Talk:Human#Update

Given the immense amount of conflict over the lede image, perhaps an infant should just be shown instead. That way most people will be too enamored with the baby's cuteness to mount an objection. If the problem is floated that it is not representative of humanity as a whole and more just a specific state, then dress up the baby in grown-up clothes or holding a tool like a hammer -- even cuter! And if editors continue to wail on the matter, they soon will stop when they realize they do not wish to be compared to the lede image itself. ;) ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^blather 01:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:The long-standing image is loved except by a couple vocal critics. It's "Global Gothic"; it's iconic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Out of the loop maybe, but what is Global Gothic? Aircorn (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Just a play on American Gothic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Not bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't get the fuss about the image. The two people are, in fact, humans. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

At the end of the second paragraph under "tools and technologies, stated that:

"major innovations in the 20th century including: electricity, penicillin, semiconductors, internal combustion engines, the Internet, nitrogen fixing fertilizers, airplanes, computers, automobiles, contraceptive pills, nuclear fission, the green revolution, radio, scientific plant breeding, rockets, air conditioning, television and the assembly line."

I find it interesting that the assembly line, an organizational structure, is included in the paragraph which is ostensibly about more "concrete" inventions. As every other invention mentioned in the paragraph is a specific type or series of objects, I do not feel that it's inclusion is warranted. If it has to be mentioned somewhere, I would recommend that it be included in the paragraph directly above it is currently in, as it seems to cover more conceptual/behavioral technologies, such as agriculture.

TLDR: Assembly line really does not fit in the paragraph where it is 73.92.188.125 (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hey. That sentence comes from the Atlantic source[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/innovations-list/309536/]. It is number 49 if you can't get past the paywall. I guess it is up to editor discretion as to what to include from that 50 or to include just the top ones or all of them. They do go into detail at the start about how they came to that ranking and acknowledge the impossibility of comparing many of these innovations. I don't see an issue with assembly line fitting in here personally and the green revolution is also included which probably doesn't fit the "concrete" invention definition either. Aircorn (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)