Talk:Human#Replacement of anatomy image

{{Notice|File:Akha cropped hires.JPG

Important Note: The most appropriate image to use at the top of this article has been a highly controversial issue with many valid viewpoints. See FAQ below for discussion history.}}

{{Article history

|action1=PR

|action1date=03:37, 13 September 2005

|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Human/archive1

|action1result=reviewed

|action1oldid=23140973

|action2=FAC

|action2date=10:37, 1 November 2005

|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Human/archive1

|action2result=promoted

|action2oldid=27043990

|action3=FAR

|action3date=01:43, 13 February 2006

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Human

|action3result=demoted

|action3oldid=39092863

|action4=GAN

|action4date=06:46, 14 November 2006

|action4result=listed

|action4oldid=87712949

|action5=GAR

|action5date=1 January 2008

|action5result=delisted

|action5link=Talk:Human/Archive_26#GA_Sweeps_Delist

|action5oldid=181453994

|action6=GAN

|action6date=1 February 2020

|action6result=not promoted

|action6link=Talk:Human/GA1

|action6oldid=938715378

|action7=GAN

|action7date=23:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

|action7result=listed

|action7link=Talk:Human/GA2

|action7oldid=1035486013

|topic=natsci

|currentstatus=FFA/GA

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=

}}

{{Press

| subject = article

| author = Ellen Airhart

| title = How Wikipedia Portrayed Humanity in a Single Photo

| org = Wired

| url = https://www.wired.com/story/how-wikipedia-portrayed-humanity-in-a-single-photo/

| date = 2018-03-10

| quote = ...the editors of the “human” entry on Wikipedia were having such a hard time in 2003. The crowdsourced encyclopedia, in theory, offers a solution to the problem of representation; no single writer has control over the way in which a subject is presented. But still: They had to choose a single image to lead the entry. And whatever photo they went with would inevitably leave out most of the diversity and cultural nuance that makes humanity beautiful and interesting.

| accessdate = 2018-03-11

| subject2 = article

| author2 = James Felton

| title2 = Why Do These Two People Represent All Humans On Wikipedia?

| org2 = Iflscience

| url2 = https://www.iflscience.com/why-do-these-two-people-represent-all-humans-on-wikipedia-78707

| date2 = 2025-04-07

| quote2 = There were plenty of other problems too, with other editors suggesting that the top image should be of real humans who wear clothes, given the importance and ubiquity of clothing for humanity.

| accessdate2 = 2025-04-07

}}

{{Copied|from=Homo sapiens|from_oldid=759666580|to=Human|to_oldid=760839119|to_diff=|date=14:31, January 19, 2017}}

{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Davykamanzi|U1-employer=Upwork user "Goro Goro"|U1-otherlinks={{Diff|Human|cur|724852860|(diff)}}}}

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Human/Archive index

|mask=Talk:Human/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 450K

|counter = 36

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(30d)

|archive = Talk:Human/Archive %(counter)d

}}

Not intelligible

Quote from article:

"Stone tools were used by Australopithecus afarensis around 3.3 million years ago. Others think it did not happen before 1.9 millions years ago, because Homo habilis is not a part of Homo."

Problems:

What does "it" refer to? Is the tool use by A. afarensis being put in doubt by the second sentence?
How does H. habilis impinge on this, since it is not A. afarensis?
How is it that _Homo_ habilis is not _Homo_? This may serve as an elaborate set-up for a "no homo" prank, but as far as logical reasoning is concerned, it would send anyone's head spinning.

Please add at least another sentence of exposition for all this, because it really needs it. Thank you.

2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks. Rewrote that section. It appears to be two unrelated sentences put together. I think the point of that paragraph is to show that there is no common consensus on the dates so said that instead. Aircorn (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Suboptimal images

I don't like the main pictures, as they fail to accurately reflect the human condition. The man has his hair covered. The woman is overweight. Their eyes and teeth are scarcely visible. JDiala (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:The women is overweight? By what criterion? Where is the scale? Humans wear clothing (this is indeed one of their distinguishing features), including hats. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{!xt|The woman is overweight}} -> {{!xt|fail to accurately reflect the human condition}}. That depends. According to the World Health Organization, {{blue|In 2022, 2.5 billion adults aged 18 years and older were overweight, including over 890 million adults who were living with obesity. This corresponds to 43% of adults aged 18 years and over (43% of men and 44% of women) who were overweight.}} {{blue|Prevalence of overweight varied by region, from 31% in the WHO South-East Asia Region and the African Region to 67% in the Region of the Americas.}}[https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight] Some1 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:If you look a little further up, you'll see that after a lot of discussion, it hasn't so far been possible to find a free image that better represents the topic. Personally, I would not find an overweight person to be atypical, but that's unlikely to be the case here, as Stephan Schulz has already stated.. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:D25A (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, look at the FAQ. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:I argued for Danny DeVito to replace these fine people in the picture, but that proposal like many others did not win much support. Until someone has a better picture we can agree on, I'm happy to have these individuals representing me to the aliens Googling us.

:That said, if any humans with a camera are in the same location this was taken, I would be super excited if we could get an updated photo of our representatives, perhaps one that includes some of their family/friends. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Anti-exceptionalism

I understand that every species is unique in its own way. But the fact that this article does not feature prominently any nod to the tune of humans being the only species that cooks food, wears clothing, writes this encyclopedia, etc is a little embarrassing.

Can I put this into this article's intro without causing a ruckus?

:Behaviorally modern humans are the only beings known to practice writing, cooking, and clothing.

I checked the writing, cooking, and clothing articles. Unlike the technology article, they do not mention any other species practicing those arts/industries.

-Tom Haws (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other archaic humans all likely cooked to some extent, likely wore clothing, and may have engaged in some cave art. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Why?

I get npov but I don't understand why this article is written like it's wasn't written my humans, I think it's safe to assume that anyone who reads this article is human, can someone explain to me why it's written with this detachment? Not a kitsune (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Bold assumption that Wikipedia editors all fully qualify as human. How would you have it written? We're just a single species on the planet, and in the future, non-humans might very well browse what we have said about ourselves. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:See Q1 of the FAQ Aircorn (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Please link, I can't find it Not a kitsune (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)