haven't discussed your edits when I have indeed. You've already said you disagree with me on this, no need to keep repeating.

Will you agree to include the rationale by which the image was chosen, regardless of whether you agree with it? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If I'm reading you right, you're now suggesting that it's against Wikipedia policy for me to convey the idea "you have been selectively ignoring me. please reply to XYZ." That is absurd. Please be more specific about where in WP:TPG and WP:NPA you see the idea that I'm prohibited from pointing out the fact that you reverted my edits and even after a month of discussion and me asking multiple times you have never explained why. Looking at the options under WP:WIAPA, I suppose you think I'm accusing you without evidence. And yet, what I said here was full of evidence and diffs. I won't reply in kind per WP:NPANPA.

Please stop saying I haven't discussed your edits when I have indeed. You have not. Here is the diff where you offer to explain why you reverted all ten edits (we could discuss your edit proposals individually), here is the diff where I explain that the explanation of the revert never happened. Where is the diff that you suggest exists where you explain that revert, where you discuss the edits individually?

In the draft2 that I suggested (this one), it explains the rationale for why the image is there today. The FAQ is a current document intended to be read by editors now. There is no use for a FAQ that is a historical document explaining why a decision was made as such in 2009, especially if those reasons no longer apply in the present day. So I do not agree that the FAQ should explain why the image was chosen. It should explain why the image is still there today, and, given Aircorn's points, I suspect the best option may be simply to link to past consensus discussions. So, Talk:Human/FAQdraft2.

I have put an inordinate amount of time into explaining myself, why I think the old FAQ was outdated, and why I think your draft3 doesn't really fix the actual problems. In a cosmic amount of assuming good faith, I will ask yet another time if you might extend the same courtesy to me and explain in specifics what you don't like about draft2 as it stands. If you think it's just missing a few sentences of neutral summarizing explanation, could we draft up what those should be and perhaps ask Aircorn what they think? (I'm not convinced that it would be a good idea to add such additional explanation, but I'm open to the idea and could certainly be convinced if it adds needed context that can't be gleaned just from the links). Leijurv (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User conduct should be discussed at user talk pages, not article talk pages, per WP:UTP.

I don't like your draft because it doesn't say how and why the image was chosen. That's where we should start. We can examine subsequent discussions to learn if and how the rationale has changed, but regardless, we should inform editors about how the image was originally chosen. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think a reminder along the lines of "you still haven't replied to XYZ and you said you would" is reasonable to put in the same discussion on here. Do you genuinely want me to go to User talk:Kolya Butternut? I'd be willing to if so.

But why? In 2009, the argument was "many other articles do it like this". There is no utility in sharing that factoid today, especially in the context of a FAQ which is presumed to authoritatively describe the current consensus. An editor reading the FAQ would be much better served by an explanation solely rooted in present day consensus (such as NOETHNICGALLERIES). Draft3 is a misleading lie by omission, for the reasons I've stated on how the broader consensus has changed. "Collages are bad and single images are good, this is the consensus across many articles" was an accurate thing to say in 2009, saying it in 2021 is incredibly misleading and no longer correct, and can only be supported by cherry picked articles.

Why is this the lead image?, What do Wikipedia policies/guidelines/consensuses have to say about this image?, What are the most recent consensus discussions? are frequently asked questions on this talk page. What was the decision process in 2009 behind picking this specific image? is not a frequently asked question because it's no longer relevant. Some of the arguments still apply today, some of them don't. No matter the percent breakdown of which is which, the outdated argument is no longer relevant. Leijurv (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you support including the rationale for why the image was chosen if it didn't reference other articles? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Referencing other articles and making an appeal to broader consensus is one thing, making a novel argument is another. Per Aircorn I tentatively think it could make sense to simply link to past consensus and not provide a summary, and simultaneously I think that if we put some kind of summary-of-consensus in the FAQ, it shouldn't make incorrect references to broader consensus that no longer exists. (i.e. A summary might not be needed. But if we have it, it had better be accurate at least)

If I may be blunt: Please explain why you want the original rationale to be in the FAQ. You've said so a number of times, and the reason may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. I feel like I've explained in depth why I think the current justification and current consensus should be there, and not the original rationale from over a decade ago. Leijurv (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe most of the original rationale is the same as the current rationale. What have you read in the archives which suggests a different current rationale? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not. That original rationale is no longer valid due to how broader consensus has changed, and the general arguments against collages and for single images are no longer the generally accepted viewpoint. This has been my point all along, from the beginning and I've been quite clear on it. See what I wrote in the very first message in this entire section All of these things used to be true. It just seems that in the broader community, the consensus has moved away from arbitrary single images to represent a wide/diverse variety of subjects, and towards collages. In 2011, when this FAQ was originally written, Bird had just that one bird, Molecule had just atisane, Primate had just one primate, Frog had just one frog, Eukaryote had no image at all. So I'm not saying the FAQ was wrong when it was written, but it needs a better argument today. The original justification no longer works. Also, Aircorn agrees with me that there's no use putting in old arguments prior to the image being chosen; here: Also many of the links in the second draft are to discussions predating the current image so are not really relavent. Leijurv (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a simpler reply: The rationale has factually and unequivocally changed. We are now prohibited, per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, from putting many people in the infobox image (most likely, assuming NOETHNICGALLERIES applies to this page). This was not the case in 2009; that policy did not exist yet. It completely changes the explanation that we ought to be giving for why this is the image. The main alternative is no longer on the table. Leijurv (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The rationale for using this image at this article has not changed just because other articles have gone on to do other things. The rationale for this image and MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES are not mutually exclusive. As I said, it is not even necessary to cite other articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It has because MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is a superseding policy that affects the entire site. The existence of NOETHNICGALLERIES prunes out a lot of possible argument, assuming this page is covered under it. The rationale for using this image at this article has not changed just because Like it or not, it actually has, because the Manual of Style does affect this article. Additionally, if the rationale is "many other articles do it this way", then yes, if other articles go on to do other things, that does change the rationale here. That's simple logic. If X is understood to imply Y, and X has become no longer true, we need to reconsider Y (come up with a new justification for why it's still true). And that is what the original FAQ, and your updated draft FAQ, says as the very first bullet point: For the sake of neutrality and consistency, this article will tend to default to conventions in use on all other articles. And, it is not even necessary to cite other articles That is, itself, admitting to a change in rationale. Part of the rationale in the FAQ is that Human will default to conventions on other articles. If we stop doing that, stop pointing to other articles, (which you've implicitly admitted is needed in order to continue justifying the current lead), then that is a change in rationale. Leijurv (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

NOETHNICGALLERIES is like a policy saying we can only use pictures of apples that contain red, while the consensus here was that we should use a picture of an apple that is red and green. We should still describe the consensus which existed before the policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? Why should we still describe the old consensus? If, as you admit, the arguments raised there / the rationale used back then, have changed, and the present-day rationale is different?

Also, sorry, I don't get the apple analogy? I thought the consensus was already to not use a collage (so, no green in any event). All that NOETHNICGALLERIES changes is the reason, not the outcome. Leijurv (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that the rationale has changed; I just said that we also have a new policy. The colors do not represent number of images, or anything to do with the existing scenario. It is simply to say that the original rationale and the new policy are not mutually exclusive. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The new policy changes what the FAQ should say because it takes the entire collage option off the table. Therefore, there is no point in going in-depth on precisely why a collage is bad. It simply isn't allowed anymore (according to my current understanding of NOETHNICGALLERIES which is that it likely applies to Human).

Secondly, you did admit that the rationale had changed when you suggested that references to other articles should be removed (something I agree with). If the original rationale was "follow broader consensus of other articles", and that no longer works because the other articles have changed, that is a change to this rationale. Leijurv (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This article has its own rationale for why it went with this image and not a collage. The new policy is separate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Secondly, I didn't say that; don't try to tell me what I said.

Secondly, I didn't say that; don't try to tell me what I said. Um? You were the one who initially suggested Would you support including the rationale for why the image was chosen if it didn't reference other articles? and later As I said, it is not even necessary to cite other articles. So, when I said Secondly, you did admit that the rationale had changed when you suggested that references to other articles should be removed (something I agree with). that was accurate. You did suggest that the references to other articles be removed. I argue that that is a change in rationale because the 2009 FAQ, and your draft3, both literally begin with a statement that they follow the consensus of other articles, and are full of such references. That's a big change to remove all that.

This article has its own rationale for why it went with this image and not a collage. First, no, it primarily references other articles and comes up with absurd hypotheticals about what would happen if every article was forced to show every example of its subject. Copying from my message to Some1: The rationale in the 2009 FAQ is basically "the consensus across many articles is that single images are better than collages, collages are impractical and impossible to be perfect, imagine how crazy it would be if we had to show every example". Many articles in 2021 use a collage, so a generalized "collages are bad, no matter the article" doesn't make such sense. (this is not to say that I still think there should be a collage, this is to say that the argument for "no collage in Human" has to be specific to Human) The core idea in 2021 is basically 1. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES probably prohibits any kind of infobox that shows many people and 2. the current choice is arbitrary and here are some links to where it's been discussed. Leijurv (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not say they should be removed. I said they could be removed in order to appease you, but I would prefer they stay.

It's not for you to decide what is "absurd"; that is the consensus. Are you saying that if it didn't reference other articles it would lack any rationale? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

My bad, for a second I thought we had made some progress. I would like if instead of simply stating that you disagree, you said why. I've explained that updating those examples is cherry picking examples, which is misleading (makes the reader think that "one image on a diverse article" is the common majority, and a collage is very rare and not on the table, while really the opposite is true). Where in that am I going wrong?

No, the consensus is not for the part of the FAQ that I called "absurd", which was the passage about how impossible it is to show every example of everything. (this part: If this were a requirement, it would mean... ... the lead image for Star would need to depict every star. ...) That is just something that Silence wrote in 2009 that was copy pasted into the FAQ in March 2020. I mean "absurd" as "wildly unreasonable / illogical", which I stand by. It's a textbook example of a logical fallacy in which it comes up with an absurdity ("show every person"), talks about how it's impossible, then misapplies that to argue against something practical ("show more than one person"). The article literally shows more than one person, today (it shows two people in the infobox). Therefore, not just is this FAQ argument based on a fallacy, it actually serves to argue against the current image. Leijurv (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Silence's FAQ were explicitly agreed upon by the editors who formed the consensus on the image. Again, are you saying that if the FAQ didn't reference other articles it would lack any rationale? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Silence's FAQ were explicitly agreed upon by the editors who formed the consensus on the image. I genuinely might have missed this, do you have a link to specifically that agreement? I saw Silence make similar arguments to what they wrote in FAQdraft, but I did not see commentary on that FAQdraft by other editors that explicitly agreed with the final product.

Since that FAQdraft languished for over a decade without being applied, that strongly influenced me to think that it did not garner consensus at the time it was written.

And no. If the FAQ didn't reference other articles, it would actually be a stronger support of the current image. Some other parts, such as how it argues for showing only one of the article's subject, which is better than showing many, etc, detract from the current image. Because the current image shows two people. Similarly, if that part were removed, it would be a stronger argument for the current image.

But, to be clear, there are other parts of the FAQ that I took no issue with. If you're curious about which, see here, where I made a good faith effort to write a long-form rationale in the FAQ that is accurate, not based on fallacy or outdated arguments, and supports the current image. For example, I didn't change The lead image should illustrate important features of the subject — in the case of Human, these include an upright bipedal gait, hands specialized for manipulating tools, and use of cultural products such as clothing. because it's reasonable (as it explains a general fact about humanity, that these things ought to be present if we're showing a human as an example). Leijurv (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

[D]o you have a link to specifically that agreement? See the "this discussion" link in your own FAQ. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What do you thinks of this: FAQdraft4. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely might have missed this Turns out I did!

I'm sure we would agree though, that if it had been put in-place in 2009 and it had stood from then until now, that would be a stronger consensus (such as per WP:EDITCON) than a draft that everyone appears to have agreed to at the time, but not more recently than then.

But either way I did miss that, sorry.

FAQdraft4: Nice! That's much better than draft3. Do you mind if I make some edits? Or I could say here and you make them if you agree?

• The biggest one is that, with Aircorn here suggesting a 1 to 2 question FAQ, it would need to be a lot shorter to have consensus with them. But that is not to say that I don't appreciate this, thank you for putting this together. I see the light at the end of the tunnel!
• Also, it still has the question that Dunkleosteus77 took issue with... but they haven't weighed in since then so shrug.
• I don't think the Elvis example makes sense. I don't like the If this were a requirement because it's the fallacy I was talking about earlier: no one seriously thinks that articles should be required to visually illustrate every example of their subject. I think it's a bit of silliness and it only hurts the point.
• 1 person versus 2 people. There is a bit of an internal contradiction in the way it's written, and it has to do with "one example" versus "two people". For example, the FAQ says For example, if we tried to create a collage of every different human "race" (a questionable biological designation at best), we would simply be showing our own bias toward the racialist notion that the most important difference between humans is racial. Well, imagine that I wrote something very similar: For example, if we tried to show every different human "sex" (a questionable biological designation at best), we would simply be showing our own bias toward the sexist notion that the most important difference between humans is gender. I worry that a feminist would rightly be able to make such a complaint, it's the anti-race argument taken from the FAQ but applied to sex. Therefore, I don't think that argument works. It would work great if the lead image had one person, but it sort of undermines itself by saying "welllllll exceptttttt we don't mind doing exactly this for biological sex... so we have two people, a man and a woman... 😬😬😬"

• I'm open to any ideas on how to fix this. On the one hand, just using common sense it makes more sense to display a man and a woman, than every race. Perhaps that needs to be said explicitly. On the other hand, the same argument does sort of apply.

• It looks like the majority of things I listed in the collapse section higher on this page Here's some points I think should be covered has been fixed =D

• upright bipedal gait, hands specialized for manipulating tools, and use of cultural products such as clothing. I essentially hereby retract my complaint about this. On the one hand, it's true that the current image was picked at random, and not according to these criteria. On the other hand, these criteria are valid reasons to keep the image. So, I take that one back (the fourth bullet point there).
• I would want to add something about "it's really not a big deal that it's low res" if it were going to be this length, but if we're gonna cut it down, there's no justification for putting that in. So also scratch the last bullet point from there.

• More focus on NOETHNICGALLERIES. It's become more important, so it deserves more airtime.
• Wording changes to this sentence and the later one that copies it: Indeed, there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia that even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject. This is no longer true, there are a few, like Spider and Bird. They definitely do try. For this reason, I made a number of wording changes, such as changing meant to required in An article's lead image is not required to illustrate or symbolize every possible permutation of its subject. I also changed exemplify to represent in It only functions to exemplify its subject., which I think is pretty important. Looking at MOS:LEADIMAGE, the idea that "the image must be An Example of the article subject" really isn't there. It's more accurate to say that it is meant to illustrate, or represent, the article subject. Not that it Must Be A Picture Of One Of Them or anything like that. (as a simple example: the lead image of Armenians represents that group just fine, but it is not an example of that group)

Genuinely thank you for putting together that draft4, I appreciate that you did that. I've made some suggestion edits to FAQdraft4 (then self-reverted) so that you could see what I'm talking about. Let me know what you think! Leijurv (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Starting with the question of the Elvis example, I do think that it is helpful and important. If no one seriously thinks that articles should be required to visually illustrate every example of their subject, then it shouldn't be controversial. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Taking them one at a time sounds good to me!

Well I think you answered your own point. If no one seriously thinks that, then doesn't that make it not helpful, and not important? If it's meant to support one-example, then that's a fallacy as I said above, if it isn't meant to support that, then I'm not sure why it's there - not sure what point it's trying to make. Leijurv (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not willing to compromise on this one. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I added Chemical substance from the original photo discussion in place of Molecule.[19] Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

??? Can you please explain why? Instead of just stating you are unwilling to compromise?

Remember that the premise here is that Aircorn and I would not mind if this FAQ was a single question, maybe two, with single sentence answers. I believe you are the only one pushing for the full length 2009 FAQ with minimal alterations. Some1 was nonspecific and suggested a second question be added to Aircorn's that captured the ideas of the 2009 FAQ, but with content about NOETHNICGALLERIES added.

Also, I thought part of the idea here was that we wouldn't reference other articles, why are you adding back Elvis and Chemical substance after removing them?

My perspective is that all these examples that reference other articles are cherry picked, and there are also some articles like Spider and Bird (featured articles, so this isn't a fluke) that do really attempt to show the diversity of their subject matter in the lead image. When the FAQ writes things like An article's lead image is not meant to represent or symbolize every possible permutation of its subject. It only functions to exemplify its subject. and The function of a lead image is not to encapsulate the full range of its subject's diversity and variation. Indeed, there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia that even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject. and gives examples of other articles, it strongly implies that this is some sort of fact across all of Wikipedia. Not implies, it outright says there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia. It's not true anymore, look at Spider and Bird. If you want to keep the language like that, and have it be truthful, my perspective is that it needs to be written like this The consensus on Human is that the lead image should not represent or symbolize every possible permutation of its subject. While some lead images do attempt that, like Spider and Bird, consensus and MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES prohibits us from doing that on Human. Leijurv (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You opposed the other examples because they were out-of-date, so I am considering removing those. Elvis was not out-of-date. It feels like you're moving the goalposts. Where did you oppose Elvis before? I see no sense in removing it. Chemical substance is also not out-of-date. I'm not seeing the contradiction you're pointing to. Maybe it would be a good idea to include a couple examples like Spider and Bird to make the point clear that even though some lead images show diversity, they do not show every possible permutation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason is not purely that they are out of date. If that was the reason, then simply finding present-day examples would fix the problem. I do not support that because it's misleading cherry picking.

The reason is actually that the overarching point that it's trying to make, is incorrect. Based on a fallacy, and misleading to the reader. See what I wrote above: "It's a textbook example of a logical fallacy in which it comes up with an absurdity ("show every person"), talks about how it's impossible, then misapplies that to argue against something practical ("show more than one person"). The article literally shows more than one person, today (it shows two people in the infobox). Therefore, not just is this FAQ argument based on a fallacy, it actually serves to argue against the current image."

Put simply: the overarching point is essentially "no article lead image even attempts to show all the variation in its subject matter". This point is incorrect. Some articles attempt that, such as Spider and Bird.

Regarding moving the goalposts, see my edit where I added Here's some points I think should be covered. I said in May: The current FAQ begins with For the sake of neutrality and consistency, this article will tend to default to conventions in use on all other articles. That's got to be removed, since we aren't doing that anymore. We are instead using the MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES exception. ... However, an article's lead image is not meant to represent or symbolize every possible permutation of its subject. It functions only as an example. This is definitely not true. The counterexample to this general statement is every article using a collage today. Frog, Bird, etc. (both are featured articles) ... The premise of Q1 needs to be changed. It's strawman-baiting + nirvana fallacy by suggesting that collage proponents want to represent "all" of humanity without compromises. ... All the examples in Q1 need to go. So, as you can see, I am not goalpost shifting because this is stuff that I have been saying all along, since May. So, one place where I opposed Elvis was All the examples in Q1 need to go. in this edit.

Maybe it would be a good idea to include a couple examples like Spider and Bird to make the point clear that even though some lead images show diversity, they do not show every possible permutation. Well yes that's exactly the point. Lead images can show diversity through multiple examples. It's a fallacy to suggest that since we can't show all diversity, the best solution is therefore to show only one. The FAQ makes that fallacious implication. You yourself said no one seriously thinks that articles should be required to visually illustrate every example of their subject. I agree. Since we agree no one seriously thinks that, why should the FAQ talk about it as if it's a point?

How about what I said in this draft: While many Wikipedia articles on diverse subject matter (e.g. Spider, Bird) do attempt to encapsulate that variety through galleries and selections of images, we are prohibited from doing so on this article per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES even if we wanted to. Other articles on diverse subject matter sometimes similarly have few examples, or even one example, rather than a collage in their infobox (e.g. Whale). Even though it links to other articles, that's fine because it doesn't mislead the reader by cherry picking. It correctly says "some articles do it this way, some articles do it the other way". It doesn't say the incorrect ideas that lead images ARE an example of their subject, or that no article attempts to show off and do justice to the variety of its subject matter in the lead image.

I see no sense in removing it. Even setting aside my above arguments as to why it is better removed, we're going to be removing a lot of things due to consensus between Aircorn and myself which is that the FAQ needs to be far far shorter. As I said: Remember that the premise here is that Aircorn and I would not mind if this FAQ was a single question, maybe two, with single sentence answers. I believe you are the only one pushing for the full length 2009 FAQ with minimal alterations. Some1 was nonspecific and suggested a second question be added to Aircorn's that captured the ideas of the 2009 FAQ, but with content about NOETHNICGALLERIES added. Leijurv (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you keep it under 1,000 bytes? This is impossible to respond to. There is nothing wrong with "cherry picking" when we're showing examples of articles which actually apply well. Anyway, regardless of whether you agree with this rationale, this is the rationale of the consensus; it's not for you to decide independently that it doesn't make sense. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

When the FAQ makes reference to other articles, it implies "this is how it's done". See: An article's lead image is not meant to ... and The function of a lead image is not to .... I have two problems. One, the FAQ is overstepping its jurisdiction. It's making statements about how lead images ought to work in general, in Silence's opinion. Replace with a link to MOS:LEADIMAGE, which is more accurate. Two, those broader statements that it makes are no longer true. Per WP:CCC I can recognize that reality. Consensus from over a decade ago can't override factual external reality. there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia that even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject I provide the counterexamples of Spider and Bird. Combining those points, the cherry picking of articles misleads the reader because Wikipedia has grown and evolved outside of this FAQ. Leijurv (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is how it's done, at some articles. Yes, An article's lead image is not meant to.... No, it's not making statements about how lead images ought to work in general. Spider and Bird do not attempt to summarize every aspect of its subject; they show different species. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

But, think in context of the argument that's being made. The point of that entire passage of the FAQ is to explain "why no collage". The argument being used is that no lead image even attempts to summarize every aspect of its subject, therefore a perfect lead collage is impossible, therefore we use a single image not a collage. (And if it doesn't contribute to "why no collage" then it shouldn't even be said there in the first place). For that reason, the existence of articles that do try and do justice to their subject matter through a collage does make that sentence (there is no lead image on all of Wikipedia) useless. And I fully agree with the at some articles. I agree that it should not make statements about how lead images ought to work in general. I just want some wording changes so that it sounds more of that way and less of "this IS how lead images work". Leijurv (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Spider and bird do not attempt to summarize every aspect of their subject. Summarizing every aspect of their subject is unfeasible. Even if it were possible to depict so much in an image, it may be less useful than just showing an example. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please reread what I said, this reply is as if my most recent message doesn't exist? The entire passage serves to argue against a collage. The point of the argument is to contribute to explaining why a single image works better than a collage. Nowadays, there are featured articles that use collages to attempt to do justice to their subject, like Spider and Bird. This neatly cuts through the core of the FAQ argument here that "no other article even tries!". There is no reason to talk about this idealized concept of "showing EVERY aspect of the subject". You said no one seriously thinks that articles should be required to visually illustrate every example of their subject. It's a silly impossibility, not on the table to begin with. Why should it be said? How does it contribute to supporting the current image? Since the FAQ is to be greatly shortened, how is this a good use of space? Leijurv (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

"[A]ttempt to do justice to" is not the same as "attempt to summarize every aspect of". Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

okay I'm not going to keep up the +1000 bytes anymore

Are we talking about impossibility-land, where it makes sense to speculate about Wikipedia articles that show every single instance of their subject? Or are we talking about reality where we're thinking about tradeoffs in practicality and accuracy between collages and single images? And, I mean it basically is the same. The problem is the tension between the word summarize (which inherently means to lose detail, to not describe something in its entirety, but rather to make a compromise to summarize), and the phrase every aspect of which means the opposite. Bit of an oxymoron. Confusing wording, wouldn't you say? Let's make some wording changes that make it more accurate and a better support of the current lead image, yeah? Leijurv (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe change "summarize" to "encapsulate". Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

In my eyes, that would move the point in the opposite direction.

If you don't mind, I'll try and explain it with an example. Imagine I wrote a FAQ like this:

Q: Why does Human use a collage?

A: Imagine if articles had to use only one image, total. There is no article on all of Wikipedia that has only one image. If that were a requirement, it would mean that on Animal, we could only show one animal! Anyway even if there were a perfect singular image, it would be less useful than showing a variety of animals.

The problem with this is that it comes up with an absurdity ("imagine if articles could only use one image") and uses it to argue against a fully reasonable and practical idea ("the infobox should only have one image"). Additionally, simply by clicking around Wikipedia for a few minutes, you can find an easy counterexample proving it wrong ("there is no article on all of Wikipedia").

I can't defend this by saying "The hypothetical of 'what if only one image' isn't being used to argue in favor of 'collage in infobox'". It clearly is, because it's written in that answer, and the context makes it obvious. And if it isn't in support of 'collage in infobox', it shouldn't be said at all.

Would you agree that saying that ^ would be logically fallacious and a little silly?

That is the exact same problem I have with the 2009 FAQ: it comes up with an absurdity ("show every person"), talks about how it's impossible, then misapplies that to argue against something practical ("show more than one person"). It also says that no infobox lead image even tries to encapsulate the full range of its subject's diversity and variation, while I really do think that Bird and Spider do. Leijurv (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a strawman. Let me show you how your analogy isn't accurate. Image I wrote a FAQ like this:

Q: Why does Human use a single image?

A: Imagine if articles had to use only collages. There is no article on all of Wikipedia that uses collages. If that were a requirement, it would mean that on Atom, we could not show just one atom! Anyway even if there were a perfect collage, it would be less useful than showing a single image.

The FAQ sounds nothing like that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That is genuinely what the FAQ sounds like to me. It argues against collages by imagining what the world would be like if articles were required to show every aspect of their subject. That is actually even more absurd than the answer you just wrote there. ("Required to use a collage" is more reasonable of a hypothetical than "required to show every instance of their subject matter"). The entire passage where it goes off on this hypothetical and imagines if that were a requirement is more unreasonable than that intentionally unreasonable FAQ you just wrote there.

If I remember/reread correctly, when you said above You wrote that the FAQ says that we can't "represent all of humanity without making anyone feel excluded" and "it jumps to 'and therefore we should show only one.'" It doesn't say that. It isn't the exact same, but I imagine that the reason why you don't think this is an issue is that the FAQ doesn't actually connect the dots to say "and therefore this is why no collage". My point is twofold. One, it's implied. Two, if it isn't meant to imply that, we shouldn't say it. If it doesn't contribute to "why no collage", we should delete it from that answer. Leijurv (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Also I didn't intend it to be a direct analogy. I understand that if you swap "collage" with "single image", it doesn't line up with the 2009 FAQ. I only meant that to highlight how it uses an equivalent arguing tactic: coming up with a tangentially related absurdity, talking about how impossible and silly it is, then acting like that's a valid argument against something totally different which is otherwise perfectly reasonable. Leijurv (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It feels like you keep finding new things to oppose. What is the totality of the content which you oppose (excluding length issues)? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think so. I gave a bulleted list over a month ago, search this page for the collapse section Here's some points I think should be covered:. Additionally, when you sent FAQdraft4 for the first time, I gave a full bulleted list of changes (search this page for Do you mind if I make some edits to see it). I additionally demonstrated those changes in this diff. I haven't added any additional complaints since then. You took a bullet point from that list (that I wanted the "If this were a requirement it would mean ..." passage gone), and we've just been discussing that. While that was just one of many edits I made in that diff. Leijurv (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

So we're close to addressing everything but the length? I think the remaining issues you're describing are just interpretation issues. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

.....no? Recall that I self-reverted my suggested changes, so that we could discuss them. We only discussed one bullet, and you didn't change anything in that direction (summarize to encapsulate was the opposite direction). Were it not for the length (aka: actually-make-an-argument versus link-to-the-argument) and needing consensus with Aircorn and others, I would indeed support this revision, which preserves as much of the 2009 FAQ as I believe makes sense. If they are interpretation issues, which I doubt after having spent this much time and effort on reading it over and over and over, that is all the more reason to make the changes. Which of the bullet points (the ones underneath do you mind if I make some edits) do you think you've addressed, and where? I wrote those in response to this revision, and there have been barely any changes since then. For me, one of the biggest ones is the "elephant in the room" of how it argues for one random person as the lead image, but the current lead image shows two people. It's running a race but tripping and falling right before the finish line. I'd like to edit to be a stronger support of the lead image of two people. Leijurv (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

[I]t argues for one random person as the lead image, but the current lead image shows two people. I think you're getting caught up in semantics and missing what is actually being communicated. I've already suggested changes to address this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A solution may be to link to the argument. Have just one question in the FAQ about the image which links to the FAQ written by Silence which is the argument which sums up the original consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I BOLDly made the change to the FAQ.[20] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

ok Leijurv (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Some reference to NOETHNICGALLERIES would be good though. I've done so by putting in this, an 8th discussion link to the current one. If you're okay with that, then I think we're done here. Leijurv (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• The trouble is that there has never been a highly attended RFC or anything similar to choose this image (or at least not one I have seen). There is nothing like at Talk:Women where lots of options were presented and a picture was formally chosen (Note: I am not advocating for a RFC, I am fine with the current image). That has led to this FAQ being written after the fact (it is introducing justification for the current image, but uses arguments not presented in any of the previous discussions). This is backwards. What I look for in a FAQ is to see the links and reasons as to why something in the article is how it is. The best we seem to have is that it was added after some discussion and consensus has not been to change it. If reasoning for that can be summed up from the talk page discussions then it is fine to add more. It is best not to introduce new arguments at a FAQ. Also many of the links in the second draft are to discussions predating the current image so are not really relavent. Aircorn (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  [I]t is introducing justification for the current image, but uses arguments not presented in any of the previous discussions. The arguments in the FAQ were presented in the original discussions which led to the image.[21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  The FAQ I was refering to is here, where the summary of consensus is almost longer than the discussion to reach said consensus. It has been subject to so much edit warring recently that I am not sure what version to refer to now. I don't really care that much to be honest. There are bigger fish to fry. If you and Leijurv can't reach an aggreement just start a RFC or something. This is not really that big a deal and does not need all this discussion. Aircorn (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  I support the FAQ that you wrote Aircorn, this one. I agree with you that the justification presented in that version is too long, and isn't actually supported by the discussions. I see that you think that the links in the second draft are not all relevant, sorry if I grabbed too many. You can feel free to delete any. I applied that draft to the FAQ here based on your comment here. I believe you and I have consensus on this, with Kolya disagreeing (and Dunkleosteus77 being neutral to slightly in favor per WP:EDITCON perhaps). In the absence of other voices, that's enough to apply the new FAQ. However, for the time being Kolya has reverted to the version before the 2009 draft was applied. I believe we are waiting to see if the users that Kolya has pinged will weigh in. None have after 48 hours, I'll give it maybe another day or two. If no one shows up, Kolya is overruled by my agreement with your draft (this one), as consensus does not require unanimity and one editor's opinion alone (without the support of guideline/policy) does not overrule multiple others. Leijurv (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  Aircorn also said in the comment: You could add a second question about a gallery as that comes up a few times. A lot of the rationale in the previous (?) version of Human/FAQ answers that question, it just needs to be trimmed down a bit with a link to MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY. Where is the link to latest draft, Talk:Human/FAQdraft2? Some1 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  I suppose you could call that the latest, yes. You can also feel free to edit it such as to add such a second question if you like. Also I wasn't ignoring that idea, I explicitly asked if that draft2 was acceptable as-is and Aircorn said yes ([22]). Here is the old revision where I had split it out into many questions (foolishly).

  I'm not sure how much you've been following with the massive volume of text above ^, but I disagree that it's a matter of trimming down, but rather a rewrite. The core idea (in [23] as seen in the top 3 bullet points and the body text) used to be "the consensus across many articles is that single images are better than collages, collages are impractical / impossible to be perfect / etc etc etc". That is outdated and no longer true. Search in this page for basically an appeal for when I summarized my argument in bullets. Many articles in 2021 use a collage, so a generalized "collages are bad, no matter the article" doesn't make such sense. (this is not to say that I still think there should be a collage, this is to say that the argument for "no collage in Human" has to be specific to Human) The core idea in 2021 is basically 1. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES probably prohibits any kind of infobox that shows many people and 2. the current choice is arbitrary and here are some links to where it's been discussed. Leijurv (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Somehow throughout all this, I never saw Talk:Human/Image. Looking at Silence's original revision, I just want to point out that they do specifically say "collage or crowd shot". I feel vindicated by the idea that a photo of a group of people is put in the same category as a collage of many individual photos. On the other hand, in the list of good characteristics it does say 1 to 3 people. It's interesting how much unverifiable nonneutral personal opinion is in here about what's important vs unimportant, but at the same time it talks about how a group photo or collage would not be neutral. To my eyes it seems a bit hypocritical. Leijurv (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The leading photo

The leading photo does a disservice to the idea of how humans mostly look like. The leading photo should be of a man and a woman wearing a suit, possibly an expensive one in an environment completely shaped by a human, so a building with a very modern architecture. This would make it more more dignifying for the average viewer, seems like the idea with the original photo is to portray the humans in a more "natural" way as possible to make it look like a unbiased National Geographic type of way, but humans are unnatural. If an alien visited Earth and he wanted to know about humans, they would go to this article and they would see 2 humans from an ethnic group that is a very small minority and the chances of them meeting up people from this ethnic group if they randomly fell in a part of the world would be very small. I am not even suggesting we should use a photo portraying people from an ethnic group with the biggest population, which would be the Han. In my opinion, the most relevant human traits are their technology and the ability to transform the way they look.

Ygglow (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with being from a small ethnic group; choosing a picture of "WEIRD people" could itself be a problem. The picture does show technology that is unique to humans - agricultural fields in the background and clothing and jewelry on the individuals themselves - and that clothing and jewelry (and hair arrangement) is itself a transformation of the way they look compared to what other animal species do. There's nothing less "dignified" or more "natural" about this picture than one of humans who use high technology. Still, I wouldn't necessarily say this is the best possible picture ever - but there'd have to be specific alternatives offered. Keep in mind too that there have likely been past discussions on this matter in the talk page archives. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

See the FAQ near the top of the page above the American flag. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the criteria you guys think a possible future picture should fit?

1-Side-by-side humans of opposite sex

2-high quality

3-full color

4-free of use (or with authorization)

Ygglow (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• We should treat this no different to other animals. A high quality image that allows us to accurately visualise the subject. There is nothing wrong with the current one and there would probably be nothing wrong with a hundred other good ones. As long as you don't look at the image and say wait those are not humans, it serves its purpose. AIRcorn (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• There's an extensive history behind the selection of the photo; see the WIRED story linked at the top of this page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with similar articles. What I learned, is that the inconspicuousness and non-forced representation is the beauty of wikipedia images, not its maximal representation or description. Especially since there are endless possible images we would need to change the image every time a suggestion comes up, and that cant be the best solution. And collages are also no solution, having the same problem of being edited all the time. Nsae Comp (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is a very fitting Picture. Humans have only started wearing suits for 200 hundred years or so. Only been building houses for a couple thousand years. This article is not about the modern human, but humans in general, from the Middle Pleistocene to now. Showing humans with a smartphone, modern buildings and modern clothing would distract from the main point of the article and also would likely no age well either. Jort93 (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It is obviously pedantic,I agree.However, I do not see a problem with switching pictures from time to time. I also believe that it would probably be more "relevant" to show humans in more "developed" scenarios eventually. In 2050, 68% of the world population will live in urban areas, and urban populations have a particular type of characteristics which is having generally a more "groomed" appearance, living in apartments, using technology wherever they go to,etc. Ygglow (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• It is folly to say that an "accurate" or substantial depiction of humans must highlight technology, or modern urban environments. If that's the case, then may as well head over to the article about apples and only show pictures of apples on the grocery store rack, since that's where the vast majority of modern apples spend their existence. Yes, humans create technology. Then again, humans create art. Why not insist that the lead picture should be a rock band? To equate humans with technology is a produce of a commenter's own prejudices about human value, and which behaviors lead to human value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaapje (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Technically fruit dies when it is picked up, "die" as in it loses its connection to the tree and stops growing and starts rotting. So applying that metaphor to humans you'd be saying that it's like showcasing dead humans instead of living ones. That is actually a good point since alot of wikipedia articles about fruits has the fruit already picked up in the leading photo. Anyway, as long as it fits the criteria already mentioned I think anybody should be able to change the picture as they see fit, if it is something that happens too often and leads to an editing war then just limit edits on this particular subject from time to time. Ygglow (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • What? That is....what? Never mind, it doesn't matter. You're off on a tangent that will quickly lead to a debate about whether a clump of embryonic cells constitutes a human life. The point I was making is that just because most humans (whether now or in the future) live in urban settings does not in any way imply a necessity for the cover image to show a bustling 21st century city street to be a fair and accurate depiction of humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaapje (talk • contribs) 03:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • And I disagree Ygglow (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Oh, well, gee, then that's all that matters, right? You're bent on projecting your own biases and fixations. Your opinion is irrelevant. Like I pointed out, humans create and consume art as well, so based on your reasoning we may as well demand a picture of showing various forms of art. In fact, art is arguably a better defining feature of humanity, as rudimentary tool making is observable in other animals, but no other creature other than humans have ever been observed to create art. But you have no interest in that because of your own biases about how to define humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaapje (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
        • A new thought, here: why don't we make a collage of many different pictures, like in the article for WWII? It seems like one image could never really capture the full range of people. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• If this discussion is still ongoing, I would like to add my two-cents. The image of two clothed humans obscures their natural forms and does not provide a "clinical" (if that is the correct word) image of the species, and may create biases in the views of readers. I would suggest something like File:Anterior view of human female and male, without labels.jpg be used, as it depicts humans and their sexual dimorphism in a purely isolated context, free from potential cultural biases or obstructions of their anatomy. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Di (they-them):, I would be in favor of this, for both Man and Woman, I'd prefer 1) a full body image and 2) a nude or mostly nude image. Half of the File:Anterior view of human female and male, without labels.jpg would be perfectly acceptable to me, or anything else similar. Good suggestion. Joe (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to a clinical representation of humans. As the lead states, humans "clothe themselves". A clinical representation does not well illustrate the subject. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We could have an image that better illustrates human anatomy without being super-duper encyclopedic about it. Then again, I'm not pushing hard for anything, the current image is just fine at best and adequate at worst. Joe (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a great photo. We have anatomical images in the Human#Anatomy and physiology section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would oppose naked images on the lead of articles whose subject-matter doesn't imply they will be there (or where there's no compelling other reason why a naked image is necessary) for MOS:SHOCKVALUE reasons. While, yes, there is some argument to be made for showing the human form, wearing clothing is also part of what defines humanity and is equally valuable to represent, so I don't see how any argument for anatomical images means much beyond being yet another competing pair of definitions we have to choose from... and between the two resulting choices, MOS:SHOCKVALUE pushes it over to clothed options. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• This again? This comes up every few months. There have literally been papers published about the debate surrounding the lead image of this article. There is no perfect lead image. Even the Anterior View image is imperfect. Last I checked, we had hair thair...everywhair. Just put it to rest. It's the long standing image. It's fine. GMG^talk 11:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• This. No perfect image exists. The current image reflects what many humans looked like and lived like for much of human history, so I don't think it's reasonable to call it unrepresentative; obviously there are other aspects of humanity we could focus on and other ways to define humanity, but since it's an inevitable trade-off between competing definitions, the best we can hope for is an image that is representative of the subject by at least one reasonable set of definitions, which this image achieves. --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The current one is low res and the quality isn't great. Why not try a featured photo of people such as File:Pescador Margariteño de Pata e cabra.jpg or File:Woman harvesting wheat, Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh, India ggia version.jpg? (t · c) buidhe 21:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we should just make a collage of humans of different ethnicities. Like, y'know how pages for cities usually have a collage of landmarks and the skyline or whatever? Maybe we could get that. Like, I dunno. Pedestrians in New York City, a group of people talking, something like that. Maybe different genders and body types or whatever; this is about humans in general, not just whoever we deem average. No notable people like celebrities or politicians, of course; they don't represent all of humanity. I think that'd work. One image of two people doesn't really capture such an important, wide species. Basically what Kokopelli said. AdoTang (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have written up why the arguments in favor of keeping the current image are pretty much entirely hollow here. So if the current image is to be kept, there need to be some better arguments written. If there are no solid arguments for this specific image then the breakdown of consensus in favor of inaction is a sad case of WP:SQS lasting over a decade, going against WP:5P3. The current image is low resolution and blurry with JPEG artifacting. That, alone, should be more than enough reason to change it. Especially if, as the FAQ states, this low-quality image was chosen arbitrarily. We can do so much better. Take some from here and here and here, make a collage of a dozen or so. Here, I'll pick out some, just to show how easy it is:

Extended content

Or, we could just do the images already in the article for lifecycle, I think those are also fine and it could short circuit around any new arguments about what images are applicable or representative. See here:

Extended content

Obviously there would need to be some work in better cropping and formatting and such, the Photomontage template that I used there is probably not ideal. I arranged my collage so that it wouldn't look too bad, but blindly taking the portraits from lifecycle did leave a lot of ugly spacing. The aspect ratio there too is probably not ideal for an infobox. Leijurv (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Those collages are far too long for the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Are you sure? I made the size large so that they would be clearly visible on this page, but the number of images is reasonable in my opinion (mine has 11, the lifecycle copy has 10). As I said in my message, there would need to be better cropping and formatting, no disagreement there. To arrive at a number I just looked at similar articles such as Primate (10 images, featured article), Mammal (18 images, good article), Animal (18 images, good article), Ecology (5 images, good article), Spider (18 images, good article), Plant (15 images), Bird (18 images, featured article). If anything, this is too few to show the diversity of humanity. Perhaps it would be better to have 3 columns instead of two? Very open to ideas or alternate proposals, what would your ideal collage look like? Leijurv (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The collage is much longer than the current taxobox including the image. If it's so long you needed to put {{collapse top}} in the talkpage, this is a good indication your collage is too long.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Again, I intentionally made it an expanded size (by adding the size parameter to the photomontage template) so that the images could be clearly visible on this page. I would have put a collapse box regardless of size so as not to disrupt the conversation. I'm aware that in an infobox, they will be smaller. So the pixel size of the images is probably not so much an issue. Please take a look at pages like Bird and others I linked above and imagine it would end up looking like that, after cropping and formatting. But prior to doing any of that, we would need to decide the images (the number, and the specific selections). Leijurv (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example:

Extended content

I've just gone and replaced the taller images with wider aspect ratios. Note that this resulting photomontage is 530px high by 300px wide, while the existing lead image is 500px high at 300px wide, meaning they're nearly identical in aspect ratio. (The above is just an example demonstrating aspect ratio, I'm not saying this is what the selection of images should be.) Leijurv (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Top right's face is obstructed and we've got 3 Venezuelans, and no East Asians, Polynesians, Africans, Natives Americans, or Aboriginal Australians. Same issue for the lifecycle example. Are we trying to do an around the world collage or what's the diversity cut-off?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, how exactly were the images selected for the collage? Besides race/ethnicity/gender, what about hair color, eye color, height, body sizes, hairstyles, etc.? Some1 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Two things: I clearly stated how I selected the images. Please reread. I gave links to where I found them from on commons, and I then explained The above is just an example demonstrating aspect ratio, I'm not saying this is what the selection of images should be. I picked them for their aspect ratio. I am not standing by this specific selection in any way, other than a demonstration that we can reasonably put about a dozen images in an infobox without making it look unbalanced. Secondly, any issues of racial bias is made better by having more images. All of your concerns about the number of each group are addressed better even in my collage where I wasn't even trying, than it is right now in the article with two people of the same apparent race and age. If it's just simpler to have one race, so that there's no arguments about representation, why isn't this entire article full of people from the Akha people in Thailand? This leads to the conclusion that having a diversity of images is good, if that's representative of the group, up to a point. We can't show every single person in the infobox, even though every single person is unique. We balance practicality with accuracy. That doesn't mean we have to show specifically two people. Leijurv (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm just speaking in general terms. Why did you select the particular images from the Commons the way you did for the first collage here? Why Hayley Williams, for example, instead of the other musicians listed on the Commons? If a collage is used as a lead image, no doubt people will still go to the talk page and ask why certain groups or people are selected or excluded. As for the second collage using images from the Human#Life_cycle section, I think those images are better left where they are at, in the Human#Life_cycle section. It wouldn't work well as a lead image collage since half of the images include some sort of headgear, not to mention blonde-haired people and East Asians, for example, are excluded. Some1 (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I did it at random based on what fit together well. Yes, even in the first one. The side-by-side pairs have to have roughly the same aspect ratio otherwise there's very large padding gaps. So I started by picking some at random. Since that commons page is divided into sections, I suppose there was a bias towards selecting not all from the same section. Then I noticed those gaps, and took another look through, trying to replace images with ones that fit together better. Later on, I did that again much more aggressively for the second collage, with a bias towards landscape and away from portrait. You may have wanted the answer to be "you got me, I have a crush on Hayley Williams", but that isn't it, sorry! =P :) Also immediately next to that photo is a second image from that section you linked, musicians and singers, so...?

If a collage is used as a lead image, no doubt people will still go to the talk page and ask why certain groups or people are selected or excluded. Perhaps. But they will have a weaker argument than they do today. As I said we balance inclusion/completion with practicality. There is a clear argument towards showing more than one race to represent all of humanity. There is a much less clear argument towards showing 21 races instead of 20. As long as the lead demonstrates, broadly, the visual diversity of the subject, I think that's likely a good place along that balance. Additionally, I don't see any complaint about the lifecycle images, and a lot of complaint about the lead.

I don't see much of a problem with showing some headgear. Although that's funny to bring up because the current lead image has both people wearing headgear! He's got a hat and she's got something, and maybe also earrings, but it's truly too blurry to tell.

Again, I don't think a collage will bring this article to utter perfection. It doesn't have to. It's just an improvement from a singular image that is less than ideal as a visual representation of the article's subject. People might still argue, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't make the article better. Edits don't need to quash all future argument, that's a pretty impossible standard. Leijurv (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Also I want to say that even though I did not personally think deeply about which photos to include in that example collage, that doesn't mean I think we should legitimately make a collage of random images. Some thought should be put into how best to visually represent the variety of humanity. I did not put that thought in, as I have admitted repeatedly. If we worked together to do such a thing, it would make the article much better than our current essentially random nonrepresentative image of two people. Leijurv (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• How about this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

:) I like the inclusion of Jimbo. I would support this over the current one. Leijurv (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Everyone reading this article knows what people look like, or were blind at or shortly after birth and do not benefit from a photo. The only possible benefit is to a person who does not read English, and thus doesn't know what this article is about. But those people are obviously in the wrong place, and are also unlikely to generalize a photo (or possibly even collage) to the actual topic of the article. A photo is superfluous. If one is added at the top it is added for particular purposes of whoever added it. Theoretically a reconstruction of an archaic Homo sapiens would partially cover all humans still alive (less our archaic non-sapiens admixture), though not all humans who have ever existed. There is no point to a picture that does not represent humanity as a whole as a lead image. 2601:648:8402:88C0:C858:EBBE:D992:F228 (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes and I imagine everyone reading the article for the letter A knows what A looks like, yet no one's saying to take down the lead image over there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The current lead of the article states: "Though humans vary in many traits (such as genetic predispositions and physical features), two humans on average are over 99% similar". "The greatest degree of genetic variation exists between males and females." Our current lead image has both a male and a female. I don't think a collage (or removing the image entirely, for that matter) is necessary. Some1 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

From what I said yesterday: Biological recognition is not and should not be the standard for having multiple images - for example, if there were no biologically distinguishable breeds of cat, the cat article should still show something like its current collage of how they do look quite different from each other. And if there were biologically distinguishable breeds of cat that looked exactly the same as each other, there's no need to have two identical images for a biological distinction you can't see. In other words, perhaps the reason why some of your examples show a male and a female is that they look visually different from each other, so it makes sense to have an image of each. If males and females looked identical to each other, I don't think we would need a photo of each.

It's not like this image is demonstrating sexual dimorphism or anything. If that's the intent we definitely need a better one where they aren't wearing baggy clothes that make form ambiguous.

You can't see DNA in a photograph. It doesn't matter where genetic variation does or doesn't exist. It only matters what you can see in a photograph. Visually apparent variations. Leijurv (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I more or less agree. See MOS:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. (emphasis mine). My current thinking is that in order from best to worst it would be 1. a collage 2. something like File:Human.png 3. no image 4. an alternate higher quality image of a couple (or perhaps two unrelated side-by-side photos of male and female?) 5. an alternate higher quality image of a single person 6. current image. This isn't firm and I could totally have my mind changed, I'm most uncertain for example about #2 through #4.

Thinking on it more, even if one supports the idea on the FAQ of just one example then the current image still can't be ideal... it's TWO examples of "Human", standing next to each other. This isn't the article on "Human couples" or "Marriage" or "Parenthood" or anything... it's the article on "Human". If you like the idea of a male and a female then (as per arguments that I won't repeat ad nauseum) that seems incompatible with the argument in the FAQ that since we can't show all diversity we might as well pick one example at random. This is not what I believe, it's bad faith / devil's advocate based on the FAQ argument: "We shouldn't show both male and female because if we want to display the habitus of the two typical biological sexes that is bias and personal opinion away from intersex people. People will argue why don't we have a stylized drawing of someone with Klinefelters syndrome. Therefore, the only fair thing to do is copy in the lead image from Man (why not Woman? because Man comes first in the alphabet, therefore my selection of Man over Woman was unbiased and fair). Then we will finally have our fair Just One Example of Human." Leijurv (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If you had to select images for 4. an alternate higher quality image of a couple, which images would you choose? (Flickr Creative Commons have some free, non-copyrighted photos https://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/) Some1 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps File:Inupiat Family from Noatak, Alaska, 1929, Edward S. Curtis (restored).jpg or File:Dagestani man and woman.jpg (source). This is barely better than the current image. I'm not sure how to ideally judge these tradeoffs. I think it would be easier to get two separate images for male and female and put them side by side than to get a couple photo. Imagine something like:

Extended content
Or, depending on how Talk:Woman is resolved, perhaps: This happens to work particularly well as the image for Woman was intentionally Reworked using original (lens blur background, desaturate clothing, aspect ratio to match File:Outdoors-man-portrait (cropped).jpg). (source).

Where I just took the images from Man and Woman. We could update this as those are updated, perhaps? Alternatively we could grab some from here. Leijurv (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure on what copyright is allowed from Flickr to Commons (I prefer to just look at Commons since the copyright check has already been done), but for what it's worth I believe this is a correct search filter for Commons-allowed copyright licenses. It says there's still >100k results which is way more than the 1k entries in the "human couples" category on Commons, so probably worth looking through, thanks! Leijurv (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my order is: 1. a collage 2. archaic Homo sapiens reconstructions 3. no image 4. an alternate higher quality image of a couple (or perhaps two unrelated side-by-side photos of male and female?) 5. current image 6. an alternate higher quality image of a single person. I don't want nude images for the reasons mentioned above. 2601:648:8402:88C0:C858:EBBE:D992:F228 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I've got another data point to present: out of curiosity I've gone and looked at the other language versions of this page. I went down the left sidebar of Human and opened up the ones with the gold star (featured article in that language). [24] uses File:Human.png, [25] uses File:Pioneer plaque humans.svg, [26] uses File:Pepole montage.jpg, [27] uses File:PPlaqueB.png, and [28] is a misclassified stub, doesn't look like a featured article to me, doesn't even have an infobox, but its only image is File:Human skeleton front en.svg. Leijurv (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I clicked through all of the different language versions of this article (that's a lot of right click -> open link in new tab that I had to do), and File:Akha_cropped_hires.JPG and File:Human.png seem to be used most frequently. Out of 202 links, only two use a collage ([29] and [30]). This image was used quite a bit, too, but not as much as the other two. Some1 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Two hundred? Wow, you have more patience than me! I imagine a number of those were influenced by the english wiki though, right? Translations made from this article that just stayed the way they were. I think we can agree it's unlikely that many foreign languages independently converged on File:Akha_cropped_hires.JPG as the best Commons has to offer for humanity. :)

While I still tentatively think a collage would be better, I would be very pleased with File:Human.png over the current one. I do not think File:Human.jpg would be a good choice. Leijurv (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A doodle of two people would indeed attract far more dissent than the current or collage images   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Human.png is the doodle, File:Human.jpg is the nude photos. It looks like the doodle is used in 3/4 featured foreign articles on Human, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Leijurv (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What if we just did this? Sort of like how it's done on ethnic group articles e.g. Arabs, Armenians, Austrians.

suggestion

Human Temporal range: Middle Pleistocene – Present Homo sapiens population density Scientific classification Domain: Eukaryota Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorhini Infraorder: Simiiformes Family: Hominidae Subfamily: Homininae Tribe: Hominini Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens Binomial name Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 Subspecies †Homo sapiens idaltu White et al., 2003 Homo sapiens sapiens

Leijurv (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Leijurv (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Leijurv (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

sapiens emerged around 300,000 years ago

This is not accurate. The oldest known evidence is 300,000 years old (from Morocco) but that doesn't mean that's when sapiens emerged. For decades it was thought 200,000 years ago, until the Morocco site was found. Likely even older sites will be found in the future. -- GreenC 16:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:CRYSTALBALLing. We have to stick with the current evidence and what WP:RS say, currently the earliest evidence is around 300,000 years old, so reliable sources state that the species emerged around that time. If older sites are found in the future, the article can be updated at that time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Opposable thumbs and development of technology

Should opposable thumbs be mentioned along with big brains , in the first sentence part "characterized by bipedality, large and complex brains enabling"

Further ahead, in the same sentence should we also mention development of technology after tools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.214.118.95 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost all catarrhines have opposable thumbs. It's not really a characteristic feature of humans in the same way bipedalism and big brains are. – Joe (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

So my suggestion was with regard to the role of opposable thumb and big brains in development of tools and tech.

Humans as Homo sapiens

There has been some dispute over how we define humans. Originally I had a paragraph trying to explain how human can mean H. Sapiens or apply to the Homo genus. Yes this article predominately uses the sapiens definition, but I see no harm in adding an explanationary sentence mentioning the other definitions. It was removed for being fringe. I don’t agree this is fringe and think it or something similar should be added back in. Aircorn (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This does not seem like fringe to me either. I would argue that in everyday use, "human" applies to Homo sapiens but that it can just as well apply to the entire genus. We have, after all, an article on several extinct species under the title Archaic humans. Unless WP:RS are against that interpretation, it seems to me that it is not very different from how "cat" most often refers to Felis catus, but can also be used as an umbrella term for the entire Felidae. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Could you point us to a diff of the paragraph you're proposing is added back in? – Joe (talk)

@Joe Roe: The relevant diffs are here with Equivamp calling it fringe and here with Dunkleosteus77 removing it because it is fringe. It doesn't need to be the same wording and I would love better sources, but I feel either something along these lines would fit. Another option (or maybe as well as) would be to use a hatnote like at Cat. Aircorn (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks... that seems to be saying something else though. You can call Neanderthals or even Australopithecus "human" without formally extending the definition of the genus Homo to include all hominids (definitely not a mainstream view!)

Why don't we just add something simple and self-referencing, like:

Extinct members of the genus Homo, such as the Neanderthals, are known as archaic humans.

Perhaps immediately before the sentence about the dispute binomial for Neanderthals? – Joe (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: My edit was calling the inclusion of chimpanzees and gorillas into the Homo genus to be fringe, not the use of the word human to refer to the entire Homo genus, which I agree is not fringe and should be included in the article. Equivamp - talk 18:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Will look at adding something. Aircorn (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Adolescent male image

Wondering if the image for an adolescent (teenage) male should be an USMC soldier? I don't think that is even the typical human adolescent experience in the United States.

Perhaps an alternative could be a more standard, stock image of a teenage student in school or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.117.74 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It does seem an unusual choice. Do you have an alternative to suggest? HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps one these images of male presenting students

Saint Mary's Hall Middle School Students

KRISHNA SCHOOL MEERUT UP INDIA CLASSROOM

Should this article be written in A less disconnected tone?

I mean the article is written by us human's to be read by other human's so why should it be in such A disconnected tone? Thecornerwiki (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Most encyclopedic entries for human I'm aware of use 3rd person, but I feel like sentences can easily be rearranged to avoid "they" so it sounds less weird were someone to invest the time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah also I think this article is testament to what humans have achieved. Thecornerwiki (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Human vs humanity

Humanity redirects here. On some wikis it has a separate article (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1156970). I was reading entry on Humanity in The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (GBooks) and I am not sure if a summary would even fit in the current article (it effectively states that sf literature, unlike other genras, often focuses not on individual humans but on humanity as a whole, tackling topics such as human evolution or the future of civilization). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In my experience other wikis sometimes have WP:CFORK articles, perhaps due to being underscrutinized and lower-traffic. It's also possible that some of those articles are about what word to use for humans in general, akin to "mankind" vs. "humankind", etc. If "humans in science fiction" became a big enough topic to spin off, that could be done, but I don't see any reason to split the article now, or to ever split into human and humanity articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

Change the the line "women can become pregnant" to female humans can become pregnant, as not all people identifying as women are capable of pregnancy and some who identify as men are capable of it. 85.227.163.41 (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not finding any part of the article that has the sentence women can become pregnant verbatim. I see a sentence of similar structure that reads Women are capable of pregnancy, and undergo menopause and become infertile at around the age of 50. that is in the lead. While the change would make the sentence more technically accurate, I don't believe it would benefit the article to change the wording as such. It believe it's understood that "women" in this context refers to a biological one. If there is another sentence you meant to refer to, and I did not find it, feel free to reopen the request. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and this consensus at the Village Pump applies as well. Identity aside, there have always been a few infertile women too, but there was never any push to stop talking about "women" in these contexts simply because a few women are infertile. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Making such a change would only serve to use the article to support a contentious political idea, and thus would be propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaapje (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Homo evolved from Australopithecus

The claim that Homo evolved from Australopithecus was added, supported by doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0248. I don't accept that this source supports that claim (I'm not saying that it's not correct, just that this source doesn't support it). It would be quite consistent with this paper if both had a common ancestor, and were sisters – indeed at one point this appears to be considered. To support the claim requires a different reference. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: You have the timeline a bit mixed up. Up until 29 November, the article simply read "The genus Homo evolved from Australopithecus." There was no immediate citation, but the reference supporting the following sentence [31] discusses a fossil that is transitional between Australopithecus and Homo, so perhaps that is what was meant. This was changed to "may have evolved" by LittleJerry, who also added the Kimbel et al. source.[32] I agree that this source is not the best for establishing the basic facts of the A.–H. transition (not because it contradicts it, but because it takes it as a given), but I assume it was added to support the other part LittleJerry added: "the earliest members of Homo appear to share several key attributes with generalized species of Australopithecus".

I contested the addition of "may have" because, as I said, I don't believe there's any doubt that Homo descended from Australopithecus. This isn't a very interesting statement, because there aren't any other named genuses of hominins in Late Pliocene Africa that they could have descended from. For references, see e.g. [33][34] Australopithecus#Classification and the citations therein for references.

I'd be happy to add some of those references, if you want. But what we don't have at the moment is a source that supports the addition of may have. – Joe (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: The order of events doesn't matter. If a reference is put immediately after a statement, then it must support that statement. As soon as doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0248 was inserted, we can't say just "evolved" because that's not what the reference says. Inserting "may" is only a temporary fix, although I think it is supported by the reference. (I personally think there is every doubt that Homo descended from Australopithecus; they may well be sisters, descending from a common ancestor. But what I think is irrelevant; all the statements must be supported by reliable sources.) So by all means adjust the text to say "The genus Homo evolved from Australopithecus. The earliest members of Homo appear to share several key attributes with generalized species of Australopithecus." Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I personally think there is every doubt that Homo descended from Australopithecus; they may well be sisters, descending from a common ancestor. But what I think is irrelevant; all the statements must be supported by reliable sources. – a rather ironic statement, considering you haven't produce a single source for this assertion, whilst I have given you several.

The order is important because you are introducing a new claim (that there is doubt over the evolution of Australopithecus → Homo) without a source, and edit warring to keep it in over others' objections. Nevertheless, I will add the references I just offered to add. – Joe (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I think you miss the point, which is simply that the changes that were made meant that the statement was apparently supported by a reference that doesn't support it (but does, in my view, support "may" if you read it carefully, as per LittleJerry's original addition). As for edit-warring, I invited you to discuss my revert, which you should have done before undoing it. Please do now add further references. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Yes, but the change in question was the addition of an unrelated reference to an otherwise uncontested statement. If I slap a citation to Kimbel et al.'s paper onto a random sentence in sky, are you going to ask for a new source for it being blue? I highly recommend reading WP:BRD – when contested changes are made, the discussion starts with the stable version.

As for the source supporting "may", I would say it takes "creative" rather than "careful" reading, considering the very first sentence in the article introduces the transition from Australopithecus to Homo as an established fact. – Joe (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a strange reading for a paper entitled "From Australopithecus to Homo: the transition that wasn't" and which opens "Although the transition from Australopithecus to Homo is usually thought of..." and goes on to say "By almost all accounts, the earliest populations of the Homo lineage emerged from a still unknown ancestral species..." It certainly does not take the transition as an "established fact". But this is irrelevant (as are my views, as I said above). What's relevant is matching statements in the article with refs. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's why you have to actually read it, not just leap to conclusions from the title. The paper argues that the transition from Australopithecus to Homo is not as momentous as usually thought, because we lack fossils from the transition period, and researchers have put too much conceptual weight on an arbitrary taxonomic convention. It doesn't, at any point, cast any doubt on the idea that a transition happened. But I have added new references as you wanted, so unless you can produce a reliable source for your novel speculation that the two are "sisters", I don't see what more there is to talk about. – Joe (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

There is a typo is the sentence: Though fossils from the transition are scare, the earliest members of Homo share several key traits with Australopithecus. “scare” should be “scarce”. Umyayaya (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 02:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Why I edited the lead

I changed a paragraph from this:

Genes and the environment influence human biological variation in visible characteristics, physiology, disease susceptibility, mental abilities, body size and life span. Though humans vary in many traits (such as genetic predispositions and physical features), two humans on average are over 99% similar, with the most genetically diverse populations from Africa. The greatest degree of genetic variation exists between males and females. On average, men have greater body strength and women generally have a higher body fat percentage. Females undergo menopause and become infertile at around the age of 50. Females on average also have a longer life span in almost every population around the world. The nature of male and female gender roles has varied historically, and challenges to predominant gender norms have recurred in many societies.

to this:

Genes and the environment influence human biological variation in visible characteristics, physiology, disease susceptibility, mental abilities, body size and life span. Though humans vary in many traits (such as genetic predispositions and physical features), two humans on average are over 99% similar, with the most genetically diverse populations from Africa.

Humans are sexually dimorphic. At puberty, humans develop secondary sex characteristics. Women are capable of pregnancy, and undergo menopause and become infertile at around the age of 50. The nature of male and female gender roles has varied historically, and challenges to predominant gender norms have recurred in many societies.

Recently it got changed back, and I changed it again. There are multiple reasons why I changed it. One is because sexual dimorphism and the role of gender in society is one of the most significant aspects of humanity in all societies and deserves a paragraph of its own.

Another is that the sentence "The greatest degree of genetic variation exists between males and females" is simultaneously too vague and too specific. It is too vague because the only reason why this is true is because of the difference between XX and XY chromosomes, and the sentence ignores the sex-specific chromosomes entirely and focuses solely on the size of the differences in chromosomes. It is too specific because it is loaded, falsely implying that the size of the genetic difference between people with XX chromosomes and people with XY chromosomes is significant on its own and that the primary influence of sexual dimorphism is chromosomal rather than hormonal.

I also simplified the sentences afterwards because I felt that the current one was a mishmash list of different sexually dimorphic traits, and the traits put in the paragraph are mostly arbitrary. For example why should body strength, body fat, and life span differences be included, but not body shape/size differences, hormone differences, or health differences? I summarized it to state generally that humans have secondary sex characteristics, covering all of the differences listed, excluding the reproductive difference, which I kept intact.

PBZE (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that this deserves its own paragraph. A WP:LEAD should not be more than four paragraphs. And the sentence about gender roles and the challenges to them should probably be cut entirely, as social norms are already mentioned, and other aspects of society and social change that are at least as important get at most two words - like political, economic, and kinship systems and the challenges over time they have faced. Why single out challenges to gender norms? Instead, it makes sense to mention briefly the most prominent aspect of the sexual dimorphism as was done before. I have made these changes. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: MOS:LEADLENGTH is explicitly a guideline, not an absolute rule. A lead can be longer than four paragraphs if it is felt that it improves the lead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not follow me around to articles you have never edited and outside of normal topic areas just to contradict me. See WP:HOUND. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: you really need to try some good faith in your edits. These repeated personal attacks are unbecoming, as this is the second or third time now you've baselessly accused me of hounding. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It does not deserve its own paragraph as it unbalances the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the body. It is supposed to be an overview so being a little vague (especially on a broad topic like this) is acceptable. That sentence comes directly from the body. The traits weren't arbitrary they came directly from the body again. Saying that I am fine with how it reads at the moment. Aircorn (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

PBZE, you need to stop edit warring your changes. It makes no sense to avoid saying the main way in which humans are sexually dimorphic after noting that fact. And "typically" about women being capable of pregnancy is not better because that is how it evolved and is always true aside from rare medical conditions. Just because some people are disabled in such a way they cannot speak or use sign language, we do not say that humans only "typically" use language. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of edit warring for making an edit that differs from what was previously reverted, therefore following WP:EDITCON, and then after a subsequent unconstructive reversion, undoing that one. Anyways, once again, what makes body strength and body fat the most significant aspects of sexual dimorphism, as opposed to others? And evolution does not work with any absolute purpose or goal, so reasoning on the basis that it does is inappropriate. The word "typically" is already used multiple times throughout the article. The language analogy is not a good one for two reasons. One, the number of women who are infertile is far greater than the number of humans who are incapable of expressing or understanding any language. Two, it is self-evident that a group of humans is collectively capable of doing something, so the inclusion of that phrase implies that the sentence is talking about individuals within the group; whereas the absence of that phrase means the sentence may be about the group as a whole, so we can say humans (collectively, as communities or societies) use language to facilitate communication. PBZE (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That second attempt to insert it after you were reverted was edit warring. Your point two I'm honestly having trouble parsing. Women as a group - i.e. in general - are capable of pregnancy, and the only ones who are not have rare conditions where the biological functionality as designed by evolution doesn't work. "No absolute goal" doesn't mean it is aimless or random.

I don't see what "other" aspects of sexual dimorphism could be mentioned such that this one is arbitrary. Reproductive systems and genitals themselves are not what is meant by sexual dimorphism, because non-dimorphic species exist and still differ in that aspect. Men being taller is part of that greater size and hence strength, and body shape differences have a lot to do with strength and body fat percentage. Again, makes sense to name the main way humans are sexually dimorphic than just state it and drop it. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens

Homo sapiens is what the early people were before us, and they used rocks to make axes, and spears. Apart from our species, the gallery features eight other kinds of human: Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis (nicknamed 'the Hobbit'), Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals) and the recently discovered Homo naledi. Plapaglia324 (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

We are still Homo sapiens. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

Pedantic, but in the Dunhuang map image, shouldn't it be "circa 700 'AD' Biohistoire (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:BCE, AD or CE can be omitted. I think it is clear as it is. Vpab15 (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Formatting Error

The last edit added a formatting error, adding two extra open curly brackets before the short description, messing up the preview popup. I would like to fix it myself, but the page being semi-protected prevents me from doing so. Could someone with permission fix it?

Edit: I've just found out edit requests are a thing and I've made one.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.190.228 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

Remove two open curly brackets before Short description. 204.111.190.228 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request on 2 june 2022

remove nudity picture on the article humans.103.130.91.2 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

well, it might be disrtressing for some people to see this. and lets be honest we all know what our bodies look like.103.130.91.2 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

or just add another one with the private parts censored . 103.130.91.2 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. Those "some people" don't have to read this article if they don't want to. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've never been much of a fan of 'Wikipedia isn't censored' as an argument for inclusion - mainly because it often isn't really an argument for inclusion of anything specific at all. In this case though, it is a reasonable enough starting position, since we have an article on a subject, and the arguments against an illustration of said subject seem to be based on appeals to censorship. Not that the arguments seem consistent, since if 'we all know what our bodies look like', we are presumably not going to be shocked much by seeing an illustration of things we are well aware of. 'Private parts' are parts of people - they make us what we are, in more ways than one. And as a general principle, leaving content out of articles to avoid offending people by showing them what they already know seems an odd way to write an encyclopaedia. On the whole, I'd hope that our readers look at articles to learn stuff, not to be mollycoddled by sanitised content that might otherwise oblige them to think a little: in this case, to think, if an illustration offends them, as to why it is that they are so offended by ordinary human beings... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022

People are NOT animals 46.69.152.85 (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: already discussed at length at this talk page (see archive) — humans are animals. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Melbournestar. the common misconception that humans are not animals is misleading. humans are primates (monkeys and apes), belong to kingdom animalia, and are animals. not plants, not bacteria, but animals. ask a biologist, and he will tell you. this misconception is probably derived from religious texts.103.99.150.193 (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

please edit "obesity epidemic" in diet section to "some people call it an "obesity epidemic"…". 103.99.150.193 (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The article says the ...in the United States 35% of people are obese, leading to this being described as an "obesity epidemic.". We have a citation for the quotation, to a legitimate medical source which uses those exact words in its title. [35] We don't rewrite direct quotations. Furthermore, a statement that 'some people' say something, even if sourced, is more of less meaningless. You can find sources for 'some people' saying almost anything: what matters, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is whether such opinions represent a significant viewpoint. In this case, I'd say they do, since you'd be hard put to find many people qualified to comment on the medical effects of obesity who didn't consider it a significant factor adversely affecting health in many parts of the world. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

but obesity is NOT an epidemic. you could say it is an endemic, though changes in the diet is all it takes to make it practically nonexistent. 103.114.211.8 (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

in wikipedia article epidemic, it states that an epidemic is the rapid, common SPREAD of a disease to people. obesity is not infectious or contagious (it does not "spread" to other people).103.114.211.8 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, we understand. That's why it says "being described as". Your complaint is with the reliable source which is a paper titled "The Obesity Epidemic", however they would not pay attention to the complaint either because it's just colorful language to describe the scale of the obesity problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

okay…guess I'll argue with the source website instead… 103.114.211.8 (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Gender

In the Gender section of the article one of sentences reads, "Cultural differences by gender have often been believed to have arisen naturally out of a division of reproductive labor; the biological fact that women give birth led to their further cultural responsibility for nurturing and caring for children." Everything past the semi-colon seems entirely unneeded in the context, and the way its written makes it sound very strange. In addition, the source following this section leads to the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, which is a 16,000 page book going over a variety of meanings and definitions. The source does not give a page or even chapter number. It seems to me that someone wanted to add something (that was probably meant to be transphobic) and tacked on a random source. Can this phrase be removed? Herravondure (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the repetition past the semi-colon now. I also did some digging, and it looks like the content was added in December 2009 and hasn't seen much of a revision since. I also found the original talk page discussion for it from the same time period. Based on that discussion, I don't think this was intentional, merely it was content written thirteen years ago in good faith that hasn't been updated since. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it, I guess I read into it with too much modern context. Herravondure (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

My advice is to always operate from the assumption of good faith until proven otherwise. However recognising problematic article content is a very good skill to have, as you are correct in that it could be recent, or it could be old, and use of language changes over time. So keep an eye out for similarly poorly worded content, just don't be so quick to try and guess motive behind it. Unless of course you're reverting obvious vandalism and the like. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I won't restore the phrase as it isn't strictly necessary given the preceding phrase, unless others support doing so (it is more specific after all); however, I very much dispute the premise. Not all women give birth, yes, but the reason that the gender role of women involves this is thought by many to be because (rare exceptions aside) it is they who give birth, and this aspect is a cultural universal. Simply stating the way gender operates in nearly all cultures is not transphobic. This is not something we obscure; we depict the world as it is according to reliable sources with WP:Due weight. The International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences is an excellent source. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What you've said is true on the surface level, however the use of the specific phrase biological fact that women give birth is almost exclusively done in a transphobic biological essentialism based context. We can make, and now do, make reference to the historical context of how gender roles emerged without using problematic language that is overwhelmingly being used to denigrate trans and non-binary people. That said, that paragraph is I think in need of an update. The three citations are 21, 13, and 17 years old respectively. We should check to see how more modern sources assert this same piece of information given the shift in language over the last twenty years. It may be that those are the best citations to still use, or it may not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't that context, though. In context, it's talking about reproduction and society's roles based on that, not trying to invalidate trans people. In a different context, sure, that phrase could be an issue, but I saw nothing wrong with this use. As far as source age goes, what's there at present seems not the least bit controversial and very unlikely to have changed in scholarship in the last 10 to 20 years, so I don't think replacing those high-quality scholarly sources is a high priority, but if someone wants to, they can, I guess. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No this is that context. The paragraph is discussing the formation of societal gender roles, which are some would argue, including most prominent transphobes usually through stereotyping, are inherently linked to transgender identities. You can present

I also thought I was pretty careful and clear in my reasoning for why we should be checking for newer sources. I don't disagree with the information, I'm querying how it is presented in 2022 versus how it was presented in 2001-2009 respectively. I suspect give how language has evolved over the last twenty years that it will be presented in a different manner, one that is maybe less problematic than how it was presented in 2001. No-one here has suggested replacing or removing the sources that are currently used without first checking to see if they've been superseded with newer revisions of the same text, and/or newer language.

The closest suggestion to modifying any of the current sources was to make one of the citations more specific, by referring to a specific page or chapter within a 16,000 page book going over a variety of meanings and definitions. Even if there has been, as you've suggested, no changes in how this is discussed within scholarly sources, that suggestion of increasing citation specificity is still an excellent one to do. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the rest because a) as discussed above, it's inadequately sourced and b) it's vague to the point of meaninglessness: "often been believed" by who? Is this an accepted fact, scientific hypothesis, or folk theory? "Arisen naturally" where? In our evolution? In all cultures? Some cultures? And what would a social phenomenon that "arose unnaturally" look like? – Joe (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• The previous removal is fine, but why remove the rest. It leaves the section with only two sentences and missing some context. We can rewrite it, use more modern sources and the rest, but absent a reason to believe it is wrong lets leave it for now. I will look for a page number now and failing that a better source. Aircorn (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I just explained why I removed it. If you're going to restore it, you should at least provide a source that supports this specific point. – Joe (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Aircorn, thanks, and perhaps that same encyclopedia has a newer edition. Indeed, the original removal made it somewhat confusing because it removed the example it was talking about, which is that childcare-related gender roles are attributed to women because... well you know. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I saw that you re-added the International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences citation, citing that it satisfies WP:BURDEN. Could you please cite the volume and page number for this source that supports this, as I feel it is unreasonable to expect our readers to figure out which of the 26 volumes and 16,000+ pages this information is on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's almost certainly the "gender" entry, but I've made a request at WP:RX. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If you haven't been able to verify this yourself without an entry or page number, then how do you expect us or our readers to? It has dozens of entries related to gender. You need to provide a source for material you add or restore when you add or restore it, Crossroads. That's non-negotiable. – Joe (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You could have just tagged it. There are a bunch of us working on this article and it was specifically said that we were looking to improve it. You didn't need to go for the sledgehammer solution. It sat in the article for years in a worse state so a couple of more weeks would hardly have hurt. Its funny how we are able to overlook slightly poor content if the article is terrible so easy. This is what it looked like pre GA push. The sentence in question was one of the few sourced ones in the behaviour/society section, which is why it survived the rewrite. It is good to bring it up now so we can resolve it. I suppose it is also good that quality begets quality, but a bit more respect to the editors that are actually looking to improve the article would not have gone amiss. Don't readd it Crossroads, we should be able to find something better. I might get some time to do some editing to that paragraph this weekend - or anyone else can jump in and do it. It is too brief now as it is, but doesn't require a whole lot more. Aircorn (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The request at WP:REREQ shows in itself the verification issues raised by that citation. One of the editors at that noticeboard linked the contents index for the 2001 version, and none of the 89 entries under "Gender Studies" seemed to support the text. The closest seemed to be the entry Gender and Feminist Studies in Sociology, however it presents a significantly more complex view on reproductive labour which seems to both deconstruct and refute what we had written previously.

Meanwhile taking a look at the text of Gender role shows how complex and disputed the underlying theories surrounding the formation of gender roles is. I don't know if there is a way we can summarise it other than some variant of "There are many theories about why gender roles have developed." Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I had tagged it with {{page needed}} and {{volume needed}} last night because of the issues surrounding finding the correct entry in such a large encyclopaedia. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the source. Aircorn (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

OK I skimmed it. Nothing point blank supports the sentence, but it does talk about gender roles and nurturing and points out four theories for the divergence. May be useful, but still probably better to get a more up to date source. Using Pubmed the first review under Human gender roles is this. Maybe we could take something from there conclusion. Aircorn (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The second hit could also be useful. Aircorn (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

After skimming, the second hit seems more useful than the first. The first seems to focus on a single theory for gender role differentiation; specifically the prenatal and early neonatal influences of testosterone exposure, and subsequent early socialisation of the child. It doesn't have any content on cultural differences within gender roles

The second hit goes quite deep into cultural differences of gender roles, as well as the broader cultural agnostic theories. The paper mentions three categories for theories of gender role development; organisational, activational, and direct genetic. Early androgen exposure or the lack thereof is part of the organisational hypothesis. Activational effects compose of experiences during certain key developmental stages and epigenetic sensitive periods. Direct genetic deals with the chromosomal and hormonal differences related to sex.

Where it becomes tricky however is in how it seems to only refer to only one of the theories on personality; Big Five personality traits and the related Dark triad.

So while the second hit is more useful than the first, it definitely doesn't paint the whole picture. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. Will wait to see what crossroads or anyone else thinks, but think we can get something out of this. Aircorn (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say go for it. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I could have just tagged it, but I explained why I didn't above: the statement is sloppy and wrong as well as unverifiable (as we've now seen). Also take a gander at WP:OWNERSHIP. When other editors try to improve an article you've worked on by removing dubious content, it's not a personal attack on you. – Joe (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Unconstructive distraction

Oh for fucks sake could you get more patronising. Gander at WP:FAOWN yourself (yes it is not a FA but the concept is the same). Its not ownership to revert an edit once with the aim of improving it and discussing the sources as we are above. Only three of us above are looking to improve the article and one of them is not you. If you want to comment on the sources I am happy to chat, otherwise I don't really have anything more to say to you. Aircorn (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Personally I think articles are improved when they no longer contain facile and poorly sourced generalisations on socially important topics. But that's clearly not an opinion you share, if you think this is even comparable to "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". – Joe (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In Defence of the Main Image

I know there's been a lot of discussions and efforts to change the main image, resulting from a number of concerns. I'm going to instead defend the chosen image since I think that it's the perfect image to depict humanity. I like the fact that it isn't a super-refined image trying to depict all of humanity and its achievements. I like how it isn't a high-quality image, and that the people don't look happy.

It's just a simple image that shows two humble east Asian farmers living their lives. Wearing their normal clothing, holding their everyday items, and most likely on the path they walk every day. It's the story of millions of people in a brief, single photo. Is there anything else really needed to show humanity? This picture probably speaks more than anything else that could be carefully chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchaeanKomatiite (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Werter34r (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree Jenny Everywhere (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Shows clothing and technology. Tom Haws (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The image doesn't matter as long it contains a human so the current one is good Omnism (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Evolution of gender

Joe Roe, regarding this, do you really think it's WP:DUE to imply that early humans at one time did not 'attach social significance to biological sex differences'? That the original condition was 'minimal' behavioral difference? Even non-human primates very much behave differently based on their sex, and act differently towards the sexes. There are numerous sources about this at chimpanzee and many other primates. There are also some academic sources mentioned here. This article here isn't even about Neanderthals or early modern humans. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

experimental and observational studies of nonhuman animals (including closely related primates) implicate evolved origins for many gender differences in personality, cognition and behaviour (Alexander & Hines, 2002; Gosling & John, 1999; Hassett, Siebert, & Wallen, 2008; Simpson et al., 2016)....From a Darwinian perspective, it would be truly miraculous for human evolution to have produced men and women who possess exactly the same psychological design (Vandermassen, 2011). The forces of natural and sexual selection acting on humans would have had to eliminate all previous gender differences stemming from our psychological lineage as mammals and primates (Weiss & King, 2015), actively select against sex-specific psychological adaptations developing over our hundreds of millennia as hunter-gatherers (with its associated gender-divided labour; Marlowe, 2007), and steadfastly maintain a perfectly androgynous psychology in men and women post-Pleistocene epoch (Buss & Schmitt, 2011; Carruthers, 2006).... [36] (cited above)

The clear implication of this and this text that gender is recently evolved, and that originally humans were nearly androgynous and made no distinctions between male and female in their social behavior is, at best, heavily contested within the body of sources. The sources cited above are critical of the fact that some other sources attribute gender to only social learning, so this is not something we should be stating as fact. Really, the evolution and development of gender is too complex to get into in this article. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Insofar as by "gender" we are referring to "gender roles", which seems to be the primary topic of this section, there is no agreement among RS that the concept of "social role" applies to nonhuman or protohuman primates. Certain scholars, including evolutionary biologists, conflate differences between sexes with "gender differences" or gender roles, but this is far from a mainstream or uncontested view (and was probably at its most popular back during peak "selfish gene", late in the last century). Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, the heading is just "gender", discusses gender identities like non-binary, and the text in question speaks of mere "social significance" and "behavioural differences". Really, for the sake of everyone's sanity and in the interest of brevity and DUE, the nature/nurture debate should just be left out of this article (and certainly not taken sides on). Crossroads ^-talk- 00:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add something about other apes, maybe using Frans de Waal's recent book and some of the sources you've provided here. But yes I think it's interesting and WP:DUE. The article is about humans as a species and recent evolutionary history is something we include in any article on a species. And for humans specifically, comparing our behaviour to our closest extant and extinct relatives to figure out what makes us "special" is an enduringly prominent topic in reliable sources. The exact pattern I used w.r.t. gender here (comparing humans now ancestral Neanderthal and EMH populations) is already used in the "Trade and economics" section, for example.

In your reverts you seem to be objecting to conclusions that you have inferred but which aren't in the source and I didn't intend to imply. For example, the text doesn't say that absence of social gender in Neanderthals is our original condition, it says that when gender emerged is "unclear" and gives Neanderthals and EMH as two examples of high variation that suggest, but don't prove, a recent evolution. This is solidly supported by a reliable secondary source (unlike almost all of the rest of the section), so I really do object to you removing it. Could you suggest a wording that would make this more clear for you?

Similarly, with I'm not seeing support that social significance of sex was something that "began" during *human* evolution rather than being inherited from primate ancestors, as Newimpartial said, mainstream science says this ipso facto must be true because 'society' and 'social roles' are uniquely human. This does not mean that sex differences in behaviour or psychology evolved recently – that's a different topic that would belong somewhere other than the "gender" section under "society". So the sources you've provided, while interesting and probably useful (maybe we should add a section on gender under psychology?) aren't relevant to the text we're talking about. I thought readers would familiar with the difference between sex and gender and do try to emphasise in the first paragraph that we're talking about gender as a social role, but maybe this also needs to be clarified? – Joe (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

'society' and 'social roles' are uniquely human - that very much depends on how one defines those terms, and basically requires defining them in ways that pre-emptively exclude non-humans. Are not other primates social animals? Does that not make their social units "societies"? Don't they have 'roles' in a sense based on status, sex, and so on that affect things like parenting, mating, grooming, and so on? Just because these things are not as complex as in humans - and don't come with a material culture that archaeologists like the author of your source can find - doesn't mean they aren't there. Evolutionary biologists, primatologists, and so on make this clear.

You may feel I am misreading your text, but if I am, other readers are likely to as well, and policies such as WP:NOR do care about text that would "imply" a conclusion not in the sources. This version especially uses "but" in an WP:Editorializing way that implies that Neanderthals, as "archaic" humans, represent the ancestral condition. But we did not evolve from Neanderthals - we both evolved from a common ancestor, and while we didn't diverge so far as to prevent interbreeding, only some extant human populations have Neanderthal genes - otherwise, they are extinct.

If I was going to rewrite that text to avoid confusion about evolution and what meaning of many of "gender" it is using, I would write it like this: Little is known about the evolution of gender roles. Early modern humans probably had a range of gender roles similar to that of modern cultures from at least the Upper Paleolithic, while the Neanderthals were less sexually dimorphic and there is some evidence that the behavioural difference between males and females was minimal. Even then, though, I need to take a closer look at that source and compare with other sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks alright.  Tewdar  16:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, I absolutely agree that we should not imply conclusions that aren't in the sources, I just struggle to see where you are getting those implications from. I certainly didn't mean to load so much meaning onto one "but" and am glad that the original research can be removed by replacing it with "while". Your proposed text sounds good to me, except for the "some evidence" bit. The source says that all the available evidence supports minimal behavioural differentiation in Neanderthals. We don't need to burden the text with what that evidence is so I'd propose sticking with "evidence suggests". – Joe (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not that keen on Little is known about the evolution of gender roles. We actually have a fair amount of evidence for this. What we don't have, is evidence for their origin, whether they are innate or learned or both, etc. We could probably just remove this sentence.  Tewdar  16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is a revised version: Much is unknown about the evolution of gender roles. Early modern humans probably had a range of gender roles similar to that of modern cultures from at least the Upper Paleolithic, while the Neanderthals were less sexually dimorphic and there is evidence that the behavioural difference between males and females was minimal. I'm also okay with dropping the first sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Change the first sentence to something like, "little is known about gender roles in the earliest human societies" or something like that. And fiddle the second sentence to say "there is evidence for gender roles in modern human societies from the Upper Paleolithic" - it currently makes it sound like they evolved around this time, but all we can say is that there is no evidence before this time.  Tewdar  09:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This'll do I expect: Little is known about gender roles in the earliest human societies. Early modern humans probably had a range of gender roles similar to that of modern cultures from at least the Upper Paleolithic, while the Neanderthals were less sexually dimorphic and there is evidence that the behavioural difference between males and females was minimal.  Tewdar  09:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, I added it. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• What evidence have we for the social significance of gender differences in modern humans prior to the Upper Paleolithic?  Tewdar  15:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  We should not be implying that gender is recently evolved, only that there is no real evidence for it until relatively recently. A paragraph about innate gender roles based on comparison with other primates/animals is fine with me.  Tewdar  15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As a quick reply, "social significance" of gender is very vague and poorly specified. Does anyone dispute that among closely related primates individuals typically differ in how they behave toward males and females, often depending on whether they themselves are male and female? How could it not then be said to be "socially significant"? Crossroads ^-talk- 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No, but there is no evidence that gender was "socially significant" before the UP, except supposition based on other primate behaviours or whatever. What we find, from this time onward, is an increasing tendency toward gendered division of labour, gendered funeral rites etc. (="socially significant") which does not seem to occur until relatively recently.  Tewdar  16:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

But that more complex, material, and symbolic culture became evident for everything around that time (behavioral modernity and such). That "supposition" is pretty ordinary in biology in the form of phylogenetic bracketing. Anyway, we reached agreement above on text, so we should be good. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

To boil it down to its bare essentials, we're talking about 'gender roles' in the sense of normative statements like "women should cover their hair" or "being a nurse isn't manly". Nobody would seriously contend that we inherited arbitrary ideas like these from our common ancestor with other apes, yet they are universal amongst modern human societies. Hence it should be uncontroversial that they appeared at some point in our more recent evolution. – Joe (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh and I should reiterate that I do agree that the article is a bit unbalanced if we have this but not anything on the evidence for innate sex differences in psychology/behaviour like that you've mentioned above. That would be a good addition to the psychology section which we can then refer back to in the society section. – Joe (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Evolutionarily as far as sex roles, people typically follow "men hunt and women gather" in a general sense which of course causes related activities to be associated with one sex or the other. As for early evidence of division of labor (going back so far in time, the evidence is scant for societal norms of course, especially in comparison to the modern human archeological record), but off the top of my head, we have https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28766. But usually I see sexual division of labor talked about in only modern humans since, among all the human species, we left the biggest footprint in the archeological record, and we're the only one still alive today so we can observe it happening. I'm not sure if you guys have drawn some distinction between sex and gender in your discussion here but I'm gonna assume not. Also, gender norms are certainly not universal constants. For example off the top of my head, "blue is a boy color and pink is a girl color" is really only a thing in western society, and even then pink was a boy color and blue a girl color before the 20th century Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem I am having with this discussion is that we have a fairly extensive body of knowledge about gender in modern humans: we know, for example, that observable differences according to gender are largely social in nature, that certain differences (such as reproductive and personality characteristics) have a biological substratum but that actual gender identities and gender roles cannot be deduced from, or mapped onto, that substratum, and so on. There are extreme views, both on the "there is no knowable substratum" side and on the "social effects are inconsequential or 'unnatural'" side, but these are clearly FRINGE.

There is no equivalent to this body of knowledge for primates or for proto-humans. There is no agreement whether (observable or deduced) differences in behaviour between nonhuman males and females are related in any meaningful way to culturally-mediated (and thus strictly speaking gendered) behaviour as it exists in modern humans. What is more, the history of speculation on this over the last 250 years doesn't show any clear move towards evidence-based scholarship; the dynamics of these debates have not notably shifted since the late 1800s. So how we could summarize any of this in a way that would be at all helpful to readers is not obvious to me - but cherrypicking based on a favoured social theory would clearly not be it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The given source, Gender in the Earliest Human Societies gives a very good overview of the current understanding of what we do and do not know about gender roles in "proto-human" (or "Paleo-human", anyway) societies...  Tewdar  22:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I meant that the existence of arbitrary gender norms is universal across societies, not their content. – Joe (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"Human" is not equivalent to "Homo sapiens"; rewriting and differentiation is needed

The article presents a very sloppy and ego-centric concept of what it means to be "human". H. sapiens is the only extant species of human, but there have been others previously. As is pointed out in the article, the very meaning of "homo sapiens" is "wise man", indicating our species is a variant of a broader group. H. habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, and assorted hypothesized additional species, all constitute part of humanity, even though they are long gone.

Distinct articles are necessary. "Humans" should discuss all of humanity, broadly, from an all-species encompassing perspective, with a generally humanities (pardon the peculiar verbiage) oriented scope that discusses and explores the essence of what it means for us, our predecessors, and our progeny to be human. Culture, art, religion, social structures, so on and so forth. Meanwhile, "Homo sapiens" should be scientifically oriented, discussing the species in the same way most other animal species are discussed.

Also, the article's appeal to "common usage" is pretty ridiculous. Of course the most common usage of the word "human" is going to be as reference to our own species--the only extant species. That is entirely incidental, and means nothing at the end of the day. Just because a million people say something doesn't necessarily make it true, much less authoritative. Otherwise, orca would be whales, and whales would be fish, and tomatoes would be vegetables. At best, it constitutes an equivocation fallacy. "All humans are homo sapiens" is true *now* just like "George Washington does not exist" is also true *now*, but both statements would have been false at a previous point in history.2600:4040:B078:6C00:496E:2293:6421:188C (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Gender 2

As usual, what the article really means when talking about "gender" is far from clear. In addition to that, it ignores gender roles as a derivation of sexual characteristics, and implies they are random; and relies on western (Anglo Saxon) readings of non-Western cultures to associate "third genders" in traditional non-Western societies with the neoliberal market of identities of the contemporary English speaking world.

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/article/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes/

https://www.newsweek.com/stop-imposing-western-lgbtq-identities-non-western-cultures-its-gender-colonialism-opinion-1705785

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to the extensive discussion of this text above. I'd welcome suggestions on how to clarify the concept of gender for our readers, bearing in mind the difficulty of explaining complex topics in an article like this, where we can only devote a paragraph or two to each one. But in terms of your specific objections, I'm not seeing it:

• it ignores gender roles as a derivation of sexual characteristics – the very first sentence states that gender roles are "based on [a person's] sex". As discussed above, this section is under "society"; lengthier discussion of sexual differences in physiology and psychology are better placed in those sections.
• implies they are random – socially constructed or culturally determined does not mean random
• relies on western (Anglo Saxon) readings of non-Western cultures – a fair point, but no moreso than the rest of the article. It'd be great to include more sources with nonwestern perspectives, but this article should also lean heavily towards what secondary, scholarly sources say, and the two sources you provided are columns presenting the opinions of individuals (only one of whom is Indigenous as far as I can tell).
• neoliberal market of identities of the contemporary English speaking world – ??? you seem to have completely left the article behind at this point?

– Joe (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

1. the very first sentence states that gender roles are "based on [a person's] sex", yes but than it talks about "third genders" without explaining their relation to the sexual binary.

2. "socially constructed or culturally determined does not mean random", so we should use sources to explain their origin, the division of labour between men and women, for example, which existed in all traditional societies to some degree (for obvious reasons, women give birth, are weaker etc)

3. One is indigenous, the other studies and works with the fa'afafine. Knoterification (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

On points one and two, the opening sentence actually says that gender roles are (generally) prescribed based on sex; it doesn't say that they are only based on sex (which theories of intersectionality, among others, would deny) nor that they are explained by (Friedrich Engels' ?) division of labour between men and women ... which existed in all traditional societies. The implication that gender roles are, or can be, based on a pre-existing sexual binary is a thing that would need to be attributed to quality sources - and it doesn't seem particularly relevant to this article in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is going to object to adding context and detail (as opposed to removing information, which is what you've done so far). The things you have to bear in mind is that this is an article about humans, not gender, so we're extremely limited in how much space we have for this; and that anything you add needs to be based on high quality reliable sources. For example, if you scroll up you'll find that the assertion that there is some essential core to gender roles that "existed in all traditional societies" is exactly what made us look at this section again. It's a common belief, but there's no evidence for it. It's not what the sources say. – Joe (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That is a very disingenuous argument. You have to be radically idealist, anti-materialist and social-constructivist to believe that the fact that the fact that male and female physiology is different, their reproduction strategies are different, (the basis for continuation of any society being reproduction), has absolutely no relation to the roles ascribed to each of the genders.

Sources that subscribe to radical social-constructivism won't say that. Other do https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-9990-8

All societies we know have gender roles that divide males and females, just like all human societies we know have fire. Yes perhaps there was one society of Homo Sapiens in the remote past that did not use fire, but that is unlikely. Knoterification (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the strength with which you hold your convictions (and deploy straw man argumentation to support them), your original research on the topic will never be relevant to making editorial decisions about this article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I just showed a source that talks about the relation between biology and gender. Read about menstrual taboos for example, and how they are found in a very large array of cultures and are connected to gender roles and segregation.

My convictions are simply based on common sense, and being familiar with non-internet exposed non-western cultures. Knoterification (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Your source spends a large part of its text discussing why biological factors are seldom discussed in the literature; it would require great care to find something in it that would be WP:DUE for inclusion.

As far as convictions ... based on ... being familiar with non-internet exposed non-western cultures, that is precisely what experienced WP editors know to set aside, just as we set aside claims based on being familiar with internet-exposed or western cultures. Newimpartial (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You should also set aside some of your own personal presupositions.

Some books that do make the association between sex and gender roles:

Alesina, Alberto, Paola Giuliano, and Nathan Nunn. 2013. ‘On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(2):469–530.

Amadiume, Ifi. 1989. Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Engels, Friedrich. 2021. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Verso.

Demie, Muse Gadisa. 2018. Cereals and Gender Roles: A Historical Perspective. SSRN ID 3176346.

Hansen, Casper Worm, Peter Sandholt Jensen, and Christian Volmar Skovsgaard. 2015. ‘Modern Gender Roles and Agricultural History: The Neolithic Inheritance’. Journal of Economic Growth 20(4):365–404.

Hooven, Carole. 2021. Testosterone: The Story of the Hormone That Dominates and Divides Us. Cassell.

Jordan-Young, Rebecca M. 2019. Testosterone: An Unauthorized Biography. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Smuts, Barbara. 1995. ‘The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy’. Human Nature 6(1):1–32.

Wood, Wendy, and Alice H. Eagly. 2002. ‘A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Behavior of Women and Men: Implications for the Origins of Sex Differences’. Psychological Bulletin 699–727.

Nashat, Guity. 2008. ‘Women in the Middle East, 8000 BCE to 1700 CE’. Pp. 227–48 in A Companion to Gender History, edited by T. A. Meade and M. E. Wiesner-Hanks. Knoterification (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a Gish gallop, and I doubt other editors would accept that the two "testosterone" books are relevant to the gender section of this article - that seems to be an EXTRAORDINARY claim. And most of your suggestions are between 20 and 140 years old and therefore not recent, reliable sources.

If you think there is anything in Alesina et al., Demie, and/or Nashat (basically your agriculture sources) that is WP:DUE for inclusion in this section, I'd suggest that you take a first cut here on Talk to avoid resuming the edit war. First, though, I think you will have to let go of some assumptions you have made about what the current article actually says or means, before introducing the appearance of a dispute among sources that does not exist in mainstream scholarship. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It was not gish gallop (I actually did not know that word), I was merely showing sources which are used by professor Alice Evans, who studies the Great Gender Divergence and the 10,000 years of patriarchy. There are many more.

About testosterone, it talks about how women and men are influenced by hormones, which is widely accepted to influence part of the social behaviour. Knoterification (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

But this influence on social behaviour is only relevant to the "gender" section if the WP:BALANCE of sources states that this influence is an aspect of gender. Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

And on the point you keep repeating in your edit summaries—The article talks exclusively about the west. No such thing as non-binary identity elsewhere.—why do you think "other societies" means "other than the west"? It follows sentences starting "The most common..." and "Many societies...": I would have thought the obvious implication is that it is introducing another form of possible gender categorisation in humans, in this case the queer/non-binary concept used in many contemporary cultures (which is what the source describes). – Joe (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Many seems to be a "weasel word", though I do agree that many societies have what is conceptualized as "third genders", I disagree with that conceptualization though. I do think "other societies" means other than the west because it implies many societies have the western concept "non-binary". Knoterification (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for this reading in the text of the article. The section states that many societies recognize n>2 genders, and that other societies recognize a nonbinary umbrella. Nothing is implied about how "Western" any of these conceptualizations are. If I were to take issue with the text, it would be with the implication that a social formation can either recognize a third gender or a nonbinary umbrella but not both, which seems empirically inaccurate. But I haven't gone looking for a source to back me up on that... Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

1. The idea of "third genders" imply something distinct from men or women. That is generally not the case though

Aleut: ayagigux', "Man transformed into a woman."

Aleut: tayagigux', "Woman transformed into a man."

Blackfoot: a'yai-kik-ahsi, "Acts like a woman."

Cree: napêw iskwêwisêhot, ᓇᐯᐤ ᐃᐢᑵᐏᓭᐦᐅᐟ, "A man who dresses as a woman."

Cree: iskwêw ka-napêwayat, ᐃᐢᑵᐤ ᑲ ᓇᐯᐘᔭᐟ, "A woman who dresses as a man."

Blackfoot: ááwowáakii, "A male homosexual."

Most commonly they are individuals who do not conform to traditional sex based gender roles in traditional socities.

2. I ask you to read the source about "non-binary" and try to find where it claims many socities have that concept. It doesn't make that claim. Knoterification (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Knoterification: I think you are reading something into the article that it is not trying to say. There is no assumption that third (or fourth, or fifth) genders are something entirely different from masculinity and femininity and make no reference to those gender identities. Your indigenous examples don't in any way support the idea that a gender binary exhausts the gender system of any of these cultures: but if it does not, then there isn't really any tension between what the section says is true of "many societies" and what you are trying to say about these particular ones. The article doesn't even venture a view, as far as I am aware, about whether e.g. Aleut people recognize a third gender, recognize a wide umbrella outside masculine/feminine, or hold a conceptual system based on a rigid gender binary. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Many" or "some", I don't think it makes a difference. I doubt anyone has ever sat down and tried to work out the numbers... and how many is "many"? But the book cited generally presents third genders as historically and cross-culturally commonplace, not a matter of a handful of 'outliers', so I thought "many" was appropriate. And yeah I really don't understand how you read the "other societies" that way. Western societies are not mentioned anywhere in the section, so why would "other" be in relation to them? – Joe (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Knoterification: if you are trying to make the point that gender identities only exist in "Western" societies, you need better sourcing for that than op-eds if you want this article's text to change. And if that is your point, then removing accurate and sourced content because *you* believe it has exaggerated the scope of its findings is not something anyone should do, much less edit war over.

Also, this edit summary simply shows your ignorance of German - and probably other languages that have also borrowed the word - so perhaps you should be a bit less convinced that you are knowledgeable about a field where it seems you are not. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not trying to make that point. I am claiming that the idea that gender and sex are unrelated is a new and western one. Virtually all "third genders" in non-western socities reference the gender binary somehow, just look at the "two spirits" traditional categorizations. I have first noticed that trend when I realized English speaking sources refered to travestis as third genders, while they have never refered to themselves or be refered to as such in Brazil.

Exactly, they borrowed the word. Just like many other cultural trends originating in the USA, the country with cultural hegemony worldwide. Knoterification (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Third gender" is an etic anthropological category. You wouldn't expect it to be a self-identity. – Joe (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Interstingly when talking about western individuals self-identity is paramount. Knoterification (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Knoterification: the German queer activists and queer scholars of my acquaintance would dispute that they are acting or writing on behalf of American cultural hegemony - but I believe that to be a digression.

What I think might be more fruitful is to deal with the dichotomy you seem to be posing between referencing the gender binary (which gender binary? That seems to be the point) and the idea that gender and sex are unrelated. Does this article actually communicate to you that gender and sex are unrelated? That claim would certainly be disputed by a lot of trans and nonbinary people I know. But I don't think this article section - just because it isn't framed in terms of a preexisting view of male vs. female - is implying that sex and gender are somehow free-floating qualities that don't interact. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but after the Anglo Saxon world, Germany and the Scandanavian countries are the closest to the USA culturewise, and I didn't mean that as an conspiratory accusation, merely that they are influenced by American cultural power. In Brazil the word "queer" is being used (still timidly) by media and corporations, though the vast majority of Brazilians never heard the term and won't be able to pronounce it. Will Americans adopt non-Western "third genders" in return?

Gender binary obviously refers to the binary between men and women, which exists in all human societies. Knoterification (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

For your last paragraph, you seem to be assuming something that would need to be supported with sources. The fact that gender exists in all human societies does not imply the existence of the binary between men and women, which exists in all human societies. That phrase seems to arriculate clearly the POV/belief underlying your edits on the topic, but gender (according to the RS) is more complex than that.

As far as what Americans will or won't adopt: as a Canadian, I can't speak to that, but the complexities of two-spirit identities (which may or may not be gender identities depending on the individual holding them) are certainly to some extent recognized in Canadian society and law. A two-spirit person, for example, could have a passport bearing their assigned sex, the "opposite" to their assigned sex, or an "X", depending on how they understand their own identity. Newimpartial (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Again you are also being disingenuous. You want sources that respond to the very recent arguments of a specific type of scholarship that claims that gender is completely distinct from sex. You probably want find sources that claim specifically that the gender binary exist in all societies, except if responding to those arguments, just as you wont find sources that claim that every human society has a distinction between child and adult. That is simply self-evident. Knoterification (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is self-evident. Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not the opinions of editors. And this completely distinct specification that you keep repeating, in various forms, isn't part of the present article but is rather an interpretation you are inserting into it for some reason. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The main problem has been the trajectory of intelectual history. In the late 20th century a new, and quite unclear, distinction was coined separating gender and sex. Only recently however did it really become widely used outside gender studies. Still many scholars do not deal with that distinction because they understand that gender and sex are synonyms, gender role being used istead of "gender".

Let me give you a concrete example from The article "Alesina, Alberto, Paola Giuliano, and Nathan Nunn. 2013. ‘On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(2):469–530" :

"We begin our analysis by first confirming that societies that traditionally used plough agriculture had lower female participation in agricultural activities. We also check whether plough use was associated with differences in other activities within and outside of the domestic sphere"

The article takes for granted that sex and gender are connected, as most people on the world do, and it ignores conception arising from gender theory. So while it does not use the word "sex" a single time, it only uses the word gender. It uses the word gender to mean what you understand as both sex and gender.

"Unlike the hoe or digging stick, the plough requires significant upper body strength, grip strength, and burst of power, which are needed to either pull the plough or control the animal that pulls it. Because of these requirements, when plough agriculture is practiced, men have an advantage in farming relative to women." Knoterification (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

If you don't think I know that some sources say "gender" when they mean "sex", "sex" when they mean "gender", or simply don't distinguish the two - well then, I suppose I should be happy that you haven't stalked my contributions history very thoroughly.

In any case, the main problem remains your understanding of the distinction ... separating gender and sex. The current existence, in many contexts and literatures, of such a distinction does not at all imply that (as you previously stated) they are completely distinct. As with most other materially significant distinctions, how distinct sex and gender are, and how they are related, depends almost entirely on contextual factors. Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how it can have only to do with gender, if "testosterone plays a key role in the development of male reproductive tissues such as testes and prostate, as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle and bone mass, and the growth of body hair", and the daily production of testosterone in males 20 times greater than in women, and it also influences behaviour, it clearly shows the connection between "sex" and "gender" Knoterification (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't have come up with a better example of WP:OR had I set out to do so on purpose. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't fully understand your point. Of course I would use the books about testosterone to make those claims. But in general gender and sex seeem to be self evident notions for you, which are not for me. It appears that in your understanding sex and gender have fixed autonomous meanings (that I don't fully grasp) without subordination to one another (mind-body distinction?), therefore even if evidence show a characteristic such as testosterone is both related to male sex and traditional male gender roles, they cannot be connected Knoterification (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly I don't fully understand the distinction, so it is very hard to contribute to an article if I have to take in account a distinction that seems vague and contradictory in my view. Knoterification (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

To speak outside of editing requirements for a moment, if you understand that the relationship between sex and gender is complicated, and that the distinction ... seems vague and contradictory, then that is much closer to my statement above that that how distinct sex and gender are, and how they are related, depends almost entirely on contextual factors than you probably realize - a statement that I think reflects the mainstream view. The article Sex and gender distinction, for example, reflects the prevailing consensus that sex and gender are distinct, while recognizing that different sources and different literatures define and interpret the distinction differently.

So to give a concrete, albeit OR, example, testosterone is physiologically related to several secondary sexual characteristics - that is related to sex. But the use of those characteristics as signifiers of difference - whether or not beards or five o'clock shadow are vehicularized as elements in gender stereotypes and gender identities - that is related to gender. Whether and how testosterone is related to gender is a great example of an area where, as Wikipedia editors, we have to refer to recent, reliable sources that specifically address the topic in question (in this case, gender). Newimpartial (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Knoterification, debating gender metaphysics with other editors is going to be a waste of time. What I would suggest is proposing specific text based on recent, secondary, academic sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Too human centric

this article is too human centric 2600:100A:B105:6556:B52B:8D88:365F:C1C6 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Could we get some non-humans to weigh in on this? Some bots, maybe? Or an attack helicopter? Newimpartial (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately those were created by humans. 12.232.142.117 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Aren't humans also created by humans? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Even worse, on close examination it turns out that every source cited in this article is written by humans! Why isn't Wikipedia enforcing WP:COI? In fact, I cannot find any evidence that the galactic community finds this species notable. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree it is too human-centric. But, as the article says: Human population growth, industrialization, land development, overconsumption and combustion of fossil fuels have led to environmental destruction and pollution that significantly contributes to the ongoing mass extinction of other forms of life. They are the main contributor to global climate change. It seems pretty soon humans will go extinct due to their own actions, which is quite ironic considering they claim to be so "intelligent". Before you know it, no more humans editing wikipedia, which will allow us to improve it and make it less human-centric. Vpab15 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is this stated as fact?

‘ Until about 12,000 years ago, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers. ‘ I live in devon, uk and we have so much prehistory from Paleolithic period. We have both Enclosures & also Permanent Cave Dwellings & a burial mound that have a very long history; source https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.479..521H/abstract Eco-climber (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Eco-climber: Because it is a fact. Even in Devon. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the cited source for the claim is uncheckable by mere mortals. One needs access to a publication in OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLIME called "Hunter-Gatherers of the Nile Valley and the Sahara Before 12,000 Years Ago". That title isn't an encouraging one for a claim about ALL humans. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I was able to find a copy on ResearchGate here. - Aoidh (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As an update I read through the citation and I just don't see anything there that supports the claim it's attached to. I looked up the author's credentials and she certainly seems qualified to make that claim as its right in her area of academic research, I just don't see the claim being made in that citation. - Aoidh (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a bad source, but essentially a WP:SKYISBLUE claim within prehistory. I've replaced it with citations to some more generic tertiary sources (a textbook and an encyclopaedia). Unfortunately neither are open access, though. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be a strong statement, but not happy with the absolute "all". Australian Aboriginal culture has still not been well enough studied to be 100% certain. It was totally disconnected from the rest of the human race until 300 odd years ago. New discoveries are still being made. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Literally any statement about when something started or ended could be disproved by new discoveries. I don't think this statement is likely to be. Do you have any sources that say there could have been pre-Holocene agriculture in Australia? – Joe (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not the point. Most of the discoveries about Australian Aboriginal history have been far too recent to rule out the possibility. And I'm concerned about your view that the alternative to hunter-gatherer has to be agriculture. The earliest settlements that are definitely known about in Australia were based around eel and fish farming. Is that agriculture? Just find a better way of saying what you want say than using the word "all". HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It kind of is the point... we're here to summarise what reliable sources say, and as far as I know all reliable sources (not me) say that all humans lived as hunter-gatherers until about 12,000 years ago. I'm happy to learn otherwise, but the sources currently cited unambiguously support "all".

It sounds like terminology is causing some confusion here. The way the terms are used in anthropology and archaeology, hunting and gathering (or foraging) is subsistence on wild foods, and agriculture is subsistence on cultivated foods. It's by definition a binary: you can do one or the other, or you can not eat. So yes fish farming is agriculture, specifically aquaculture. But as far as I know the earliest evidence for Aboriginal aquaculture is about 8000 years old. Maybe we should clarify these definitions in the article, in a footnote or something? – Joe (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the date of 12,000 years ago is referring to Gobekli Tepe Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No it's just the rough start of the Holocene/Pre-Pottery Neolithic. To date there's no direct evidence of agriculture at Göbekli Tepe and, even if there were, it's a late PPNA/early PPNB site, it would be far from the earliest evidence. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

this page is literally so bad

If an alien read this they would be utterly confused, it is trash poor quality by Wikipedia standards. The article for earth is much cleaner and an example of the quality this page should aspire to. 180.150.80.107 (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. For some reason, articles relating to humans tend to be of exceptionally poor quality here on Wikipedia. If you think this is bad, you should check out history of technology. Or actually, don't, if you value your mental health. Rhosnes (talk)

Firstly, this page is written for its expected readership - which doesn't include aliens. And secondly, while constructive criticism should be welcomed, stating that an article is 'trash poor quality' without explaining why is of no help whatsoever. Improve the quality of your criticism and maybe we'll be able to do something about the quality of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

change gibbons to gibbons JAllen16 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done There are two mentions of "gibbon". The first is immediately followed by (family Hylobatidae), which is a link to gibbon. The second is already a link to gibbon. I don't see any need to make this change. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@UtherSRG Thanks, my bad man. I didn't even notice the link for Hylobatidae went to gibbons. Lol JAllen16 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Already done The first use in the article is already wikilinked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We should list the species as a member of the subphylum Vertebrata

Why does this page (and the ones of im many other vertebrates) not state that the species are vertebrates? Luka1184 (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Because the {{Speciesbox}} only displays the major ranks and it'd be over-the-top to describe the full taxonomy in prose. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022

Younes4243 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

میخواهم تحقیقات جدیدی را اضافه نمایم Younes4243 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Why the leading image is perfect

I saw that there was a lot of discussion and arguments over what image should be used to represent humans. But I wanna thank whoever chose the current one because I think it’s perfect

• It shows a man and a woman, which is a good representation of humanity. They’re both standing, which is something that separates humans from animals

• The background behind them is a mix of natural and man made landscapes, which demonstrates our two-way interaction with nature. The way they’re standing in front of the huge hill also kind of evokes how humans have dominated nature

• They’re rural smallholding farmers (i.e. peasants), which is the most common occupation for all humans in history. Even today, peasants still feed the world. I was shocked to see many people objecting to the picture because the couple is rural and poor, as if that makes them any less human.

• Their clothes, the man’s dress shirt and the woman’s blouse (?), have been standard for the past 100 years or so, and are worn all over the world.

• They show a variety of emotion.

• Like most people in the world, they’re not in a developed country. Knowing how wikipedia tends to be biased towards the kind of people who edit it, I’m pleasantly surprised that they understood the fact that middle class, urban, white, western men aren’t the average but the elite. The average human is probably working on a farm or a factory in a developing country to support those kinds of people. I💖平沢唯 (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

unexpectedly sweet moment 2.51.99.124 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of human history in the lede incomplete

The second paragraph of the lede is dedicated to human history; however, while it summarises it pretty well until 13,000 years ago, at that point, it inexplicably stops, with all subsequent change being summarised as "forms of governance developed".

Let me explain why I believe that is not only an inadequate summary, but also an inaccurate one.

First of all, from a biological perspective, the defining characteristics of humans as a species are that they are globally dominant over all other species, exert significant influence on Earth's geology and ecosystems, are the only truly cosmopolitan land species with habitats on all of the world's continents, etc. Note that every one of these characteristics is a consequence of human technology ─ not, for the most part, "forms of governance" ─ developed in the last 13,000 years. Therefore, I don't find the position that anything other than the development of advanced technology is the highlight of the last 13,000 years, nor the position that the development of advanced technology can be omitted in an adequate summary of human history, in any way justifiable.

Secondly, one of the focuses of the paragraph is lifestyle. It mentions that, for most of human history, humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers, until the Neolithic revolution, during which they became agricultural permanent settlers. However, "agricultural permanent settler" is not an apt description of most (74%) of the human population. Therefore, the fact that no subsequent lifestyle changes were specified renders the summary at best misleading, and at worst factually inaccurate.

A while ago, to fix these issues, I tried making this edit. Admittedly, it still doesn't fix issue #1 entirely, but it at least addresses issue #2. Unfortunately, Joe Roe swiftly reverted the edit by claiming it wasn't reflective of the History section of the article (which I still believe it was); moreover, instead of correcting whatever he felt was wrong with the edit (as I kindly requested), he simply left the obviously inadequate status quo without any explanation. He did, however, recommend that I bring the issue up on the talk page, which I'm doing now. Again, if people don't like my version and want to propose their own, I more than encourage them to do so; however, I am adamant that the issues that I described are ones that desperately need fixing.

Rhosnes (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is perhaps a better version:

Although some scientists equate the term humans with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member. Anatomically modern humans emerged around 300,000 years ago in Africa, evolving from Homo heidelbergensis or a similar species and migrating out of Africa, gradually replacing or interbreeding with local populations of archaic humans. For most of history, all humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Humans began exhibiting behavioral modernity about 160,000-60,000 years ago. The Neolithic Revolution, which began in Southwest Asia around 13,000 years ago (and separately in a few other places), saw the emergence of agriculture and permanent human settlement. Since then, continual sociocultural evolution and improvements in tools have been constantly altering the human lifestyle; around 250 years ago, most of human society became industrialised, and since the late 20th century, there has been a continuous shift towards an information society. These developments have facilitated rapid population growth, with the global population expanding to over 7.9 billion as of March 2022, and the resultant advanced technology has made humans a significant influence on Earth's geology and ecosystems.

Rhosnes (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither the History section as it stands nor its sources support the single-minded emphasis on technological change expessed in your BOLD proposals for the lead. Inadequate as the status quo might be, its brief discussion of "forms of governance" is much closer to a distillation of what the History section actually contains than are any of your proposals. If you believe that the History section emphasises politics too much rather than technology or demography (for example), the section would need to be "fixed" (and consensus obtained) prior to changing the lead section, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: That sounds like a very, very long process that I don't have enough time to engage in. Is there really no other way to fix the obviously flawed and unfinished lede? Rhosnes (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Not per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY; no. Newimpartial (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Until then, I wish you and my fellow Wikipedians a good harvesting season and crop yield which, according to the lede, we'll all need as we are all still agricultural settlers! Rhosnes (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead does not describe anybody as a settler. It implies that most people today are not hunter-gatherers but live in societies based on agricultural economies, which is true and does not mean that they are literally farmers by profession. The lead is by far the most important and most-read part of an article so yes, it's generally a good idea to leave it to people who have the time to read sources (and the rest of the article). – Joe (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "agricultural economies", but, as I backed up earlier, the global economy is for the most part not agricultural. Of course, an even smaller percentage of the global human population are literally farmers by profession, but I don't see how that's relevant.

"...yes, it's generally a good idea to leave it to people who have the time to read sources (and the rest of the article)" Assuming you have basic reading comprehension skills, you know I never claimed to not have enough time to do either of these things, so again, not sure what you're trying to achieve by saying this. In case this wasn't clear enough, of course I have enough time to both read the sources and the rest of the article (both of which I have already done). Rhosnes (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

if your food was grown on a farm, you live in an agricultural society Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the context of the paragraph, which focuses on lifestyle. From a lifestyle perspective, if most people around don't spend a significant portion of their lives doing something related to agriculture, then you don't live in an agricultural society.

Moreover, Joe specifically used the phrase "agricultural economies", and applying that phrase to modern society is, in my understanding, provably fallacious. Rhosnes (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

What makes a human a human vs a chimp a chimp?

I think more info would be nice to know what makes a human a human and eg a chimp a chimp. If all humans contain 99.9% the same DNA, and chimps contain 98.8% the same DNA as a human - then why is the 0.01% difference between humans still make another human a human but 1.1% difference between chimps not a human? If we both are from the same ancestors then it makes sense that 2 humans from the same parents with a slightly different DNA one should also not necessarily be human. Is there a specific HUMAN DNA pair that if present makes one a human and if absent we are not and it just happens chimps dont have it? Or is it just a category so we don't have chimps getting angry because we might not like them to get social services or drivers licences? Remember there are humans that are at the mental level of a chimp, are they chimps? There are humans with the aggressional behaviors of a chimp, ate they chimps? Someone must know very specifically what is the difference in DNA that triggers the classification between human and chimp so it can be added to this article?120.21.145.173 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You are forgetting that we don't start off as DNA, we start off as eggs and spermatozoa, a human egg and a human sperm and that we spend 9 months in a human womb with mum's blood (with all its hormones and nutrients) circulating in our bodies. To assume that the only differences between chimps, bonobos and humans is a just a short sequence of DNA is a gross-oversimplification. See Developmental biology. Graham Beards (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

As someone who is interested in the fact supposedly humans and chimps have the same ancestors I think elaboration on the topic of what makes chimps not humans is very relevant. 120.21.145.173 (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

See Human evolution#Divergence of the human clade from other great apes and note that Wikipedia is not a forum.Graham Beards (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed revision to the section about the transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages

I think the section regarding the transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages in Europe uses a very antiquated and oversimplified description of the transition in Europe to the Middle Ages. I propose the following edit:

Following several devastating events in the period known as the End of Antiquity (c. 450-750 CE), which included the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476, the Plague of Justinian, the apocalyptic Byzantine-Sassanid War, and the subsequent Rise of Islam, Europe entered the Middle Ages.[41] During this period, Christianity became the predominant religion, with the Roman Catholic Church providing centralized authority and education to the various medieval states of Western Europe, whereas the Byzantine Empire with its capital at Constantinople would continue as the leading authority in the Orthodox East.

Basically, the issue I have with the current description is that it only focuses on Western Europe and the Catholic Church, which negates a big part of the history of the era, particularly that of Byzantium. You can't really make a serious summary of the era unless you state what happened in the East.

Ambarenya13 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a fused participle here "with the Roman Catholic Church providing ", otherwise it seems to be an improvement.Graham Beards (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Better photo?

The current photo is very low resolution, could we find another one? Mucube (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree but see talk page archives, it is probably hopeless to achieve consensus :( Leijurv (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Cv

قصير 2001:16A2:C4E1:500:E1B5:AF3C:CC9C:A039 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

قصير means "small" in Arabic. Cv could mean copyvio? --Cerebellum (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Debate on ‘ Until about 12,000 years ago, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers. ‘

Hello Joe et Al. There is widespread debate & dissent that the 12,000 year date is untrue. There are many examples such as the stone enclosures in Devon & Cornwall in what is currently called England. The examples also exist in many parts of the world, that show cave dwellers in Australia dating back 30-60,000 years. Another example are underground chambers & stone prymid like structures in Indonesia that are dated between 15-24,000 years old. Yes the dates are all debated, and that debate should be shown here on Wikipedia. It’s a place of learning & discussion. my main bugbear is the working land in SW England, I dig up & clearly find items & terraforming that are very, very old compared to the alledgedly 3-5000 year old history of settlement here. My neighbour has flint tools professionally dated to 12,000-20,000 years ago. I have a prehistory stone enclosure on my land. Someone built banks around my land when the river was 100m closure to the farm. In Indonesia we are looking at massive terraforming here; https://allthatsinteresting.com/gunung-padang Why is this stated as fact? R— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. These don't include anecdotes about stuff you've dug up in Devon. And then read a little about the tool-making abilities of hunter-gatherers. I've personally held a tool in my hand that was around half a million years old, made by hunter-gatherers. For doing hunter-gathering stuff, no doubt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• The Indonesian pyramid I believe you're referring to is Gunung Padang, which is variably dated anywhere from the 2nd to 8th century CE, except by a fringe archeologist who claimed some hypothetical lost civilization built it 20,000 years ago. The Devon stone architectures indicative of farming far post-date 12,000 BCE. I'm not sure what you're getting at with Australia, cave-dwelling doesn't equate to agriculture Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe Eco-climber is referring to this archived thread from July. – Joe (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is Akha couple chosen as the article cover photo?

No complaint at all, just curious why specifically Akha people. Actually I'm glad minority ethic photo is used as cover on article about human species. 114.79.18.39 (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In essence, because it's as good as any other and this is one area where there shall never be a solid consensus while the red Earth rolls. See talk page archive for many discussions on this topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2022

Aaaaaaaaa12345678898 (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like to edit the sentence, "It passed seven billion in 2011 and is expected to pass eight billion in November 2022." I would like to change it to, "It passed seven billion in 2011 and passed eight billion in November 2022."

 Partly done: I've changed "is" to "was", since November 2022 is indeed in the past, but we're going to need a new reliable source for the claim that it did in fact pass that number. Which shouldn't be super hard to find, but it's not in the article currently and you didn't provide one. casualdejekyll 15:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Human - LAW

The page on Human does not contain the LAW aspect of the definition; in particular the definition of Human found within Blackstone's commentaries on English Law; Absolute rights of the individual; Human are those whom have donated their birthright to a Monarch; mankind are those who have not! 2001:569:FA48:700:7154:80BF:44BF:F81C (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Source? HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Sovereign citizen halfwittery to me. They have some strange obsession with William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England which they misquote in order to 'prove' all sorts of nonsensical assertions. The only relevance to our article would come if we were ever to include a section on gullibility as an essentially human characteristic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed some sort of nuttery. Just thought it would be fun to see what sort of a source they could come up with. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

There was a typo near the top that I need to fix. Ghegrfgyumft (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Was" or "is"? It would also help if you tell the rest of us what the typo is. Kleuske (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

Please change the starter sentences “ Humans (Homo sapiens) are the most common and widespread species of primate in the hominidae family, and also the most common species of primate overall. Humans are broadly characterized by their bipedalism and high intelligence. Humans' cognitive skills have allowed them to thrive in a variety of environments and develop complex societies and civilizations, due to their large and complex brain.” back to “Humans (Homo sapiens) are the most abundant and widespread species of primate. They are a type of great ape that is characterized by bipedalism and exceptional cognitive skills due to a large and complex brain.” A user vandalized this page and the overall quality of the human article was ruined, the mention of us being a type of great ape was hugely important but was removed, please get it back. 2601:2C3:C681:49C0:281C:F4CB:D4FE:480 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead has been changed, but that's not vandalism. @Born25121642: could you please address the IP's concerns? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

My edit was indeed not meant to be vandalism. But it looks like User:Dunkleosteus77 has made the requested change back to "great ape," so all is well. Born25121642 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

While it might or might not be beneficial to mention “great apes”, I don’t see the direct substitution requested as an improvement:

−

Humans (Homo sapiens) are the most common and widespread species of primate in the hominidae family, and also the most common species of primate overall. Humans are broadly characterized by their bipedalism and high intelligence. Humans' cognitive skills have allowed them to thrive in a variety of environments and develop complex societies and civilizations, due to their large and complex brain.

+

Humans (Homo sapiens) are the most abundant and widespread species of primate. They are a type of great ape that is characterized by bipedalism and exceptional cognitive skills due to a large and complex brain.

— HTGS (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Still feel like they’re more well put sentences, didn’t need to mention that humans are the most abundant primate species twice. Feel like some of it is simply unnecessary. 2601:2C3:C681:49C0:281C:F4CB:D4FE:480 (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

At least put something in the lines of “Humans are the most abundant and widespread species of great ape and primate that are characterized by bipedalism and high intelligence due to a large and complex brain.” Everything else is fine. 2601:2C3:C681:49C0:281C:F4CB:D4FE:480 (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is notable to mention that humans are both the most widespread great ape, and the most widespread primate overall. That's why I put the language there. Born25121642 (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have opened up a new discussion below for discussing the use of "great apes" and/or "hominidae" at this link: Talk:Human#Primate_Family Born25121642 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: closing the request now that the issue is being actively discussed. M.Bitton (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Great ape" is the common name for the family Hominidae Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't there any mention regarding sense of humor?

Just curious, it is definately a part of human culture similarly to science, arts, religion. You could argue that a sense of humor it definately not unique to humans, as apes and other animals such as horses have been recognized to have a sense of humor. This could be said for other things mentioned on this page:for example art and technology. Some animals make and use tools, same goes for art. I would even argue that humor is as important human tool to overcome hardships, ease tension and ease bonding as religion. So why leave it out completely? Netsmile (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing might be problematic. If anyone can find proper academic discussion of the subject, it would likely merit inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

There's quite a lot actually: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. – Joe (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

You're free to add it, Wikipedia is a community project. CodemWiki (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Primate Family

Should the article say humans belong to the family of great apes, or should it say humans belong to the hominidae family? These two things having the same underlying meaning, of course.

I am no expert, but it is my understanding that "great apes" is a more colloquial term, whereas "hominidae" is more of a taxonomic classification. Either could be good in the lede. Or we could have something like: "belong to the family of great apes (hominidae)" Born25121642 (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Modern scientists do indeed properly refer to Hominidae as the great apes. Also, Hominidae should be capitalized. 2601:2C3:C681:49C0:281C:F4CB:D4FE:480 (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

got it ;) Born25121642 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey again, I would be happy if you replaced this sentence “Humans are broadly characterized by their bipedalism and high intelligence.” with “They are a type of great ape broadly characterized by their bipedalism and high intelligence.” I think it is hugely important understanding what humans are at their core. 2601:2C3:C681:49C0:65B8:D71E:6AE4:3445 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the lead sentence shouldn't be a string of Latin words, but it's good to get as much taxonomical context as we can in plain English. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, correction error, put “They are a type of great ape characterized by” instead of just “A great ape characterized by”. It’s a better and more effective transition sentence. “Humans’large brain” should also be a separate sentence. 2601:2C3:C681:49C0:9136:DC0A:9FFB:7ADE (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"East African Plains Ape" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect East African Plains Ape has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 3 § East African Plains Ape until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Humans are frugivores

I found four reliable sources (and then some) supporting that humans are frugivores. (They are listed in the previous article version that was reverted just now.) Even if this is claimed to "[not be] the scientific consensus," that doesn't take away from its merit as a fact. If anything, humans are believed to be omnivorous simply based on their general capability to live a long amount of time on plant and animal products, not based off of their irrefutable anatomy. Just because a fact isn't talked about often by our leading government-owned health, biology, etc. organizations doesn't mean it isn't true. Mind you, by the way, many of the big-name, oh-so-trustworthy 'primary sources' for medical information such as the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association are sponsored by fast food restaurants or are otherwise conditioned to promote this false idea. See What the Health, the 'facts' page on their website, and this website. Yes, The New York Times, United States National Library of Medicine and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are all "dubious" citations. Come on. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

None of your sources support the absurd claim that 'humans are frugivores'. And humans aren't 'believed' to be omnivorous, it is a simple demonstrable fact. And you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence for an exclusive frugivore diet in any extant Homo sapiens group, anywhere. The sources you cite instead support an entirely non-controversial observation - that they are descended from earlier primates that were almost certainly largely, if not exclusively, frugivorous. There is a degree of debate as to the timing and significance of the change in diet, but absolutely nothing to support a claim based on a logic which would equally support a statement that humans are arboreal quadrupeds, because their ancestors were. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources you offer discuss the diets of our hominid ancestors going back as far as 4.5 million years ago, roughly the time when our human ancestors were diverging from the ancestors of chimpanzees. The studies discuss the diets of hominids from about 4.5 million to two million years ago. The earliest Homo sapiens fossils are about 300,000 years old. It is ludicrous to use evidence about the diets of our precursor species millions of years ago to say that Homo sapiens is an "anatomically frugivore" species. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which you have not provided. Cullen328 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

(Originally in response to AndyTheGrump) It's subjective to say not only that none of these three of MANY sources (New York Times, US National Library of Medicine and US National Academy of Sciences) are unreliable, and leads me to believe that you have probably not even read them. Furthermore, the fact that you describe the suggestion as "absurd" reveals a possible reluctancy. What about the studies that show that one serving of processed meat per day increases the risk of developing diabetes by 51% made by the American Journal of Critical Nutrition? How about the studies made by the British Journal of Nutrition showing that bacteria toxins consumed from meat products causes a burst of inflamation, stiffening or paralyzing in the arteries? How about the National Cancer Institute's statement about chemicals released from the cooking of processed meats increasing the risk of cancer? American Journal of Epidemiology stating that eating just 1 egg per day is just as bad as smoking 5 cigarettes per day? The Environmental Science and Pollution Research statement on how just avoiding processed meat will not help you avoid contaminants? The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, The Journal of Nutritional Science as well as multiple other qualified health professionals (such as Dr. Michael Klaper, Dr. Roy Swank, Dr. Edna Garcia and Dr. John McDougall) stating on their websites that there is a strong link between the consumption of dairy foods and autoimmune diseases? The fact that most people in the world are lactose intolerant, the fact that only up to ten percent of cancer is genetic, The fact that over 3,000 people in the US alone die from foodborne illness related to meat consumption, The fact that raising animals for food is becoming increasingly more unsustainable to match a rapidly growing population, in comparison to plant agriculture, meat consumption being linked to Alzheimer's, Creutzfeldt-Jacob, tuberculosis and Mad Cow disease, at least 85% or more of chicken, pork and beef samples being contaminated with fecal matter, A blood type or gene issue does not require meat consumption, the fact that vitamin intake and overall nutrition go up on a meat-free diet, The fact that human's closest human relatives, the chimpanzees, eat 97% plants also cited here, The comparisons of ACTUAL omnivores to frugivores also here and here, eliminating meat from the human diet halts heart disease risks, as well as their blood pressure, cholestrol, weight gain and cancer, and that just eating eggs and meat in moderation will not give the same effect, the fact (which I don't even need to cite) that animals don't even make protein in the first place, nor do they make the numerous other 'good things' to be found in animal products with the exception of Vitamin B12, which is made by bacteria. The fact that our jaws and teeth are much more similar to that of other frugivores, (such as chimpanzees) as well as the fact that humans do not have the natural instinct of eating an animal raw (from a young age) like carnivores and omnivores do. Humans are not designed to eat animal products, plain and simple. The companies and associations that tell us otherwise are afraid of losing any following or sponsors that they have, that aren't too keen about the fact that there are practically no benefits provided by the practice of animal product consumption (started 15-20 thousand years ago before food distribution was widespread) outside of habit, tradition, convenience and taste pleasure. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if any or all of those sources stated what you claim they do (which in at least some cases seems very questionable), using them to support the statement you want to add would be WP:OR (which is against Wikipedia policy). Skllagyook (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

TrevortniDesserpedx, Thank you for demonstrating so clearly and unambiguously the wrong-headedness of your argument. You cite a multitude of studies referring to the consequences of human meat consumption. Frugivores do not eat meat. Humans (or at least a significant proportion of them) eat meat. It is a significant part of many people's diets. Ergo, humans aren't frugivores. This isn't an article about what any of us think human beings 'ought' to eat, it is about what they do eat (amongst many other things). The human diet, as a generalisation, is omnivorous. This isn't open to debate. I'd advise you to read WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and leave it at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Frugivores and herbivores do not have the natural instinct, and do not practice the act of hunting, killing and eating their prey raw, and neither do we. Lions, foxes, wolves and bears do. It has nothing to do with "capability" of consuming. A lot of, if not all animals that are scientifically classified as herbivore or frugivore would have a shortened life expectancy, high risk of disease and possible internal malfunction should they somehow consume a dead animal. You put an infant in a crib with an apple and a bunny and see which one gets played with. Spoiler alert—it won't be the apple. There's also this, this—"The most comprehensive nutritional study in human history, The China Study, was conducted over a 20-year period by researchers from Oxford and Cornell universities, in association with Chinese government scientists, and concluded that a whole-foods plant-based diet, free of animal products, is the optimum diet for human health. As well as this, it showed that all of our main diseases (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, etc.) are caused or aggravated by the consumption of animal products, and that adopting a whole-foods plant-based diet massively lowers your risk of those diseases." and this—"While many people are aware that the World Health Organisation recently declared processed meat (e.g. bacon, sausage, etc.) a Group 1 carcinogen that definitely cause cancer (and if you didn't know, now you do!), most people are still of the belief that non-processed meats are healthy to consume. The truth is that all meat is carcinogenic and even cooking chicken breast, for example, releases carcinogens in the meat and ups your cancer risk. In fact, meat is so carcinogenic that even being in the same room as it being fried or grilled can up your cancer risk, just from exposure to the fumes—check out this study showing lung cancer prevalence in Chinese women who do not smoke." The whole point I was trying to make is that if it is so that humans are anatomically herbivorous or frugivorous, why is it not written as such in the article? In many cases, coming to a conclusion requires a bit of reasoning and open-mindedness, not JUST bounties of "reliable sources" TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that you clearly either haven't read WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, or think they somehow don't apply to you, I can see little point in commenting further. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Trevortnidesserped, you are perfectly free to practice and advocate vegetarianism or even fruit based vegetarianism in your personal life off of Wikipedia. But when you edit Wikipedia, you are obligated to comply with the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy, and compliance with that policy is mandatory and non-negotiable. Neutral editing is obligatory and advocacy editing is forbidden. To be crystal clear, you will not be permitted to transform this article (or any other article) into an advocacy piece for fruitarianism. And I love fruits and support people eating more of them. I would say the same thing to the advocates of the Paleolithic diet and the Low-carbohydrate diet or any other prescriptive diet trying to cram their personal theories into this article or any other article about human nutrition. So, abandon this glaringly obvious POV pushing, or you will be subject to sanctions that will prevent any future disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Gender as a social construct?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This entire section should be removed, as gender is a biological fact. I don't understand why Wikipedia is spreading lies and misinformation. 2A02:2121:62C:2A73:8054:4B64:FFB1:EF3A (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. As you can see, that section is well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not. The "sources" here are also stating obvious lies. If I find an article saying the Earth is flat, would you change the Wiki to say so? 212.251.153.193 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not. The "sources" here are also stating obvious lies. If I find an article saying the Earth is flat, would you change the Wiki to say so? 2A02:2121:62C:2A73:F5BA:1F3C:77AC:8071 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

What are the "obvious lies"? HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Saint FRNK (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Humankind

I've been working on a draft for Humankind. I think someone vandalised the draft, but basically i think humanity humankind etc is a specific topic which is smaller than the species, more linked to Philosophical anthropology Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 18:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Common name

To avoid any confusion, I think this article could use the common name "modern human" instead of "human", as the word human can refer to any species in the Homo genus. The common name "modern Man" (capitalised to distinguish it from the word "man", meaning adult male human), which is gender-neutral, could also be included as a synonym. I also think the article's first sentence could be rewritten as "The modern human, modern Man, human, Man, or East African plains ape (Homo sapiens) are the most common and widespread species of primate." Roy Robert Hay (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Roy, I could agree with "modern humans" perhaps, but what exact wording are you suggesting for the first sentence? Graham Beards (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Singular or plural doesn't really matter, but articles usually say the [species name] (e.g., the modern lion, the chimpanzee, etc.,) instead [species name]. Man can mean human (e.g., Rhodesian Man, Flores Man, etc.,), it's plural being Men. The word man meant human when adult male humans were called weres as in werewolf, meaning man-wolf. East African plains ape is apparently another name for our species, but I couldn't find much on it aside from memes. Roy Robert Hay (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I came across this discussion and just wanted to add some input. Since I just found myself redirected here when searching for Modern Humans.

I was really hoping there would be a separate page dedicated to that subject, and one about early humans. That is, humans from >200kya. Essentially when we were still animals in the wild.

I see no reason not to make such pages. Although both topics can be included on the Humans page, I think they're such diverse topics that they require their own dedicated page, so the information can be more in depth and specific to said topics.

You could almost have the same subjects on pages about early/modern man as are on here. Sections about culture, history, physical and behavioral characteristics, ancient migrations, archeological evidence just to name a few.

And, perhaps most importantly, articles like these can help to refute any claims against evolution and perhaps even change some minds of such people who read it. And IMO if one person can be set straight in that regard, I would consider it a worthwhile venture. VoidHalo (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Homo sapiens sapiens

There is no mention of the term "homo sapiens sapiens" in this article at all. Zero. Even if, as even per https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-sapiens-sapiens "the necessity of this designation remains a matter of debate", the term exists and is known and referenced. Surely there must be some spot in this article where just the mention that the term "homo sapiens sapiens" exists.2001:8A0:7C19:2801:6D72:2A19:7B:F3BE (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It's covered in some depth in human taxonomy, which I think is the more appropriate place for it. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

maybe some content in this article mentioning the term could link to the page on human taxonomy, so people can find it easier. I wouldn't even think there would be a page on human taxonomy, much less think to search for it. It's just not the most intuitive for a lot of people, I think. VoidHalo (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox edit request

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

|image_caption = An [[adult]] human [[man|male]] (left) and [[woman|female]] (right) (Thailand, 2007) (no conservation status in infobox) …

+

|image_caption = An [[adult]] human [[man|male]] (left) and [[woman|female]] (right) (Thailand, 2007) |status = LC |status_system = IUCN3.1 …

• Why it should be changed: According to this page on the IUCN Red List website, humans are of least concern. While it may seem redundant to add the conservation status of, well, us to the article, it’s done for practically every other species that are assessed (for example, the lion and venus flytrap, just to name a few), so I don’t see why it shouldn’t be done for humans as well.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): ,

2603:8000:CD02:FC64:10BB:FC52:D6E7:925 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: see prior consensus here Talk:Human/Archive_35#RFC_conservation_status_of_Humans_in_the_infobox. Note that the human entry from your IUCN link has a tag reading "(This concept is no longer recognised)" which others do not. Cannolis (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Tools and technologies section singling out China

The section on tools and technologies has a paragraph that starts with "China developed paper, the printing press, gunpowder, the compass and other important inventions."

This seems a bit strange and forced. The words before this section don't make any mention of nations or countries so suddenly out the blue it just brings up a handful of Chinese inventions for some reason. Many nations of earth have contributed important inventions so why is China specifically called out? Obviously these inventions are important but it just strikes me as weirdly bias that China is mentioned specifically. Surely no country should be singled out and it would be best to remove this section. 217.72.117.1 (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Bias" is a noun, not an adjective. The statement is accurate. I see no problem with it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say these were developed by people in China, there's no reason to attribute things humans made to a country. Paperclip petter (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It is an accurate statement, but I also agree that it's weird and out of place. If one modern nation's early inventions are going to be listed, then surely everybody's need to be. Paper and gunpowder are not more important to human culture than the plough (Mesopotamia) and the keystone arch (Romans). Though really, none of it has a place in this article- all of it should be in the linked Tools or Technology pages. Personally I think the line should be taken out, and the paragraph should just start "Continued improvements in smelting..." 67.183.192.152 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Humans are not primates

Stop being racist. 2600:100F:B127:4453:0:50:972B:5C01 (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases content on published reliable sources. It doesn't base content on what random people who don't know the meaning of words (e.g. 'racist' and 'primate') say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Aren’t we made by mud?? 112.199.230.232 (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The more polite word for mud is stardust.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:7586:E46:F379:81D3 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"A human" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect A human has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § A human until a consensus is reached. Skynxnex (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Disagreement in text

In the second paragraph of the Top section, it says that humans have been exhibiting behavioral modernity since 160,000-60,000 years ago, but in the second paragraph of Evolution, it says 160,000-70,000. I don't know which is right. VeiledOcean8565 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Move James Watt and his steam engine

Under “History” there is a photo of a steam engine. I think it should be moved down a paragraph to coincide more with the industrial revolution. On mobile devices it leads unnaturally into the early modern era.LaggyMcStab (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

"It" in lede

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

The opening sentence was recently changed from:

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

To:

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

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

The "original" (longstanding) sentence is the current one [46] - what you saw was an edit made today [47], which I reverted. So what you consider "ungrammatical" has actually been in place for years, in one of the most highly-scrutinized articles on the project. And no, I can't agree that your examples do not sound like "standard English"; this is how you refer to a species - in the singular. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, seems I got it wrong - we did use the plural form, and it was altered two days ago [48]. In light of that, striking and reverting (although I maintain that the singular is more appropriate). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yes the change was made here [49] on 7th October. Graham Beards (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How about, "natural prose is good"? There's no need to impose a particularly artificial phraseology if it's not prominent in sources. Remsense诉 14:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)