Talk:Human/Archive 26

Human/Archive 26 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Primates NA‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Todo1

Pre-2004 discussions:

• Talk:Human/Archive1
  
• Talk:Human/Archive2 -- September 2004
  
• Talk:Human/Archive3 -- October 2004 including taxobox poll
  
• Talk:Human/Archive4 -- November and December 2004
  
• /Archive5
• /Archive6

Article split

dab is right, the article should be split into Humanity and Homo sapiens. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article strikes me as an unnatural bifurcation of a common topic. We need to ask why we should do this. What rational reason is there for striking a seemingly useful page (I haven't seen the page hit stats)? Is it to assist the reader, or is it to merely to allow a group a second bite at the apple? By breaking it out into biological and anthropological articles, I would think that it would be easier for some to define humanity as a collection beings who are spiritual or some such.--FeloniousMonk 22:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Humanity and Homo sapiens are diffferent subjects, and a split would assist the reader. Besides, the article as it now stands isn't very good, and a split would likely help. If nothing else it would solve the taxobox problem (that pic of 2 girls is a really awful way to start an article about humans as a species). Have a look at man and woman and compare. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they are are different topics. I'm surprised that there isn't an article for all three topics - human, humanity, Homo Sapiens. I'll take at the other articles.--FeloniousMonk 02:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human should be a disambig page, IMO, w much of the content here going to humanity, and some going to Homo Sapiens (or Homo Sapiens Sapiens). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image

Sam keeps changing the image. Have we reached a decision about it? SlimVirgin 01:56, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Have we reached a decision about anything? Until we do, I'll keep restoring the taxobox periodically. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But why? You're just being provocative. However, I do agree that the discussion on this page is unproductive, and we should move toward a decision, even if only by voting which, while imperfect, at least gets the job done. SlimVirgin 02:09, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being provocative, I think I'm improving the article substantially. As far as voting, see:

Polls are evil, Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. The majority has no claim to the truth. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest if not a poll? You implied yourself that you found the discussion unproductive. SlimVirgin 02:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and lengthy (both in size and in time). See just above for my suggestion (which I've been making for a very long time, and which seems to be agreeable to most users). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 02:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We ought to replace the article with this talk page as a vivid illustration of the human condition. ;-) SlimVirgin 13:55, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Why we are all here talking anyway

On Mar 2 (that would be Wednesday), User:FeloniousMonk unilaterally made a series of edits that cumulatively rewrote in its entirety the introduction to this article and rearranged the top taxobox and images. These article features had been fully stable since October 2004. They resulted at that time from a broad consensus based on long discussion and multiple varying polls. I respectfully suggest that this unilateral action, once it has been pointed out to have been unfortunately done on a heavily-burdened slate, be carefully and respectfully reverted until due discussion can take place. Tom Haws 02:32, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

My preference is for the current version (FM's) if everything from the EB is removed or rewritten, and I was hoping FM might do that. And I like the photograph of the two girls. Regarding previous polls, Tom, it's always up to the current editors of a page to determine content. Is there a synthesis of the two introductions that might satisfy us all? My main concern about the previous version was the reference to religion and souls. SlimVirgin 02:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

If one takes the biased POV that only the weighable part of H. sapiens is "human," then in my opinion religion and souls have nothing to do with "human." However, if one takes the NPOV position that we are to report what the reputable scholars say about "human," then it seems to me that at least one-third of the venerable scholars of the world living or dead have written that religion and souls are a part of "human"--just as liberty, justice, honor, and all the other unweighable imaginary constructs are part of "human." The current leading section takes the biased POV that only the weighable part of H. sapiens is "human"--which is a blatant violation of NPOV policy--in my opinion. ---Rednblu | Talk 08:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd say living scholars are the ones we heed for this, not the dead ones. Too much white noise otherwise. I very much doubt that one third of reputable living scholars would say that human beings have souls, but I'm not sure how we'd ever settle that question. Regardless, it's a minority view even if it's one third, and as such doesn't belong in the introduction, which is what we're discussing. For the intro, we should stick to the issues that are beyond reasonable dispute: human beings walk upright, are part of the great-ape family and so on. In the article itself, of course, the issue of religion and myth generally should be discussed. In so doing, we're not, as you say, taking the POV that only the weighable part of human beings is human: rather, that only certain aspects of the weighable part are regarded as facts by just about everyone, and therefore it is with those facts that we begin the article. SlimVirgin 08:46, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ça n'est pas rien que recherche personnelle! Une synthèse intime d'ayant du rêve. >LePierrotAnguille 19:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you please translate what you are saying into English?? Georgia guy 19:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He is saying, essentially:

"This is not original research, but rather the synthesis of a dream..."

Actually, no. The first part appears to be substandard French for "That is nothing but [or: other than] personal research [or: original research]". The second part is less decipherable, and even more illiterate. An approximation, perhaps: "That ain't nothin' but personal research. An intimate dream synthesis, like." --Noetica 05:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And for the record, I violently object to SV's nihilistic revisionism. I have no idea what "scholors" she is thinking of, but her interpretation of what the majority of scholors think is clearly beyond mere ethnocentrism, it is blindly egocentric to the point of hubris. I am tempted to ask if she has an international scholors opinion poll handy? ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read what I wrote before violently objecting. RedNBlu wrote that at least one-third of scholars, living and dead, believed in souls. I replied that I very much doubted this figure but "I'm not sure how we'd ever settle that question." SlimVirgin 23:37, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually what you said that got me irked was :

"it's a minority view even if it's one third, and as such doesn't belong in the introduction"

I do think I overreacted tho, thats due to (amongst other reasons certainly) my distaste for unverified (and not likely to be verified) invocations of "[majority of] scholars" or "most scientists" or what have you. I was a sociological researcher and conducted opinions polls and such for some time, and while actual statistics intrigue and interest me to no end, the appeal to false authority (in this case a random non-expert attempting to opine on the likely opinions of an enormous body of experts) tends to raise my hackles. I apologize for having been a bit carried away. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. SlimVirgin 01:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

• I must say I object to Types of the Human Race being the first image. The reality of human races is very much disputed by the great majority of anthropologists. The idea should be mentioned somewhere, but it should not be the picture of humanity. As to the soul dispute, I haven't read the discussion on that quite thoroughly, but it strikes be that a fair solution might be to mention first the unique biological and mental characteristics of Homo sapiens, and then that some people consider these markers of a soul.--Pharos 01:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree—I hadn't expressed an opinion before but I don't believe it should be our top image. Something showing diversity might be nice (not necessarily racial, but perhaps the two girls image), but not something drawing attention to a classification/categorization of race. I also agree that I would not put souls in the introduction, for a number of reasons. It's hardly an objective/verifiable assertion; while science shouldn't be the only factor, I think would object to this characterization of humans. But also, there are several religions in which other animals have souls as well; I cannot say how many people believe that humans have souls, only humans have souls, and it is part of what defines us. In any case, I believe that beliefs about the soul are varied enough that it could not easily be summarized in a discussion. Religion is something which sets us apart from other animals, although one could argue that it is a subset of our increased intelligence and capacity for complex behaviors and culture, although again it will be difficult to summarize across different religions. Finally, on the taxobox, I'm divided. I think I favor placing it lower, since as has been said, cultural evolution has dominated us recently and although our species has not changed much genetically in the last millenia, it has changed enormously culturally. That being said, there is something nice about having consistency with the other life forms, to not show our egotism when writing about ourselves. But no, I think an image should be at the top, and the two girls seems to be the best candidate so far. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that the editors currently present are not interested in talking first and shooting later. [I sincerely regret the foregoing personal attack. Please accept my apologies. Tom] So, moving forward from where we stand toward a neutral article, I'd like to hear a little more about why the perspectives removed last week were not significant points of view. We don't need to include extreme minority POVs at Wikipedia, but we do need to represent fairly all significant perspectives. Tom Haws 21:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

How to proceed

• Let's draw up maybe four alternatives, including the 1) March 1 version and the 2) current version of the leading section, and then have a vote. What do you say? ---Rednblu | Talk 02:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting."What Wikipedia is not. I put it that consensus should be reached here, not voting.--FeloniousMonk 00:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I heartilly second that. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Voting is a mechanical process, and an admission of failure; it's what you do when discussion has failed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The discussion has failed. It's just going round in circles. SlimVirgin 17:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it's been going on long enough for that (not this particilar discussion). If we take it as going back to 6th March (the beginning of this section), and exclude comments about the image rather than the text, then the debate is quite short, not to mention sporadic. I say this despite my strong suspicion that the result (at least if voting were restricted to those discussing the issue) would fall on the side of the question that I support. But could I try to get straight exactly what's being argued?

Am I right in thinking that these are the reasons given for going back to an earlier version (by, let's call them, the cons)?

1. The old version was agreed on by the editors at the time.
2. The new version omits mention of anything but the biological/physical.

And the reasons given (by, let's call them, the antis) for keeping (or against the reasons against):

1. An old consensus shouldn't govern a new set of editors.
2. The introduction should contain only the agreed-upon definition, with minority or controversial, or at least disputed, views being discussed in the body of the article.

Have I missed anything crucial? If not, then surely the first point surely goes to the antis; any suggestion for change will go against what others say or have said; that alone can't be a reason not to change.

The second point, though, is more complex. My own view is that, strictly speaking, 'human' should be reserved for the biological species, and 'person' for the metaphysical kind. That fits reasonably well with both modern and (especially) older scholarship. As the article itself points out, I believe (I haven't checked to see if it's still there), the term 'human' to refer to individuals is recent, and though not coeval with the biological approach, it makes sense to join them.

But of course there's not going to be agreement on that, so I'll not even suggest it here. The current introduction, however, does refer to the ability to reason and to use language, as well as to culture (and beliefs, etc.). Unless the cons are assuming a physicalist account of these things, then they presumably agree that the introduction as it is now contains more than just the physicalist aspect. Isn't that enough? Any more is definitely disputed, and should surely be covered in the main text. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

yeah, what have you acheived beyond regurgitating the discussions in the archives? sorry if this sounds unfriendly, the former version was at least based on a poll, and not on unilateral editing. Do whip up a poll, but take some time to think about what exactly the options should be, and how the voting should take place. The first objective must be to get rid of the ugly npov banner, so let's single out the points that gave rise to that, and do a first poll aimed primarily at acheiving that. New editors shouldn't be governed by an old consensus, but they should be aware of it, and respect the opinions of former contributors as much as those of present contributors, if possible. dab (ᛏ) 17:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure to whom you're referring here; it seems to be to someone who's setting up a poll, which I suppose is Rednblu. But if you're going to apologise for sounding unfriendly (for which read: aggressively rude), why not take that time to go back and erase the 'unfriendliness'?

Instead of 'whipping up a poll' I was trying to achieve consensus by clarifying the issues. I'm sorry if that disturbs you (I don't mean that I apologise; I mean that I'm sorry), but I think that it's a better approach, not to mention more in line with Wikipedia's ethos. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel, regarding your first point above, personhood is a legal and philosophical term referring to rational agency and the notion of rights. I'd argue that animals are, or ought to be regarded as, persons, so I wouldn't want to see a discussion of personhood that implied only humans can be persons. As for your second point, I agree: the intro the antis want refers to abstract thinking, language, and culture. Religion is a subset of one or more of these, and is therefore not appropriate for the intro. If we mention religion in the intro, we ought to mention all the other subsets too. As you say, the intro is not physicalist. It would be physicalist only if one were also a reductionist. SlimVirgin 18:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Persons" legally includes individuals (humans, not animals), corporate bodies (eg in the UK, registered companies, friendly societies, industrial and provident societies, limited liability partnerships and Scottish partnerships, etc.) and corporate soles (eg the Home Secretary qua Home Secretary). Indeed, over here, companies even have rights under the Human Rights Act! Certainly animals are not persons - not even the ones that wear blue booties and a coat;) (SV is just plain wrong there). But she is right in saying there are persons who are not human individuals, jguk 19:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But none of that was my point (not least because I think that I've made clear in various places that I think that not only humans can be persons). I was arguing that the notion of 'person' subsumes most if not all of what the people I called cons wanted to include in the definition of 'human'. The notion of a corporate person is acknowledged jurisprudentially to be metaphorical, and I think that the question of other non-human animals being persons needs to be addressed (and on a case by case basis), but none of that affects my central point, surely (which was what SlimVirgin was agreeing with at the end of her comment).

Incidentally, I don't think that personhood has anything to do with rights, any more than does morality — but that's something for another time. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, I believe Germany has passed a law giving animals the status of persons, or it may just have been apes, I don't recall. And where I live, or at least in this very small part of where I live, poodles have long been awarded personhood; or more accurately, they have awarded us personhood so that we may better serve them. Mel, the issue of personhood is very much tied up with the issue of rights. The whole abortion debate centers on whether a foetus is a person, and if so, at what point. SlimVirgin 19:43, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was New Zealand and primates - but I may be wrong, jguk 19:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's the Great Ape Project, which started there or in Australia, which perhaps you're thinking of, or maybe New Zealand has passed something too. I know Germany did, I just don't recall which classes of animals it referred to. SlimVirgin 20:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, no — an important part of the abortion issue concerns the status of the fœtus as a person, and/or its moral status. Only those who think of morality as being a function of rights express themselves in those terms. I don't know what the majority view is in philosophy, but there's at least a very, very large group of philosophers (past and especially present) who think, like me, that talking of morality in terms of rights is both inaccurate and dangerous. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between the status of a foetus in terms of personhood versus its moral status, which is to say that I don't know how you're defining your terms. Regarding rights-based theories in moral philosophy, I understand why you might regard them as wrongheaded, but why dangerous? (Don't feel obliged to answer, as this is somewhat off-topic.) Regarding how to proceed with the article, if a vote won't work, can anyone suggest how to make progress? SlimVirgin 20:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on your talk page, rather than cluttering up this (already humongous) page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. We all understand that majority--or minority--does not rule. Even votes of last month do not rule. So voting does not determine the outcome. 8)) However, the process of constructing four options for the vote always generates wonderfully constructive discussion. Moreover, there is very constructive discussion during the voting. I suggest that organizing and conducting a vote is a means of organizing discussion so that it does not go in circles but leads to consensus. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of needing a vote to start a constructive discussion, you could address Mel's point about the introduction not being physicalist because it refers to abstract thinking, language, and culture. SlimVirgin 21:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think that human and person are not synonymous; however, I feel that much of that discussion applies more to the Person article. My first priority here would be to resolve the neutrality dispute. I am not certain I understand exactly why the NPOV tag was added. Is it only because of the introduction, or do people believe that the article as a whole is not neutral? What precisely would people like to be added to represent all points of view? — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<KS: I think that human and person are not synonymous; however, I feel that much of that discussion applies more to the Person article.>> I agree. The first question here is the definition of what "human" is. The current first sentence ignores the other two definitions of "human" that are prominent among scholars. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which are what? SlimVirgin 23:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

1. You're saying that everything has to go in the first sentence?
2. Which definitions and which scholars (given what I've argued above)? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The full discussion is in the archives. The March 1 first sentence is not my favorite, but it did quite well in summarizing the three predominant definitions of what "human" is.

Human beings' are defined variously in biological, spiritual, and cultural terms, or in combinations thereof.

I understand that each of us would like to see one of those three definitions conquer the other two. But we need to stop adopting personal research to trump what the scholars have actually said about what "human" is. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I think we're reading different intros here. It says: "The ability to reason and speak contributes to the behavioral differences between humans and other primates, most noticeable in the highly developed culture of human beings. Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language, their culture, with its organization in complex societies with groups and institutions for mutual support and assistance, and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to a myriad of cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools."

Look at the key terms: language, reason, culture, behavior, organization, groups, societies, institutions, support, assistance, complexity, beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms. It's all there. SlimVirgin 00:38, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rather than rewriting the intro, is there a sentence you would like to add to it that would allow us to move on? SlimVirgin 01:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first sentence violates NPOV by stating <<Human beings are bipedal primate mammals distinguished from other primates by biological and behavioral differences.>> That is as much a violation of NPOV as it would be to state for the first sentence the following. "Human beings are eternal souls facing a lifetime of temptations to sin. Some scientists think humans are also bipedal primates evolved from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. Plus, humans have all the keywords of language, culture, behavior, organization, groups, societies, institutions, support, and norms in their repertoire. It's all there." ---Rednblu | Talk 02:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about the intro as a whole, not just the first sentence. Please name the contemporary scholars, other than theologians, who say that human beings are eternal souls, as you wrote in your edit summary. As for saying "some scientists think humans are also bipedal primates," it is simply false to claim that only "some" scientists believe this. I can't engage in a discussion that's conducted in this fashion. SlimVirgin 02:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Let's start with the theologians. 8)) The current first sentence violates NPOV by crossing the theologians off the list of valid scholars. Would not any theologian require a first sentence something like the following? <<Human beings are bipedal primate mammals distinguished from other primates by biological, spiritual, and cultural differences.>> ---Rednblu | Talk 02:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

indeed. Let's separate this into a homo sapiens and a humanity article, this has gone on long enough now... dab (ᛏ) 09:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

“Let's start with the theologians.” Fine — which ones? I've just looked through the theology books that I have by my desk (not scientific research, I grant you), and I could find no support for your claim about them. Do you have any theologians in mind, are you simply assuming that they say what you think?

I note also that your suggestion isn't a NPoV adddition of non-materialist views — it's a specifically Christian (and a certain subset of Christian, at that) theological position. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:35, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Though theologians may be engaged in defining the concept of "human," they are not considered definitive or primary sources of understanding on the topic in academia. That role has been traditionally taken up by philosophers, anthropologists and biologists. Any ruminations of theologists on the topic are strictly subordinate to the other three, which are definitive. The intro should reference only primary and definitive understandings of the concept of human; there already is a proper place for the personal noodlings of theologians on this subject: Culture.--FeloniousMonk 19:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, no — that's a very particular point of view rather than a neutral statement of the situation. Most academics treat each other with more respect than your comments suggest (and even if they didn't, they should). Nor is it fair to dismiss the work of theologians as 'personal noodlings'. If we're going to come to any sort of agreement, we need to respect other positions, even when we don't accept them.

My questions to Rednblu still stand, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That "Human" is not generally defined in scholarly circles in theological terms is far from a "particular point of view" but a statement of fact. I've yet to see even one neutral/objective scholarly or even common reference source that in its primary definition defines 'Human' in terms of spirituality or theology (other than the previous version of this article).--FeloniousMonk 20:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though for different reasons. I agree because theologians don't in fact spend much time addressing the issue of the definition of 'human'. If they did, though, that would constitute an objective/scholarly reference source — unless you're ruling out theology as scholarly and respectable by definition, which would surely not be acceptable. Whatever your view of religion (and if it's negative, then I share it, however extreme it is), theologians do count as scholars, many of them distinguished and respected by the academic world in general. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you agree that theologians are not among those primarily involved in defining 'human,' then you also must agree and that wikipedia's primary definition of human should not be exceptional in presenting a definition of human couched in theological meanings and terms.

Rednblu's original contention that NPOV demands a spiritual/theological definition be included in the intro (the primary definition) and that defining human primarily in taxonomic and in biological and behavioral distinctions is biased and inherently POV is a nonstarter. That it's false on it's face is a matter of deductive logic. That's reason enough to dismiss it, not to mention were it true then every other significant, credible and neutral reference source, both academic and common, would be guilty of the exact same POV bias- a highly unlikely scenario. But making a special pleading for redefining human as 'a spiritual being' seems to be lifted from his agenda stated in his "Re-Inventing American Civilization" Rednblu published on the usenet [1]. I put it to us and RednBlu that wikipedia is not the place to Reinvent America Starting with Redefining Human, nor is this an experiment, nor is this the place to "re-invent the teachings and institutions which carry us from generation to generation."

There is no legitimate logical or NPOV justification for making 'human is a spiritual being' a significant fixture in the intro. Doing so would: a) put wikipedia completely out of step with how every other significant and credible reference source defines 'human' (in essence redefining 'human'), b) constitutes personal research because it is exceptional/outside the norm, c) and spirituality in all its incarnations has been considered a function of behavior and culture for at least 150 years in academic circles (a fact with which many theologians take issue as it subordinates their bailiwick).

Lastly, let's not forget here that the 'human as spiritual being' POV already has a place in the article where it is expressed and explored- in the Culture subsection.--FeloniousMonk 22:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FM on the issue of theologians. There's no reason to respect the views of all academics over everyone else. There is only reason to respect academics if they have specialized in the area. Those are largely biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists. I wouldn't include philosophers, and I certainly wouldn't include theologians, who study ancient texts, not human beings.

Sam, please stop changing the image. We're trying to decide here how to proceed. SlimVirgin 01:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

1. FeloniousMonk: We agree on most of this; I'm just trying to remove the pointlessly antagonistic references to theologians as 'noodling nobodies'. I don't see it as any different from the god-botherers' sneers about evolutionary biologists.
2. SlimVirgin: Theologians don't 'study ancient texts, not human beings'. I'm not sure that that's ever been true, but it certainly isn't now. Even when theologians (like classicists and philosophers) do study ancient texts, it's peculiar to assert that that's nothing to do with human beings. If we ignore or fail to understand our past, we can't possibly understand ourselves. Plato and Aristotle are useful in coming to understand our nature as persons, even when we don't agree with their conclusions; the same can often be true of religious texts.

1. The problem is that people like Rednblu want to push a vaguely religious view, and do so by insisting that the views of theologians be taken into account, when in fact they know little or nothing about what theologians say. If they read any real theology (not popular books by Southern-Baptist evangelicals and the like, or racist tosh like 'cosmotheism'), they'd probably be bewildered and appalled. People who think carefully about religion see its contradictions and weaknesses, and in trying to deal with them, reach an account of religion that's a million miles away from the ordinary, unreflective believer. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The section header says it all. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel, for the purposes of this introduction we're trying to come up with a tight description that would satisfy, say, a Martian, who might find it helpful to learn that we walk upright, engage in abstract thought, and start a lot of wars. S/he would find it unhelpful to be told that there's a difference between utilitarianism and deontological ethics, or that Western monotheism is patriarchal and therefore feminism means the death of God. If philosophers and theologians are to be regarded as experts on the human being, then we'll have to include historians, poets, psychoanalysts, neurologists; the list goes on. And if we include the views of theologians, we would almost certainly have to include reference to souls. SlimVirgin 12:04, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really follow this, I'm afraid. First, I've said (at dreary length) that I agree that there's no need for the reference to theologians, because for the most part theologians don't in fact claim to have anything to say on the subject. The idea that they have comes from those on both sides of the argument who haven't actually read any theology (or so their remarks would imply). Secondly, I've also said repeatedly that the introduction as it stands already contains reference to more than the merely physical, and that those who object seem to be doing so because they themselves are assuming a physicalism position with regard to thought and culture. Thirdly, I've argued for (indeed, I've mentioned) none of the things that you refer to in order to dismiss them. Fourthly, however, you seem to be saying that an expert on human beings is to be limited to biologists, without saying why; the only reasons that I can think of are either circular, or the one that I've myself already given — that 'human being' is a primarily (though not wholly) biological notion, 'person' being the philosophically (and theologically) important notion. Incidentally, fifthly, theologians don't always believe in souls (especially as a spooky sort of New Agey category in addition to minds); in the Anglo-American theological tradition, in fact, there's a sizeable minority, if not a majority, who don't believe in them, and who certainly wouldn't appeal to them as definitive (or even distinctive) of human beings or persons.

I get the feeling that, merely because I don't dismiss theologians as prejudiced fools who should be ignored or even sneered at, you and FeloniousMonk are simply not noticing what I'm actually saying, and are instead assuming that I'm arguing against you:

1. I agree that theology is irrelevant to the summary, and
2. I agree that the sumary as it stands already meets the demands of those who want more than reductionist, biological account of human beings.

We're on the same side in this, honestly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said or implied that theologians are fools who should be sneered at, simply that the term "human" is not defined in theological terms in scholarly circles, except by theologians, perhaps. It seems to me that people are not reading each other's posts carefully (I certainly understood you earlier to have changed your mind about including a theological perspective in the intro, for which I apologize), and that this is because the discussion is scattered and unproductive, and we're all tired of it. I propose we leave the intro as it is, and have a vote about the photograph, because the photo is only a matter of preference; and then perhaps take a break from this page for a few days and come back fresher. SlimVirgin 13:54, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

What can I say? Anyone who is interested in sampling the thousands of years of scholars who define "humans" and other "animals" as manifestations of "spiritual," non-physical "anima" can sign on to JSTOR: The Scholarly Journal Archive and search on "human spirituality theology." But then those who support the current first sentence of a travesty against NPOV already know that; they just ignore the reality of what thousands of scholars have written in defining what "human" is. I say to the evolutionists, you should be ashamed. You should be ashamed because you should know better. I can share your desire to bury "Religion, that old monster," as Lucretius in 60 B.C. said it. But you will never bury that old monster Religion by acting like that old monster Religion--as you now do by ignoring reality, ignoring history, and ignoring what scholars have actually written. It would be better to truthfully acknowledge in the first sentence what thousands of prominent scholars from all areas of expertise, from mathematicians to politicians, have defined as essential to "humans," namely their non-physical "anima." Geez! You are making a fool of yourselves by ignoring the very etymology of the word "animal." ---Rednblu | Talk 18:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course theologians have always studied and addressed just what the nature of humans is, what we are, where we came from, and so on. To give but one small example, Father Alexander Schmemann described humans as "homo adorans," to emphasize humanity's capacity and inclination to worship. He was Dean and Professor of Liturgical Theology at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. The spiritual aspect ought to be an essential part of the introduction to this article. Wesley 04:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: well, theologians have been described here as producing 'noodlings' rather than scholarly work, and have been explicitly excluded from the list of genuine scholars whose work is relevant to a Wikipedia article like this. I agree about the scattered nature of the discussion, though.

I think they've only been excluded from the list of scholars whose work is relevant to the intro, or at least that's how I've read the discussion. SlimVirgin 11:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rednblu: there haven't been thousands of years of people doing anything of the kind. However, as you've consistently ignored my questions and arguments concerning your position, I don't suppose that you'll take any notice of this either, so I'll not bother to expand.

Wesley: but describing humans in a certain way isn't to define them. Moreover, why should one religious view of humans take precedent over others? For example, Buddhists certainly wouldn't describe humans in such a way, any more than would many schools of Hinduism. Many Christian theologians would (and do) also disagree). If you want to start an article on Theological discussions of what it is to be human, I'm sure that a link could be found here, and I'd help with it if I had the time (perhaps coming up with a snappier title) — but (as I've pointed out to Rednblu a couple of times; perhaps you'll respond):

1. everything doesn't have to go into the first sentence; we're talking about the summary as a whole;
2. the summary already cites thought and culture as central. Only someone who takes a reductionist physicalist approach to those things will continue to claim that the summary is purely materialist. If Rednblu or you is a physicalist, then it's difficult to know why you're insisting on the inclusion of spiritual aspects.

And if they're not, they should be fine with the intro as it is. SlimVirgin 11:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

1. Religious thought in most traditions, until some time in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, was happy with the dualist position of mind (or soul) and body; I've never been able to get a clear answer to the question: what is meant by 'spirit' if not mind? What is it suppose to be for?

The last question isn't crucial, but I'd be interested in an answer. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Let us examine how much a violation of NPOV is the current first sentence of the Human page. The current definition ignores the thousands of years of scholars who have defined the intrinsic nature of man to include a "spiritual" component. I hasten to add that in actuality humans do not have a "spiritual" component. But I also have the intelligence to recognize that my certainty that humans do not have a "spiritual" component is merely my personal point-of-view--which runs counter to what thousands of years of scholars have written to define what human is. I have had the intellectual honesty to read what the scholars say that the scholars have written, and here is a sample from a published 1874 report of a presentation of a paper and ensuing discussion at a meeting of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. ---Rednblu | Talk 19:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• George Harris, a regular contributor of papers to the 1874 Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, said the following. "The nature of man and the nature of animals should not only both be studied, but both of them compared one with the other. And not only the constitution of both, alike material and spiritual, but the habits also" (emphasis added). And then Mr. Harris proceeds to summarize the scholars back through Aristotle who have developed theories of what distinguishes "human" from "other animals." He notes that Virgil, Origen, and Saint Augustine, for example wrote that both "humans" and "other animals" include a "spiritual" component which persists after the body has perished. Mr. Harris includes excerpts from the theological writings of the prominent scientific authorities of his day, including Sir Isaac Newton's statement in his Principia that the "spiritual" component of animals provides the ability of animals to move in a voluntary manner. Does Mr. Harris conclude that "humans" have a "spiritual" component? No, he does not. He merely presents a NPOV summary of what the thousands of years of scholars have written to define the essential qualities that distinguish "human" from the "other animals." Is there an answer to the question of whether or not "humans" have a "spiritual" component? Yes, there is an answer--in my opinion. 8)) That answer was given by Mr. Fox in the ensuing discussion also printed in the 1874 publication of The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Mr. Fox argued that all of what the scholars thought were manifestations of the "spiritual" component derived entirely from the physical body and physical brain structure that resulted from the operation of the "Darwinian theory of evolution and progression." Mr. Harris replied that, "Agreement with him was not to be expected, and he was not so unreasonable as to desire it." 8)) He had merely summarized what the thousand years of scholars had written. Accordingly, the NPOV version of the current first sentence of the Human page would be something like the following. <<Human beings are defined variously in biological, spiritual, and cultural terms, or in combinations thereof.>> The current first sentence violates NPOV by stating my personal point-of-view dogmatically without giving appropriate recognition to the thousands of years of scholars who disagree with my personal point-of-view. ---Rednblu | Talk 19:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I say again that there is no legitimate logical or NPOV justification for making 'human is a spiritual being' a significant fixture in the intro. Despite your argument and that of George Harris, making "Human beings are defined in.. spiritual.. terms" a prominent fixture of the intro: a) puts wikipedia completely out of step with how every other significant and credible reference source defines 'human' (in essence we'd be redefining 'human'), b) constitutes personal research because it is exceptional and outside the norm, c) and spirituality in all its incarnations has been considered a function of behavior and culture for at least 150 years in academic circles.

Specifically, your proposed first sentence (as well as the previous version prior to my rewriting it) rewrites the definition of human in a manner exceptional from that found in any other credible/neutral encyclopedia. It elevates a particularly dogmatic theological POV to the same level as the observable facts of characteristics that separate us from other creatures. And by elevating a POV based on an irrational epistemology to the same level of credibility of observable, verifiable facts ignores the fact that any meaning ascribed to this POV is by nature highly relative and relevant only to those that choose to hold it, i.e.; theologists/theists. Reducing your proposed sentence to its essential statement shows it for what it is: "Human beings are defined in spiritual terms." No doubt they are... by the spiritual and the religious. It's a tautology; a fundamentally uninformative statement. For that reason alone it has no place in the intro. Furthermore, considering the speculative basis of spirituality -it's by definition unprovable- and that it's an irrational epistemology, there's no basis for claiming any truth to the statement other than "some people have said it" or "some people believe it." No doubt there are people who believe our sense of humor is a significant factor in defining us as 'human.' Should we have to include this POV into the intro as well?

But all of this is academic: wikipedia provides no mandate for us to redefine meanings. To that end your entire point is a non sequitur unless you can show us a number of other significant, credible and neutral encyclopedias (or other equally significant reference sources) that prominently define human as 'a spiritual being' in their intro. And since the POV 'human as spiritual being' is already addressed fully in the Culture subsection, absent any precedent, there's no justification for it in the intro.--FeloniousMonk 07:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Intro continued

Let me share my thoughts, since I am one of the ones who objects strongly to the unilateral changes made by FeloniousMonk on March 2. What I object to most strongly is the choice of "bi-pedal mammal" or "primate" as the opening, definitive phrase of the article. I would personally define humans as incarnated free-will eternal souls; but I am not deluded that the article should start out saying so definitively. Rather what seems most problematic to me about the "bipedal mammals" opening is the obvious intent to ignore the centuries-old tradition of trying to define what it is that that makes humans so (choose your adjective) dominant/different/egocentric/free/adaptable/intelligent/unique. Humans are strange beasts, and it comes off as rather agendified to ignore that issue in the opening. Instead of taking a non-biased approach, the opening takes the approach of a cosmic lab technician looking at slides of a dissected human--precise and correct, but hardly informative. Could we not take some factual approach that at least tries to acknowledge the historical bemusement? For example, that Humans wear clothes and Humans tell stories? Tom Haws 19:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

To explain how we differ, we must first say how we do not. What are we fundamentally? We are animals. What kind? Mammals, primates. How do we differ from other primates? We walk upright and have dexterous upper limbs and full thumb extension. What has this led to? Tool use. All this came first, and so it's first in the intro. And then into the rest, and your point about the stories is there: myth, and religion is a subset of myth. Religion is one of our stories, whether a true or a false one, and we are not allowed to say which. The current introduction is the factual one, because no one disputes that we are primates who walk upright, whereas almost all scholars would dispute that we are incarnated freewill eternal souls, as would a lot of non-scholars, and there would be little or no agreement regarding what the phrase meant. It should certainly be in the article, that this is a belief, but it's not appropriate for the introduction because it's so controversial. SlimVirgin 19:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• The first sentence is controversial in closing out the "spirituality" debate before it even starts. That first sentence is an unfair tactic. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read what Mel and others have written above. This intro does not exclude the issue of spirituality, unless one is a physicalist and a reductionist. SlimVirgin 21:14, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

The "spirituality debate," just like any other debate, has no place in an encyclopedic entry's introductory paragraph. WP style states it should be a concise paragraph defining the topic at hand and mentioning the most important points. Pharos' sentence "Human beings are bipedal primates, distinguished by their unique development of language, culture [including spirituality], society and technology." does just that.--FeloniousMonk 08:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But what you said above, summarized by "All this came first, and so it's first in the intro" is your POV. Why are you not willing to see that reality or to put to practical use your vision of that reality? Have you not read, read, and read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Do any of us own any of the words, articles, or perspectives of Wikipedia? Tom Haws 21:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

In what sense is it my POV that we walked upright before using tools, and that we used tools before we started writing down stories? Walking upright clearly came first. Is it my POV that I'm sitting here typing this sentence"? Come on, Tom, at some point doubting must end. SlimVirgin 21:37, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• You are igoring the clear words on the NPOV page. You have not read it. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree. NPOV no more demands that the intro includes the POV defining human in spiritual terms than it demands that the intro include the POV that the capacity for humor makes us human. Your insistence on this one point, as evidenced by the past months of debate in the archive is near pathological, and smacks of ideological ax-grinding (whether you personally hold to the ideology or not is beside the point). At some point the debate must move on. Care to be part of that? This all seems very familiar Red... we've already discussed past ideological ax-grinding and this sort of aggressive defensiveness now, haven't we?--FeloniousMonk 08:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(three edit conflicts later...) Tom Haws Please leave out all this stuff about people not owning Wikipedia, etc.; it doesn't help, it's just often-seen bluster. More importantly, it appears that you haven't read what's been said by me and SlimVirgin (even though she summarised it in her comment to which you're responding), as it's completely unconnected with your 'summary'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologize that my sincere understanding was seen as bluster. I am still not sure that SlimVirgin has read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view more than twice all the way through carefully. Nothing gives me reason to suppose so. And we need to have that common understanding. Tom Haws 06:31, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

• But it is true. Those who support the current first sentence are violating the very spirit of NPOV in their discounting the thousands of years of scholars asserting that the "spiritual" component of people distinguish them from animals. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the points that have been made a number of times. Just once more:

1. Why do you think that everything has to be in the first sentence?
2. Why do you think that the reference in the summary to the importance of thought and culture is not a reference to the non-physical aspect of human beings? It's only in the last century that anyone has thought of the 'spiritual' aspect of people as being something distinct from the mental (and even then, only a small minority — and no scholars of whom I'm aware, certainly not reputable theologians). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have answered, but you have not read the answers above. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, now what is this dispute about exactly? Is it just a matter of emphasis? There is no reason the first sentence cannot give a broad definition of what is most notable about humans (language, culture etc.) and the second sentence go straight into specific biology.--Pharos 22:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Good timing! Good question! How about the following first sentence? <<Human beings are defined variously in biological, spiritual, and cultural terms, or in combinations thereof.>> ---Rednblu | Talk 22:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. I've looked at everything you've written above, and I can't for the life of me see where you think you've answered my questions.
2. Your suggested first sentence isn't, as Pharos suggested, “a broad definition of what is most notable about humans”, but a vague waving of the hand towards some areas within which a definition might be found. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding this conversation somewhat frustrating. Rednblue asks cryptic questions but will not answer any questions herself. Yes, I have read the NPOV policy and it states that tiny-minority views need not be included in articles at all, and that significant-minority views must be given space according to how widespread they are believed. No one is arguing, so far as I know, that religious views should be excluded from the article. But we are discussing here only the introduction. This must reflect the facts and the majority understanding of those facts. It is beyond dispute that we are primates, that we walk on two legs etc etc (strong sense of déja vu here); therefore, we put in the intro the material that is beyond dispute. We can't have discussions about issues that are beyond dispute, Tom. I mean no disrespect to your views if you are coming from a creationist POV (I'm guessing here; correct me if I'm wrong), but please see that this is a minority view even among theologians. For all their noodling (joke, Mel), and their belief (perhaps) in souls, I would hate to guess what tiny percentage holds creationist views. This is an important myth and it should certainly be addressed somewhere in the article, but it cannot be treated as a fact equal to any other fact for the purposes of NPOV. SlimVirgin 22:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing that. To be clear, I am not thinking of any creationist agenda or POV at all. I indeed am a burning believer in the spiritual definition of humans, but note that above I am not even asking that that be given weight in the current discussion. I am merely saying what is so well put a few lines below by Goethean. Tom Haws 06:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

And look, the current intro doesn't even exclude the possibility of a creationist account or souls. It just says we're primates. It doesn't say how we got to be primates. It doesn't say we're primates without souls. This is an inclusive, NPOV intro: it's a good intro! It excludes almost nothing. Instead of this back-and-forth, could you, Tom, please say what you would want to add to this, and where you would like to put it? Here it is:

Human beings are bipedal primate mammals distinguished from other primates by biological and behavioral differences. Biologically, they are classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man), and belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. Humans are distinguished from the other great apes by an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning and articulate speech. The ability to reason and speak contributes to the behavioral differences between humans and other primates, most noticeable in the highly developed culture of human beings. Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language, their culture, with its organization in complex societies with groups and institutions for mutual support and assistance, and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to a myriad of cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, norms, and tools.

SlimVirgin 22:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

It is beyond dispute that we are primates, that we walk on two legs etc etc; therefore, we put in the intro the material that is beyond dispute. The extent to which homo sapiens' membership in the primates is disputed is irrelevent. The idea that what makes us human is being bipedal primates is very much in dispute. --Goethean 23:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct! Exactly! Tom Haws 06:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to this (or something like it) as a first sentence:

• Human beings are a group distinguished on Earth by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology.
  • It explains what's most notable about humans without defining them as primates of the Hominid family. That they are primates of the Hominid family can (and must) come in the next sentence.--Pharos 23:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the discussion. What do others think? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I am opposed to it. In general, I like the idea (was it Aristotle's?) of defining something first by listing what it's similar to, that is its class, and then explaining how it's different from those. "Human beings are a group..."—a group of what? I do think that first needs to come that we are primates/mammals, not only because humans were mammals before they developed advanced society and technology, but mainly because that defines the class to which we belong, our overall parameters. Immediately following that, perhaps even in the same sentence, we should then describe how we differ (and there is a significant difference) from other members of that class. Only in the proper context can we appreciate what makes something different. How about an intro sentence like "Human beings are bipedal primate mammals; they are distinguished by biological differences as well as significant cultural differences, including their unique development of language, culture, society, religion, and technology." It's a little awkward but it's got the gist of how I would like to define something. The intro could then go on to say "Biologically, they are such and such and so on" and then "However, humans are unique among life on earth for their development of such and such"..."Although some animals possess rudimentary language and exist in small social groups, no other animal has achieved the highly complex languages and civilization [and behaviors and religion and so on?] which mark humanity today" or something and then some more about our unique behaviors. This is very rough, I know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, "primate mammals" is surely redundant, and "distinguished by biological differences" doesn't really mean much more than "defined variously". Language aside, I can see the value of giving both "definitions" equal "weight" in the first sentence. What about:
    • Human beings are bipedal primates, distinguished by their unique development of language, culture, society and technology.
      • Then of course, we should cover evolution, biology and the exact ways that human culture is different from and not different from the behavior of non-human primates etc.
        • What does everyone think of that?
      • If we can get some sort of consensus on the first sentence at least, I think that would bode well for the whole article.--Pharos 02:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• [I really am not sure where to indent here] You are absolutely correct: now that I think about it, "primate mammal" does sound a bit silly. I really like your idea. My reason for including "biological differences" was that humans aren't just chimpanzees who wear clothes and live in cities, but then all species have biological differences, and there really is no need for that to go in the first sentence. I strongly approve of the order you have proposed. If possible, a mention of brain size/function as a biological difference would provide a nice segue into the behavioral differences that define us. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that the dimensions the scholars have selected are 1) biology, 2) spirituality, and 3) culture. In particular, in the case of humans, it is not "behavior," but rather "culture" that evolves. That is, the evolution of humans in the last 100,000 year has been mainly cultural evolution--not behavior evolution--whatever that might be. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 03:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that yes, the main evolution we have seen recently is cultural evolution, although it seems to me that culture arises from behavior. I would consider technology, language, culture, and so on are all manifestations of behavior. Is there a part of Pharos's proposed outline you would suggest changing? How does the first sentence sound to you (and others)? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can agree on Pharos' sentence "Human beings are bipedal primates, distinguished by their unique development of language, culture, society and technology." as a basis from which to start adding.

Rednblu, KS has it right, in anthropology spirituality is considered a subset of culture, which is turn is considered a function of behavior. Hence your claim that scholars define human by three terms: biology, spirituality, and culture is a misbegotten notion. And there's no precedent for defining human in spiritual terms in the introductory paragraph of any neutral/credible encyclopedias; I just spent the last two evenings at Berkeley verifying this. Claims to the contrary are non sequiturs unless you can show us a number of other significant encyclopedias (or other equally weighty/neutral reference sources) which define human in spiritual terms in their intros. Furthermore, defining human beings in spiritual terms is a tautology. It's an even more fundamentally uninformative statement than acknowledging we are primates related to the great apes.

Goethean pointed out that the idea is disputed "what makes us human is being bipedal primates." Indeed, but no one here is claiming that just being bipedal primates makes be human. But in turn we should ask ourselves this: Are there any humans that are not (nominally at least) bipedal primates?--FeloniousMonk 08:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is moving too fast (mostly when I'm tucked up in bed asleep) for me to get properly involved, but I don't think that the article should get involved in claims about the explanation for the human ability for abstract reasoning, etc. The natural sciences take as a methodological assumption (and all too often, unfortunately, as n item of faith) that everything can be explained in terms of the physical, and that therefore thought and consciousness can be so explained. There are good reasons for questioning that (I think that there are good reasons for doubting it, but let that pass for the moment). Futhermore, even leaving aside my philosophical but still naturalistic approach, we shouldn't be begging the question against those for religious reasons who attribute at least some areas of human mentality to the non-physical. It's one thing not to emphasise views that aren't in keeping with current science, but another explicitly to deny them.

I also don't see what's tautological about defining human beings in spiritual terms (mind you, I'm not entirely sure what 'spiritual' means here, and my many requests for explanation have been ignored by those pushing for its inclusion). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The current first sentence is a blatant violation of NPOV by suppressing the thousands of years of scholars who have written that what defines "humans" is their "spirituality." I continue to explore what reality it is that the defenders of the current outrage of a first sentence refuse to face. 8)) If you read what scholars have actually written about the definition of "human," you will find definitions of "human" as "spiritual" in many, many fields--not just in theology, not just in religion, and not just in the theological writings of Sir Isaac Newton. 8)) Here is a random search. You can do your own. Search on "spiritual" in the British Journal of Educational Studies. Wow! Bingo! 1,600 articles--over 20 already on "spiritual" for 2005! This must be an advertising arm of the charismatics in the Church of England--not a journal on education, I say to myself. Now the easiest free source to the articles for me is JSTOR that is up to 5 years behind the current issues. And the first article on the list in JSTOR is this little hummer by Brian V. Hill, who is Professor of Education at Murdoch University, Western Australia: "'Spiritual development' in the education reform act" (1989). The first paragraph is a killer! "In July 1988 the British Parliament passed the Education Reform Act. The first section stipulated that the curriculum in government schools should 'promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society." I could not believe it! Geez, what you learn if you read what the scholars actually wrote! And it turns out, according to Hill, that there was a 1944 prior version of this British Parliament mandate for government schools to "promote the spiritual development" of attending students! In explaining the rational basis for Parliament's mandate "to promote spiritual development," Hill proceeds to show that "spiritual" development is as different from "cultural" development as "spiritual" development is different from the "physical" development that physical education classes exercise--because the "spiritual," "cultural," and "physical" components of humans are non-overlapping domains that define humans. Hill asserts that "we are spiritual as well as animal entities. Since other members of the animal kingdom, so far as we know, do not operate on this plane, such aspects may be described as 'distinctively human'" (emphasis added). According to Hill, "the spiritual dimension of human existence is responsible for our experience of freedom, our consciousness of standing above the tide of causality and having the capacity, in some small measure at least, to divert its course." And Hill asserts that this "spirituality" is independent of "culture" and has nothing to do with religion. Accordingly, to avoid the personal research of Wikipedia editors voting on which scholars and which Parliaments will suppress the others on the definition of "human," NPOV demands that the first sentence of the Human page be something like the following. <<Human beings are defined variously in biological, spiritual, and cultural terms, or in combinations thereof.>> ---Rednblu | Talk 15:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm amused that your evidence for 'thousands of years of scholarship' is represented by a vague reference to Newton, a journal of education, and politicians. I'm not amused, but not surprised, that you've yet again ignored the actual questions that I asked; did you really nee to use so many words just to evade the issue? (Don't worry, I'm not expecting an answer to that either.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• How about the following variation on Pharos's first sentence? "Human beings are bipedal primates, distinguished by their unique development of language, culture, spirituality, society and technology." ---Rednblu | Talk 16:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What would the "development of spirituality" be? SlimVirgin 17:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for a question without an ad hominem fallacy. 8)) In interpreting the British Parliament's 1988 Educational Reform Act, Hill cited above says that, independent of religion and irrelevant to religion, "the spiritual dimension of human existence is responsible for our experience of freedom, our consciousness of standing above the tide of causality and having the capacity, in some small measure at least, to divert its course." Accordingly, Hill gives as examples of "development of spirituality," the concern for others from other cultures and in other nations even though they are not from our own "tribe." This is in contradistinction to the traits that human animals inherited from their ancestors 5 million years ago. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Despite Hill's personal assertion, it's highly contestable that "the spiritual dimension of human existence" is indeed responsible in any meaningful, provable way for "(the human) experience of freedom, (or the) consciousness of standing above the tide of causality and having the capacity, in some small measure at least, to divert its course." Metaphysics in the form of theology has yet to establish that it is the origin for a causal relationship for anything other than unsupported assertions and the shelves of books that contain them. Trying to keep this topic within the bounds of the rational, I'll remind everyone here of H.L. Mencken's words on this topic: "Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing."

If we're going to start insisting on including theological metaphysical justifications for including content, let's at least make sure they're rational metaphysics, i.e.: Reality is absolute. It has a specific nature independent of our thoughts or feelings. The world around us is real. It has a specific nature and it must be consistent to that nature. A proper metaphysical worldview must aim to understand reality correctly. There is no justification for including the irrational metaphysics found in theological assertions and appeals to "truth" in an encyclopedic article on the topic of 'human.'--FeloniousMonk 00:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. As I've said before, spirituality is considered a subset of culture, which in turn is considered a function of behavior by the overwhelming majority of neutral scholars. Your insistence that scholars define human by three terms: biology, spirituality, and culture does not enjoy the benefit of any support: no other credible/neutral encyclopedia includes a spiritual definition of human in its introductory paragraphs. Only those who are spiritual and/or religious define 'Human' in spiritual terms, making your insistence that it be included in the intro a special pleading. Furthermore, defining 'human' in spiritual terms is a tautology; a fundamentally uninformative statement. For that reason alone it has no place in the intro. The article needs to stay away from highly relative definitions in the intro and stick to the facts. Spirituality already has it's own subsection.--FeloniousMonk 17:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Section break for convenience

Although I am in the "spirituality" camp here (actually in the anti-scientific fundamentalism camp), it occurs to me that the idea that having a soul distinguishes humans from other beings is more Judeo-Christian and Muslim than of a universally spiritual perspective. If that's true, then I believe that it has a weaker claim on the intro of this article. But I'm not sure whether Hindus or Budddhists see humans as qualitatively different from the other types of beings. --Goethean 15:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, Hindus and Buddhists would probably consider humnanity's physical/scientific aspects to be mere footnotes when compared to its spiritual components. So...nevermind. --Goethean 16:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Spirituality" is rather specific, and tends to imply some relationship to religion; perhaps the most basic reference should be to consciousness.--Pharos 16:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

perhaps the most basic reference should be to consciousness I would applaude that, and will try to come up with something. My concern here is to get an acknowledgemwnt in the intro that other perspectives are as legitimate as the scientific one. Currently, the opposite is implied. Here is my current attempt:

From the perspective of science, human beings are bipedal primates who have developed rational thought, language, culture, society and religion. From the perspective of religion and spirituality, human beings are spiritual or divine entities who temporarily or permanantly inhabit physical bodies.

Let me tell you that as someone who is only nominally theistic, it is very odd to be on the side of the religious folk. --Goethean 17:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Consciousness is doubtless important and part of the definition, but of course there's no reason to suppose that it's unique to humans.

1. Goethean's suggestion: first, why mention religion in the first list, as though it's something other than culture and society? Secondly, the reference to the religious perspective is extremely narrow, being limited to certain, mainly Christian, views (and the 'divine beings' bit not even that; that's getting very minority). There isn't the scientific view and the religious view; there's the scientific view, the philosophical view, and a host of radically different, indeed mutually exclusive, religious views. The scientific and philosophical views have changed over the centuries, and we should surely use, in the summary definition, the current versions; others can be discussed in the article. As there's no single religious view – most religions not being interested in producing such defnitions and in any case having such widely different (and beyond simple summarising) ideas about what humans are and how they differ from other animals – they should also be discussed in the main body of the article.

If you don’t at least refer to the existence of these other views, and leave the scientific view as the only one in the summary definition, you imply that the scientific view is the most valid or fundamental view. --Goethean 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is why the intro in the revision as of 20:44, 1 Mar 2005 is vastly superior to the current one. --Goethean 18:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, the reference to the religious perspective is extremely narrow, being limited to certain, mainly Christian, views (and the 'divine beings' bit not even that; that's getting very minority). --Mel Etitis

Hindus consider humans to be aspects of Atman, the universal soul. Atman is Brahman, or the All. I don't consider Hindus to be "a very tiny minority." --Goethean 23:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right. So from a certain, significant POV, humans are divine. Tom Haws 23:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

1. The notion of human being is a scientific notion, distinct from that of person as found in Rednblu's (somewhat exaggerated) 'thousands of years of scholarship'. I've made this point repeatedly, and (surprise!) it's been ignored. I've also asked for details of the aforementioned thousands of years of scholarship, and received very little (see above). I've also asked what people mean by 'spiritual' (as opposed to 'mental', 'conscious', etc.) — and I've been ignored. I've also asked repeatedly why the essential reference to thought and culture in the summary is being taken by its opponents as failing to refer to matters beyond the merely biological &mdash and, you've guessed it, I've been ignored. Leaving aside Wikipedia:Wikiquette's strictures on ignoring fellow editors' questions, if anyone were genuinely interested in reaching consensus rather than blindly pushing their own PoV into the article, they'd have addressed at least some of those questions. They haven't. Q.E.D. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Some of the interjections here are very unhelpful, and I would ask everyone to write shorter responses to questions, instead of writing personal essays that don't address questions asked by fellow editors.

Mel is right. The term "human being" must be defined in scientific and philosophical terms, because this is not an article about personhood. Religions are sub-categories of culture and myth. In particular, we can't push a Christian POV in the intro (or anywhere). Tom, I asked you yesterday what you would add to the current introduction. Perhaps you didn't see the question, so I'll leave a note for you on your talk page. SlimVirgin 17:40, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I would say that religions are sub-categories of philosophy, rather than of culture. Religious practices are certainly cultural, but religious beliefs are philosophical. Although religions differ greatly, they generally agree that there is more to humans than just their biology. Most have some concept of a soul or mind distinct from the body, including hinduism (the soul is what gets reincarnated) and buddhism (which wants to stop the cycle of reincarnation, thus stopping the cycle of suffering). So to answer your question of what is meant by "spiritual", it would be that part or aspect of a person that in Hinduism could be reincarnated in another body, or in other religions could or would survive the death of the body to exist in some kind of afterlife. On the other hand, the term "person" seems to me to be much broader than "human being," as it could be applied to the three Persons of the Christian Trinity or various other deities, angels or demons; to sentient life forms from other planets; and by some people to their favorite pets. I think this is why many of us don't see "human being" as a strictly "scientific" concept. Mel, I hope this helps address some of your questions. Wesley 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no specific problem with Rednblu's version "Human beings are bipedal primates, distinguished by their unique development of language, culture, spirituality, society and technology.", as humans' development of the idea of religion is certainly unique among the life forms on Earth—I personally don't think it is necessary since it's a specific area of already broad distinguishing characteristics (e.g. "..of language, culture, society, technology, and the Internet" to be extreme)...but if people feel strongly then it's fine with me. I'm still thinking about the other suggestions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wesley, I agree with your summary, the term "person" seems to me to be much broader than "human being" and many of us don't see "human being" as a strictly "scientific" concept (that would be SPOV, not NPOV). Tom Haws 21:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

SV, I simply don't have an answer at this time that I feel improves on the previous work. I don't doubt the possibility of our forging a better solution than we had before, but I just don't think we are there yet. That is the only reason I haven't answered you. I am trying to listen and ponder. I agree with all of Goethean's observations, especially again that if "you imply that the scientific view is the most valid or fundamental view" you are misapplying or misunderstanding NPOV. We all agree and understand that NPOV is not equal to SPOV, right? To Wesley, I would suggest that we need to keep in mind that the article is about "what is a human". The entire Wikipedia is filled with detail about humans (from punk rock bands to literature to tin can stoves), but this article is supposed to show how major and significant perspectives have answered the question "what is a human?" Tom Haws 21:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any views on the compromise suggestion below, Tom? See here. SlimVirgin 21:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside Wikipedia:Wikiquette's strictures on ignoring fellow editors' questions, if anyone were genuinely interested in reaching consensus rather than blindly pushing their own PoV into the article, they'd have addressed at least some of those questions. They haven't.

Translation: I, not you, will frame the debate.

Instead, why don't you tell us what was wrong with the version of 20:44, 1 Mar 2005? It began: "Human beings are defined variously in biological, spiritual, and cultural terms, or in combinations thereof." Is that sentence false? Is it more inclusive than the current version ("Human beings are bipedal primate mammals distinguished from other primates by biological and behavioral differences.")? Or is it more exclusive? --Goethean 21:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. As a philosopher (and a philosopher of religion) I have to object to the notion that religion is a subset of philosophy, unless one uses the loose notion of 'philosophy' as something like 'worldview', in which case that's not the notion referred to by SlimVirgin or me.
2. The claim that 'human' is a primarily scientific concept is no more PoV (or even 'SPoV') than is the claim that quantum gravity is a primarily scientific concept. That 'human' is more or less co-extensive with terms used by religion is neither here nor there; the article itself points out that the term has only relatively recently been used as a noun in this way. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. This article is only about the usage of the word "human" by English speakers of the 20th century? Please note that "Mankind" and "Humankind" redirect to this page. Your claim is that when the Bible said that Man was created in the image of God, the Hebrew word that is translated as "man" referred to neither the human, mankind, or humankind? --Goethean 23:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Humanity" also redirects here. --Goethean 23:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology. Biologically, humans belong to the family of great apes, along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, but differ from their relatives in their ability to engage in abstract reasoning, their use of language and speech, and their erect body carriage, which frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. As a consequence of these traits, human beings engage in extensive tool use, and have developed complex social structures comprised of many cooperating and competing groups, nation states, and institutions, distinguished from one another by their different aims and ritual practices. The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development of the species, which includes scientific and spiritual stories promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and on the other, that all life, including human beings, was created by a supreme being. SlimVirgin 18:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts)

Do humans differ from other great apes in having a highly developed brain? Certainly some of the others have a carriage that's upright enough to free their limbs for manipulating objects. (The sentence structure and punctuation of the third sentence needs work, by the way.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We differ in that ours are more highly developed in the ways we think matter. The EB distinguishes humans in terms of upper limb flexibilty and I would agree that we are more flexible (hands, particularly) in ways that help us to use tools, though not in ways that help us to climb trees. I got rid of the semi-colon in sentence three. Is it still awkward? SlimVirgin 18:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

But is there any source for the claim that our brains are more developed than those of other great apes, or is that an assumption based on the physicalist dogma? The third sentence isn't awkward so much as inadvertently comic (visions of humans using tools in their flexible hands to build complex social structures)... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I didn't even see that. Thank you. I've deleted highly developed brains, and replaced "erected" with "developed" in the third sentence. Also added "language and speech," instead of just speech. SlimVirgin 19:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I like your compromise content; it's factual and well written.--FeloniousMonk 23:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, FM. SlimVirgin 23:43, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

You may want to include something about what happened to our tails in there somewhere, too. ;-)--FeloniousMonk 00:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mine fell off during this discussion. SlimVirgin 00:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

It may surprise you that one can enthusiastically believe in evolution and yet not subscribe to the absolutely reductive biologism that your version of the article reflects. --Goethean 01:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This suggestion is not a compromise. There is more to humanity than biology, yet the first sentence defines humanity in strictly biological terms. This is clearly inferior to the 1 March 2005 intro. --Goethean 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this intro is a good start, although I thing Pharos's intro sentence should be the first sentence of the article. I consider myself a scientist (by interest, not by profession). But I agree that humanity's development of culture and society is unprecedented in the history of this planet and I believe it is clearly one of the most remarkable aspects of our species.

Okay, I've added Pharos's first sentence. Should anything else be added? SlimVirgin 03:35, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

It is still more exclusivist, more reductive, less complete, and therefore inferior to the March 1st intro. This is not a biology textbook, and there is no need to reduce humanity to only biological terms, just as there is no need to reduce it to economic, psychological, or indeed, religious terms. The earlier version acknowledged in the first sentence that there were several perspectives through which humanity must be viewed to gain a complete picture, that there are several aspects to humanity. This version almost explicitly denies that. Instead, Wikipedia claims, humans are nothing more than primates. The views of the vast majority of mankind on their own nature are not worth mentioning. This is not a compromise. --Goethean 04:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What distinguishes humans is not that they are primates (which they certainly are), but that they have language, culture, society, and technology, which is quite explicit stated here. But biology is quite essential as the material foundation of this abstract idea-world. Surely it's more than a coincicidence that the species with the freakishly large brain is the one writing poetry, disputing on Wikis, contemplating God. That said, I think the current paragraph could be improved in some of the specifics and emphases and is not the be-all and end-all. I think I'll have a couple of reccomendations when I finish chewing it over.--Pharos 04:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

biology is quite essential as the material foundation of this abstract idea-world.

By that argument, the most accurate entry of all would call human beings "conglomerations of molecules"—after all, physics is essential as the material foundation of this abstract bio-world.--Goethean 04:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be impossible to understand biology reasonably well at all without deep knowledge of molecules and chemistry; ask any college biology major what courses they must take. That said, humans in particular don't have an unusual basic chemistry at all, but their brain, for one, is quite without parrallel in the history of life. I would not, for instance, devote extensive coverage to the workings of the human kidneys, which are not so different from those present in other mammals.--Pharos 04:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethan, I think this is a compromise, because it mentions a supreme being, the idea of creation, and the idea of souls, which several editors were opposed to. Also, it mentions those ideas as being equal in importance to evolution by describing them as competing narratives, which is a big concession. There does need to be a biological thrust too, because as Pharos says, it's the material foundation of everything else; and it's important to point out that, though we may differ from other mammals in the ways outlined, and appear to be quite unique in terms of brain development, language, and culture, we're also related to them, and there are many ways in which we don't differ. What would you add to this paragraph so that it was more rounded? SlimVirgin 05:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would say this definitely qualifies as a compromise, as makes several significant changes from the previous suggestion to be more in line with the objections. Especially with the placing of scientific and nonscientific ideas of our origin on equal footing. However, you may certainly feel that it is not enough of a compromise. I really don't care that much for the March 1st version though; I felt it was too convoluted and complex. I would prefer rewriting it, as we are doing here, and try to be sure that everyone's objections are satisfied. Now the only real objection I have to this version is I feel like it marks the scientific and spritual narratives as competitors I understand it may have to be for concision. But I consider myself religious yet strongly embrace the scientific view—religion and science answer different questions for me. For instance, I see no reason why God would have to create humans in a flash of light; why God couldn't create spacetime, the Universe, the fundamental constants, and so on, and so created humans in that way, and to us with our linear perception of time we perceive some 13.7 billion years have passed between the Big Bang and our origin. That was a really long sentence and I don't intend to start a spiritual/philosophical debate here, but I think there are many who (like I do) believe in the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, and so on, and yet believe in God. However this is a secondary complaint which we can address later. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The March 1 version began with an acknowledgment of some of the multiple perspectives that are needed to define humanity with any sense of comprehensiveness, fairness or balance. The current version has jettisoned that balance for an uncompromising reductive biologism. Now you have Wikipedia claiming that human beings, humanity, and humankind are nothing more than two-legged primates, who (by the way) have developed religion, language and thumbs. Felonius Monk's revision and this subsequent non-compromise have deliberately impoverished this article. --Goethean 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I feel that some of these comments are not very helpful to improving the article. Even if you don't think it's going far enough, this version is clearly a compromise between the current introduction and the one you prefer. And I understand that you may feel that this version is inferior, though I think it is unfair to assert that we are deliberately impoverishing the article—we are not purposefully making it worse. I respect that you prefer the March 1st version over anything else that's been proposed. That's fine. The currently proposed compromise suggestion is not my ideal version either. However, it is closer to it than the March 1st version is. It appears that there are several people who would like to improve on the March 1st version, so perhaps rather than insist on returning to that version, you could suggest ways in which we could improve this paragraph if you feel it is too one-sided. The main problem I had with the earlier version is I feel it is too muddy and vague; reading it I did not get a clear picture of what it is trying to say. I understand that many believe humans are more than biological constructs but given the vast array of beliefs I think it will be difficult to summarize in the intro, except to give it cursory mention perhaps. I agree with Sam (below) that the soul part is a bit problematic as it stands—in some religions humans may be the only ones with souls but in my religion for instance God is present in all life. Perhaps it could be amended to say "Many humans [how many, do you think?] believe that they differ from animals by possessing an eternal soul", and then elaborating on that later on in the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam and Knowledge Seeker, I deleted "eternal souls" because you're right: many religions say that God is present in all life. Goethan, would you work with us to improve this compromise version? When we've got it to the point where we could live with it, then we could compare it to the current version and to the version you prefer, and make a judgment at that time. If anyone feels the idea of souls needs a mention and can think of a way to work it in, please feel free. SlimVirgin 08:24, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Adding "spirituality" to the the first sentence might make it. <<Human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, spirituality, society, and technology.>> From my own atheistic and certain point-of-view, "spirituality," is just another construct of language, culture, society, and technology, but that is not the point-of-view of most religious people. In my opinion, if we don't somehow recognize "spirituality" by some special word in the series of words that follow "Human beings are . . .," I am afraid the definition violates NPOV by making a statement about humans with which most humans alive would disagree in many different languages and many different accents. 8)) ---Rednblu | Talk 09:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rednblu, thanks for your input. A previous version of the paragraph ended with a reference to the narrative that human beings are unique in having eternal souls, but as Sam and Knowledgeseeker pointed out, not all religions believe this (some say that animals have souls too), so I deleted it. The same problem might arise with your suggestion: by saying humans are unique in their development of spirituality, we imply that animals don't have spirits. Also, I'm not sure "the development of spirituality" is quite the way to put it. I feel it's more NPOV to express the scientific versus spiritual views in terms of narratives, rather than stating "we are spiritual" upfront. Might the last sentence not be good enough, by talking about "spiritual stories"? As follows: "The self-consciousness of human beings, their resultant curious and introspective nature, and their dominance over other animals, have given rise to a series of narratives intended to explain the development of the species, which includes scientific and spiritual stories promoting, on the one hand, the idea that human beings evolved over millions of years from other life forms; and on the other, that all life, including human beings, was created by a supreme being. SlimVirgin 09:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Also, it might be worth mentioning that there are a lot of very different views being expressed on this page (which is a good thing), and so probably no one is going to be entirely happy with the compromise we end up with; therefore, what we're aiming for is something that we can all live with.  ;-) SlimVirgin 09:54, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, and I tell you again that I am Writing for the enemy. And the only reason I keep insisting on some recognition of "spirituality" is because there are many Wikipedia editors who strongly prefer the March 1 version. And I have no idea myself whether putting "spiritual" into Pharos's sentence is acceptable to those who strongly prefer the March 1 version. ---Rednblu | Talk 10:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current

I appreciate the hard work, but I very much prefer the current version of the intro. I am a theist, but anything suggestive of humans uniquely possessing a soul smacks of egocentrism, to me at least. I think thats a POV which doesn't need specific expression in the intro. The image needs swapped w the taxobox tho, of course ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would never want wikipedia to endorse belief in a soul or spirit. I merely want wikipedia to report that to billions of people, that is part of the meaning of being human. --Goethean 14:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. "billions" do not believe that the soul is unique to being human. Billions believe that humans possess a soul, of course, but as far as how many deem it to be unique to mankind? Well, thats not so hard to figure out as you might think. That group would include no Hindu's, Buddhists, Jains (basically no eastern religions). It would also not include any of the many indigenous or animist religions. Frankly, the only group of people I can think of who might believe such a thing are the Abrahamic religions. Out of them however, I would argue only a minority believe the soul is unique to humanity. I personally find the idea shocking and abominable, as do the majority of Christian animal lovers I know. The concept is common, but not enough to merit presense in the intro. The spiritual aspect of man is another subject altogether. See [2] for numbers. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Goethean said half of humanity believes (A) that possessing a soul is part of being human. You are asserting that only a minority believes (B) that only human beings have a soul. Is this correct? User:Ed Poor (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Yes, that is correct. Saying that the possession of a soul is an important part of being human in the minds of most people would be fine w me. Saying that possessing a soul is what makes humans distinct from other aspects of creation would be an unfair emphasis on a minority POV in the intro, IMO. Stating that many believe such later in the article, in context, would be fine however. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cave Painting

what's the cave-painting of the hand, btw? I like it, but just showing an image of a brownish smeared hand without saying where it is or how it is dated is completely unencyclopedic. provide a reference, or exchange. dab (ᛏ) 10:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So far as I remember (I didn't upload it) it's Australian aboriginal cave-painting, from a famous site whose name has slipped my mind. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

bipedal

the "bipedal" in the intro is silly. it harks back to Plato's non-feathered bipeds, and is not proper in classification attributed to "biologists". biologists classify us as mammals, primates, homines, without counting "feet". I know that "bipedal locomotion" is the subject of serious research, but it doesn't enter into taxonomy / phylogeny. dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Handling the competing points of view

SlimVirgin asked Goethean to take a look, and he in turn asked me, so here I am. At first glance, the intro seems entirely materialistic. I am changing it so that it attributes the materialistic assumptions and conclusions to "biologists" (generally). I plan to introduce the main alternate point of view as gently as possible: that there is more to being human than walking upright, having an opposable thumb and complex brain, and blowing up your enemies with cruise missiles.

But I intend to be ever so careful not to impose this alternate POV as "correct" - and certainly not as "the only correct" way to regard humans. Just as I'm sure the other editors here have no wish to endorse the biological, materialistic POV as the "only correct way" for Wikipedia to describe us.

Even if 95% of scientists (and 99.8% of biologists) believe humans evolved without God's help from lower animals, that's not quite consensus enough for Wikipedia to assert that this view is true. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:25, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

The actual % is actually quite suprising, I'll find a cite. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The 2001 Gallup poll on the origin and development of human beings [3][4][5] found that 5% of American scientists (not necessarily working in fields connected with evolution) believed in biblically literal creation, 40% believed in "theistic evolution", and 55% believed in "naturalistic evolution". See also [6].

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

First, it's not biologists that define the term 'human' so much as it is anthropologists and philosophers.

Second, no other significant, credible and neutral encyclopedias (or other equally significant reference sources) include a spiritual distinction in defining 'human' in their intros. Wikipedia's NPOV policy provides no mandate for us to redefine meanings of terms. To that end unless you or anyone else can show us a number of other significant, credible and neutral encyclopedias (or other equally significant reference sources) that prominently define human in spiritual terms in their intro, the argument it that must is a non sequitur. And since the POV 'human as spiritual being' is already addressed fully in the Culture subsection, absent any precedent, there's no justification for it in the intro.

There is no legitimate logical or NPOV justification for making 'human is a spiritual being' a significant fixture in the intro. Doing so would: a) put wikipedia completely out of step with how every other significant and credible reference source defines 'human' (in essence redefining 'human'), b) constitutes personal research because it is exceptional/outside the norm, c) and spirituality in all its incarnations has been considered a function of behavior and culture for at least 150 years in academic circles.--FeloniousMonk 15:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even were you right (which your not) about other encyclopedias, other encyclopedias do not define us, and your suggestion that atheist academia and secular humanism be emphasized to the exclusion of all other views is especially difficult to sympathize with, and clearly not based on NPOV (an unnegotiable policy, BTW). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I'm so wrong about other encyclopedias, how about posting some links that prove me wrong. I dedicated two nights going through all the encyclopedias at two libraries at Berkeley, and not one mentioned spirituality as a distinction in defining human. So the argument remains a non sequitur. Invoking "atheist academia" is a straw man and contradicted by your own citation above of the 2001 Gallup poll which states of US scientists 5% believed in biblically literal creation, and 40% believed in theistic evolution. Clearly either you're wrong on this point in your race to use inflammatory language, or 45% of scientists are closet atheists. Which is it? And no one here is arguing the secular humanism be emphasized at the expense of any other views. What are you talking about?--FeloniousMonk 16:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)