Herravondure (talk | contribs) →Gender: Reply Tag: Reply |
Sideswipe9th (talk | contribs) →Gender: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
:I agree. I've removed the repetition past the semi-colon now. I also did some digging, and it looks like the content was added in {{diff2|332559894|December 2009}} and hasn't seen much of a revision since. I also found the original talk page discussion for it {{diff2|335188796|Sexism_or_Sex-based_Hierarchy|from the same time period}}. Based on that discussion, I don't think this was intentional, merely it was content written thirteen years ago in good faith that hasn't been updated since. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 03:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
:I agree. I've removed the repetition past the semi-colon now. I also did some digging, and it looks like the content was added in {{diff2|332559894|December 2009}} and hasn't seen much of a revision since. I also found the original talk page discussion for it {{diff2|335188796|Sexism_or_Sex-based_Hierarchy|from the same time period}}. Based on that discussion, I don't think this was intentional, merely it was content written thirteen years ago in good faith that hasn't been updated since. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 03:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks for removing it, I guess I read into it with too much modern context. [[User:Herravondure|Herravondure]] ([[User talk:Herravondure|talk]]) 17:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
::Thanks for removing it, I guess I read into it with too much modern context. [[User:Herravondure|Herravondure]] ([[User talk:Herravondure|talk]]) 17:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::My advice is to always operate from the [[WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]] until proven otherwise. However recognising problematic article content is a very good skill to have, as you are correct in that it could be recent, or it could be old, and use of language changes over time. So keep an eye out for similarly poorly worded content, just don't be so quick to try and guess motive behind it. Unless of course you're reverting obvious vandalism and the like. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 17:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:34, 6 June 2022
Human is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Human has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article, current good article |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
|
Other talk page banners | |
In Defence of the Main Image
I know there's been a lot of discussions and efforts to change the main image, resulting from a number of concerns. I'm going to instead defend the chosen image since I think that it's the perfect image to depict humanity. I like the fact that it isn't a super-refined image trying to depict all of humanity and its achievements. I like how it isn't a high-quality image, and that the people don't look happy.
It's just a simple image that shows two humble east Asian farmers living their lives. Wearing their normal clothing, holding their everyday items, and most likely on the path they walk every day. It's the story of millions of people in a brief, single photo. Is there anything else really needed to show humanity? This picture probably speaks more than anything else that could be carefully chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchaeanKomatiite (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yup. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Werter34r (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree Jenny Everywhere (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Shows clothing and technology. Tom Haws (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022
People are NOT animals 46.69.152.85 (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: already discussed at length at this talk page (see archive) — humans are animals. —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Melbournestar. the common misconception that humans are not animals is misleading. humans are primates (monkeys and apes), belong to kingdom animalia, and are animals. not plants, not bacteria, but animals. ask a biologist, and he will tell you. this misconception is probably derived from religious texts.103.99.150.193 (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
semi-protected edit request on 2 june 2022
remove nudity picture on the article humans.103.130.91.2 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- well, it might be disrtressing for some people to see this. and lets be honest we all know what our bodies look like.103.130.91.2 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
or just add another one with the private parts censored . 103.130.91.2 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. Those "some people" don't have to read this article if they don't want to. —MelbourneStar☆talk 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've never been much of a fan of 'Wikipedia isn't censored' as an argument for inclusion - mainly because it often isn't really an argument for inclusion of anything specific at all. In this case though, it is a reasonable enough starting position, since we have an article on a subject, and the arguments against an illustration of said subject seem to be based on appeals to censorship. Not that the arguments seem consistent, since if 'we all know what our bodies look like', we are presumably not going to be shocked much by seeing an illustration of things we are well aware of. 'Private parts' are parts of people - they make us what we are, in more ways than one. And as a general principle, leaving content out of articles to avoid offending people by showing them what they already know seems an odd way to write an encyclopaedia. On the whole, I'd hope that our readers look at articles to learn stuff, not to be mollycoddled by sanitised content that might otherwise oblige them to think a little: in this case, to think, if an illustration offends them, as to why it is that they are so offended by ordinary human beings... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022
please edit "obesity epidemic" in diet section to "some people call it an "obesity epidemic"…". 103.99.150.193 (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article says the
...in the United States 35% of people are obese, leading to this being described as an "obesity epidemic."
. We have a citation for the quotation, to a legitimate medical source which uses those exact words in its title. [1] We don't rewrite direct quotations. Furthermore, a statement that 'some people' say something, even if sourced, is more of less meaningless. You can find sources for 'some people' saying almost anything: what matters, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is whether such opinions represent a significant viewpoint. In this case, I'd say they do, since you'd be hard put to find many people qualified to comment on the medical effects of obesity who didn't consider it a significant factor adversely affecting health in many parts of the world. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
but obesity is NOT an epidemic. you could say it is an endemic, though changes in the diet is all it takes to make it practically nonexistent. 103.114.211.8 (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
in wikipedia article epidemic, it states that an epidemic is the rapid, common SPREAD of a disease to people. obesity is not infectious or contagious (it does not "spread" to other people).103.114.211.8 (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, we understand. That's why it says "being described as". Your complaint is with the reliable source which is a paper titled "The Obesity Epidemic", however they would not pay attention to the complaint either because it's just colorful language to describe the scale of the obesity problem. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
okay…guess I'll argue with the source website instead… 103.114.211.8 (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Gender
In the Gender section of the article one of sentences reads, "Cultural differences by gender have often been believed to have arisen naturally out of a division of reproductive labor; the biological fact that women give birth led to their further cultural responsibility for nurturing and caring for children." Everything past the semi-colon seems entirely unneeded in the context, and the way its written makes it sound very strange. In addition, the source following this section leads to the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, which is a 16,000 page book going over a variety of meanings and definitions. The source does not give a page or even chapter number. It seems to me that someone wanted to add something (that was probably meant to be transphobic) and tacked on a random source. Can this phrase be removed? Herravondure (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I've removed the repetition past the semi-colon now. I also did some digging, and it looks like the content was added in December 2009 and hasn't seen much of a revision since. I also found the original talk page discussion for it from the same time period. Based on that discussion, I don't think this was intentional, merely it was content written thirteen years ago in good faith that hasn't been updated since. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing it, I guess I read into it with too much modern context. Herravondure (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- My advice is to always operate from the assumption of good faith until proven otherwise. However recognising problematic article content is a very good skill to have, as you are correct in that it could be recent, or it could be old, and use of language changes over time. So keep an eye out for similarly poorly worded content, just don't be so quick to try and guess motive behind it. Unless of course you're reverting obvious vandalism and the like. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing it, I guess I read into it with too much modern context. Herravondure (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)