Jump to content

Talk:Human

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Homo sapiens)
Former featured articleHuman is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleHuman has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
November 1, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
February 13, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
November 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 1, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 1, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
July 25, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Should the picture be updated?

[edit]

I think it could be more fitting to have the picture be of (a) human(s) in a more current environment, such as at a computer. This better represents the current state of humanity, which is highly integrated with technology. Paperclip petter (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead picture? What percentage of "people" worldwide use a computer or work in an office environment? Vsmith (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the most recent sources I found from a quick search. I haven't checked these and couldn't find much info on google scholar.
"A total of 5.19 billion people around the world were using the internet at the start of Q3 2023, equivalent to 64.5 percent of the world’s total population." (https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview)
47.1% of households had a computer as of 2019 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/748551/worldwide-households-with-computer/)
This is a little less than I was expecting, so maybe it's not time yet.
To be clear, I do think the current lead photo is beautiful and fitting and I like that it's not western-centric. I think these are also qualities that the photo should have. Paperclip petter (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the wide diversity of humans, and human behaviors. I think it would be a great idea to have a mosaic with the current image at top, and then a few others. Maybe some farmer in a banana plantation. Or villagers in rural Mongolia performing religious ceremonies, and so on, in that vein.
You'll never capture to full gamut of humanity from one, or even a few pictures, but I feel this would be the next best thing. VoidHalo (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like this Idea too! Paperclip petter (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make if the picture has people from the west are in the photo or not? Human is a value neutral term in this instance. 24.47.223.204 (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're replying to a year-old comment. Remsense ‥ 论 05:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. While many people use computers (and other tech) daily, humans have primarily been either hunting/gathering or farming for a greater portion of their history. A photo with an agricultural or nature background is appropriate. LaggyMcStab (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100% of people who will look at this article use a computer. Sinistrality2023 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am the 0.0001% that uses a phone to see this article. 2001:448A:4006:20A9:55A2:4519:A9B3:584F (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's still a computer. 185.139.138.106 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used a phone to write this very talk page article. So, I'll second that. VoidHalo (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The picture should be updated to one of sub Saharan Africans. As they are the earliest homo sapien. 67.81.247.227 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. New Boojum (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. New Boojum (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current image is not terrible, but I would say it's "bad". See Talk:Human/FAQ and Talk:Human/Archive_35#Argument_made_in_the_FAQ, and consider MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I personally would like a montage / gallery but it might be "politically impossible". I feel as though a good way to get the ball rolling would be to move the population density map up to be the main and only image in the infobox. For example like on the article Jews there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead. Many comparable featured articles use a gallery in the infobox, such as Frog, Spider, Bird, and most importantly/comparably: Primate. Others have a single example like Whale or Brown bear or, most comparably, Man and Woman. Maybe we want to show those two images from Man and Woman. Or maybe we want to show just one example. At this point I'm rambling, but I think the current image has got to go eventually. Leijurv (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The current image isn't horrible by any means. It gets the point across very effectively. I'm just saying that a mosaic would be even better. But not that the current image necessarily has anything wrong with it. VoidHalo (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A mosaic/montage might look good on larger screens, but on anything smaller it can just become a collection of tiny, meaningless postage stamps. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primate looks great on my laptop and phone. Leijurv (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mosaics used for lead images on Wikipedia usually consist of multiple separate images. As opposed to all of the pictures being one large image. So, if you have difficulty seeing them, you can click the individual images to view them full size.
Even in the event that it's just a single image of a mosaic, provided the quality/resolution is acceptable, you should be able to zoom in on each panel in fullscreen to see it in more detail.
Others mention they've never had problems viewing mosaics on mobile devices, but you need to consider that not everybody's phone is going to have the same resolution, or physical screen size. And eyesight is going to vary a great deal from person to person, outside of legal blindness, that is another matter all together. So, even though it's the same image, the quality/detail will be different (at least, to some degree) for most people. VoidHalo (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not with you on the content being outdated, the photo is perfect in that regard, but the quality of the image is starting to show it's age. For instance, there are some pretty noticeable JPG artifacts around the man's hat that either weren't noticeable on most screens 10 years ago, or were more tolerable back then. Maybe not today, but eventually the image will need to be replaced or updated in some way. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 01:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, ideally we would use a featured picture on Wikimedia commons or something like that. Howard🌽33 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I see no reason to keep using a low-quality photo from 2009. Howard🌽33 18:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone agrees that it would be nice if every article were improved. The trick is to propose an actual improvement so a meaningful discussion can occur. Bear in mind that very few readers would need a picture of a human to know what the topic of the article is. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if we did my idea I mentioned above: For example like on the article Jews there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead. Maybe someone should WP:BOLDly move the population density map from the bottom of the infobox to the top, replacing the current image? Leijurv (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the better comparison here would be gorillas and monkeys, which are species (just like humans).

Jews are members of a religion, so the comparison is weaker. Bremps... 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, the pages for gorilla and monkey have a single image, but other species with variation like cat and dog have collages. Humans have tons of diversity and variation that could be shown like that. Leijurv (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were lengthy discussions about the picture, all now archived. And turned out the picture is good enough, because is fulfills basic requirements like showing humans of both sexes, standing in a posture that shows most body features, and humans being in possession of tools (in a way, computers are just another tools). Plus millions of humans depends on subsistence agriculture and farming for living even today, so I think the picture isn't outdated. I'm against changing the picture, if there isn't a concrete alternative that is better. --Bananice2 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Bananice2. There is always an instinctive urge to critique, which can be a great thing, but there's a big difference between thinking something isn't good enough and actually finding a solution that improves it meaningfully. The image serves every practical purpose that could be asked of it.
It is slightly lower resolution than you'd hope, but it's still serviceable. 138.64.65.74 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m jumping in, I think the page’s image should stay the same way it is, we could picture them in different environments such as deserts (my father spent most of his life in the deserts) or forests (if Germany has forests, they’ll be top 1 on my bucket list), other than that, it should stay same. Cometkeiko (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could use an update.....I would suggest something where someone is standing. I highly discourage use of a montage as seen at Primate.... as these photos are so small on phones they're indistinguishable thus deter readers understanding. Moxy- 02:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we take a picture of an ant for Wikipedia, we do not search for the most advanced, largest ant colony, basically I say the same should apply to humans. A random human of the 8 billion on earth is fit to represent the species, not its level of technological development. Kreuner (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is good, fine, and representative. Remsense诉 14:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, picture on this page is iconic. I would agree we could have more pictures, including a gallery, but generally think the current one should be included in some capacity. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this specific image was chosen due to its representative aspect across different world regions and ages. While humans may be generally more acquainted with computers now, this has not always been the case. In contrast, humans have been farmers for millennia. I think if the image should represent humans across history, then the image chosen does that job well.
This all depends on what you think the image should represent, though. And if you think it should represent humans as they are right now, then it's true that computers would be a more accurate symbol for technological advancement in the modern age. However, it is important to recognize that not all people have equal access to the latest technology, and the world is still built on the large population of farmers. Gherickson (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo itself has a low resolution and quality compared to other Wikipedia articles so I agree that it should change. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is primarily intended for thumbnail display, and as such its resolution of 331×554 seems adequate to me. Remsense诉 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Commons, to be a good image you need at least two megapixels, this image is less than one tenth of that, and it is very JPEG artifacted. For instance if I lean in even a little bit I immediately see the JPEG "shimmer" effect around the woman's hair. Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be updated, to reflect the increasing urbanization of human populations. These rural folks are not representative anymore. 68.199.125.5 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species.
Including more modern technology is not important. Modern technology is not important to us as a species overall, just basic tool use which is already shown in the image. We lived for millions of years using only basic tools, and if all electronics stopped working tomorrow, humans would still survive because of our ability for tool use beyond computers.
Additionally, using images that display the human form would not be ideal. Those who are interested in learning specifically about the human body or its figure should be able to find pages directly related to that, but that would not make sense to use a representation of humanity overall. Huhbilly (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A representation of humanity is fairly abstract. As humans would mostly agree our minds are what make us human, or our nature as collaborative social creatures, maybe a screenshot of this talk page discussing the topic would be the best possible solution. It represents what humanity is like, overall, in my opinion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People have been raising legitimate concerns about the picture quality. If you're gonna be so insistent on using third-world farmers, then the least you could do is pick a high quality photo. There're tons of them on commons that would be a better replacement Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is displayed at thumbnail size. There is no meaningful difference in an image's fitness for this purpose if has 400 pixels of revolution or 3000. This has already been pointed out multiple times, and I wish this thread had been allowed to have been archived already, because it's going to do nothing but attract further repeated non-arguments and provoke further disruption like the deeply embarrassing Jimbo stunt above. There is more to image quality than resolution, but here they seem similarly immaterial. There are no serious arguments here as far as I can tell: that might be my personal opinion, but the fact remains that I've yet to read a single convincing point from anyone concerning the image, and I'm normally someone who's embarrassingly quick to change their mind. Instead, there's been a months-long trickle of well-meaning people who nevertheless can't help but articulate in different way the core fact that they do not know what they are talking about here. Please let this thread die. Remsense ‥ 论 22:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it's worth, I really resent your representation that the image selection has merit specifically because the subjects are "third-world" (???) Remsense ‥ 论 23:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quality of the image does matter. I reiterate that I can clearly see JPEG artifacting around the woman's hair and the man's face on my laptop, if someone has a desktop or larger monitor it will be even worse. It visibly appears low-quality.
Huhbilly said Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species. and I think that's what Dunkleosteus77 was referring to. I think this is a reasonable argument and if we pick a single image (no gallery, no rotation, etc), I think this is a solid point that tool use / physical labor / farming are good and representative, and I agree that it gives merit to such images, including the current one. Note that all of Dunkleosteus77's suggested images fulfill this. I'm not sure where you are taking offense, possibly just using the phrase "third world" as a euphemism for being poor and/or subsistence farming? Anyway, their actual suggested images look fine to me. Leijurv (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The artifacting is a concrete visual issue: I will tamp down my earlier polemic and grant that. With that said, I feel all of the potential replacement issues have more fundamental drawbacks, either they do not depict both a man and a woman (I feel this to be necessary), or they are not full-face portraits that clearly show most of the bodies.

third world

It's immaterial so I won't say anything more about it, but I mostly couldn't see what it was being used as a shorthand for unless it does in effect mean those things—as otherwise its more precise actual meaning is beyond irrelevant to the task at hand. Remsense ‥ 论 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go for an example, let's consider the infobox of commons:Category:Couples: commons:File:A_Dagomba_couple_from_farm_02.jpg. This would be an improvement in my opinion, without straying from the same general idea as the current photo (man and a woman, farming, rural, clothing, tools). It is higher resolution, 6.8 times more pixels (however, we would probably crop it in a bit). Admittedly, if you zoom all the way into the faces, there is still some artifacting, but it's much better than the current one. So nevertheless, I think this would be an improvement. I skimmed through some categories of a few thousand couple photos on Commons and this image was the best in my opinion. My personal view is that a gallery is best but I recognize the overriding authority of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY disallowing that. With that constraint, my view is that the second-best option is probably a group photo, and realistically the best group photo will probably be a man and a woman. I also would be okay with having no humans in the infobox at all, instead the reader could view the gallery that's down in the "Human life stages" section, and the infobox would just contain a population density map (like Dutch people for example). Leijurv (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No way, the current photo is iconic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're back!! haha Leijurv (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02.jpg is the most viable suggestion yet, so I hope I don't come off as stonewalling when I say I think it is still less ideal—as it more prominently features both goods (the basket and bowl) and more prominently implies activities that seem more particularized, to the effect that I feel it is less neutral and less representative of humans at-large. While the man in the present image carries a banana stem over his shoulder, and the woman carries a bag strapped across her torso, these elements seem less particularized, owing in part to their being less prominently featured in the photo—the focus remains clearly on the man and woman themselves, with everything else pictured parsimoniously "coloring in" key aspects of humans we want to illustrate, but not really catching the reader's attention in their own right.
I think File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02.jpg is perfectly adequate for illustrating the concept of "couples", but so much is wrapped up in the concept of "human" such that it's one of the few topics that begs scrutiny of this kind on all levels. I really don't want to come off as finding any argument to retain the status quo like I said, I really am trying to assess merits objectively, so I trust you take my argumentation in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 04:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To restate your position to ensure I understand: in the current image, the woman does have a bag, and the man does have a banana stem, but those elements are not very prominent or eye-catching in the image. The man and the woman are clearly and unambiguously the focus. Whereas in my suggestion, the bag and the bowl and the logs are quite prominent in the image, taking up literally a large fraction of the image and drawing the eye. I think this is a fair complaint, and I appreciate the most viable suggestion yet. I think it looks a bit better if you crop, like this: commons:File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02 (cropped).jpg, what do you think? Are there any other criteria or characteristics that you'd look for? Any other images that you'd point to for such characteristics? And, do you have a thought on eschewing a human / couple in the infobox, instead leaving illustration to the ten images under "human life cycle"? Leijurv (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to chime in. I think the picture, while it is showing its age in terms of photo quality, is a perfect representation of humans. It shows two humans in what is clearly an agricultural setting- Something that makes humans unique (Our ability to culture, harvest, and domesticate plants and animals.) It shows humans wearing clothes and woven accessories, another uniquely human aspect. It shows both a human male and a human female, representing both common sexes. I saw that another Wikipedian mentioned how they liked that the lead picture didn't represent Western humans, to which I agree. Most of the humans on Earth are in Asia, after all. If we could find another photo similar to the leading image with higher quality, then I think it'd be an acceptable replacement. Or we could leave it as is, because the current photo is beautifully representative of Homo sapiens. Where Did God Put All The Plums? (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024

[edit]

I want this to be public page 2001:14BB:679:2A2A:9408:F67C:72AF:2C1C (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This page has been repeatedly vandalized going back 20 years. Semi-protection will be maintained. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

[edit]

This is an incorrect statement about the humans or Homo sapiens sapiens page (a very common misbelief with not bearing in scientific fact): Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. They are apex predators, being rarely preyed upon by other species.

We are 100% no where near being apex predators like a polar bears or killer whales.

We are at 2.2 out of 5.5 on the Trophic level.

Change:

“Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment. They are apex predators, being rarely preyed upon by other species.”

To:

“Humans have had a dramatic effect on the environment, despite this they are not predators. Humans dominate ecosystems through changes in land use, biogeochemical cycling, biodiversity, and climate change. In the global food web, we discover that humans are omnivores in the primary consumers trophic level. They at 2.2 putting them closer to anchovies or pigs and cannot be considered predators let alone apex predators.”


Citations:

S. Bonhommeau, L. Dubroca, O. Le Pape, J. Barde, D.M. Kaplan, E. Chassot, A. Nieblas, Eating up the world’s food web and the human trophic level, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (51) 20617-20620,

D Western, Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98, 5458–5465 (2001).

J Rockström, et al., A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

P Vitousek, H Mooney, J Lubchenco, J Melillo, Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).

Thank you for your consideration Narnold7 (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Remsense ‥ 论 09:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also appear not to know the formal definition of apex predator. Your change would be inaccurate, and "humans are not predators" is not backed up by your sources in any way. Since this is plainly a false statement, I doubt this request will come to much, I'm afraid. Remsense ‥ 论 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

[edit]

@BauhausFan89, I did not merely revert your recent additions because they were improperly marked, but because I thought they were inappropriate to make without prior discussion. Also, while at such a broad level this might matter a bit less, you are citing comparatively some poor quality sources compared to others used in this article (History.com) Remsense ‥ 论 07:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Species 5618" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Species 5618 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/2024 December 26 § Species 5618 until a consensus is reached. consarn (formerly cogsan) 20:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human&oldid=1265409061"