Talk:Human - Wikipedia

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

The lead picture? What percentage of "people" worldwide use a computer or work in an office environment? Vsmith (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here are the most recent sources I found from a quick search. I haven't checked these and couldn't find much info on google scholar.

"A total of 5.19 billion people around the world were using the internet at the start of Q3 2023, equivalent to 64.5 percent of the world’s total population." (https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview)

47.1% of households had a computer as of 2019 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/748551/worldwide-households-with-computer/)

This is a little less than I was expecting, so maybe it's not time yet.

To be clear, I do think the current lead photo is beautiful and fitting and I like that it's not western-centric. I think these are also qualities that the photo should have. Paperclip petter (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Given the wide diversity of humans, and human behaviors. I think it would be a great idea to have a mosaic with the current image at top, and then a few others. Maybe some farmer in a banana plantation. Or villagers in rural Mongolia performing religious ceremonies, and so on, in that vein.

You'll never capture to full gamut of humanity from one, or even a few pictures, but I feel this would be the next best thing. VoidHalo (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I like this Idea too! Paperclip petter (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

What difference does it make if the picture has people from the west are in the photo or not? Human is a value neutral term in this instance. 24.47.223.204 (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're replying to a year-old comment. Remsense ‥ 论 05:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Disagree. While many people use computers (and other tech) daily, humans have primarily been either hunting/gathering or farming for a greater portion of their history. A photo with an agricultural or nature background is appropriate. LaggyMcStab (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

100% of people who will look at this article use a computer. Sinistrality2023 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am the 0.0001% that uses a phone to see this article. 2001:448A:4006:20A9:55A2:4519:A9B3:584F (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's still a computer. 185.139.138.106 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I used a phone to write this very talk page article. So, I'll second that. VoidHalo (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The picture should be updated to one of sub Saharan Africans. As they are the earliest homo sapien. 67.81.247.227 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. New Boojum (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

They are not, in fact, the "earliest homo sapien." They are inherently modern humans by living in the modern world, genetically, culturally, and physiologically. If you wanted the "earliest homo sapien," you'd have to time travel. New Boojum (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the current image is not terrible, but I would say it's "bad". See Talk:Human/FAQ and Talk:Human/Archive_35#Argument_made_in_the_FAQ, and consider MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I personally would like a montage / gallery but it might be "politically impossible". I feel as though a good way to get the ball rolling would be to move the population density map up to be the main and only image in the infobox. For example like on the article Jews there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead. Many comparable featured articles use a gallery in the infobox, such as Frog, Spider, Bird, and most importantly/comparably: Primate. Others have a single example like Whale or Brown bear or, most comparably, Man and Woman. Maybe we want to show those two images from Man and Woman. Or maybe we want to show just one example. At this point I'm rambling, but I think the current image has got to go eventually. Leijurv (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The current image isn't horrible by any means. It gets the point across very effectively. I'm just saying that a mosaic would be even better. But not that the current image necessarily has anything wrong with it. VoidHalo (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. A mosaic/montage might look good on larger screens, but on anything smaller it can just become a collection of tiny, meaningless postage stamps. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Primate looks great on my laptop and phone. Leijurv (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The mosaics used for lead images on Wikipedia usually consist of multiple separate images. As opposed to all of the pictures being one large image. So, if you have difficulty seeing them, you can click the individual images to view them full size.

Even in the event that it's just a single image of a mosaic, provided the quality/resolution is acceptable, you should be able to zoom in on each panel in fullscreen to see it in more detail.

Others mention they've never had problems viewing mosaics on mobile devices, but you need to consider that not everybody's phone is going to have the same resolution, or physical screen size. And eyesight is going to vary a great deal from person to person, outside of legal blindness, that is another matter all together. So, even though it's the same image, the quality/detail will be different (at least, to some degree) for most people. VoidHalo (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

See MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not with you on the content being outdated, the photo is perfect in that regard, but the quality of the image is starting to show it's age. For instance, there are some pretty noticeable JPG artifacts around the man's hat that either weren't noticeable on most screens 10 years ago, or were more tolerable back then. Maybe not today, but eventually the image will need to be replaced or updated in some way. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 01:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, ideally we would use a featured picture on Wikimedia commons or something like that. Howard🌽33 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I see no reason to keep using a low-quality photo from 2009. Howard🌽33 18:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Everyone agrees that it would be nice if every article were improved. The trick is to propose an actual improvement so a meaningful discussion can occur. Bear in mind that very few readers would need a picture of a human to know what the topic of the article is. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

What if we did my idea I mentioned above: For example like on the article Jews there is a symbol and a map showing populations around the world, but no actual photos of Jews. I think it would be a good place to start to do the same on this article. Then we could discuss what to put instead. Maybe someone should WP:BOLDly move the population density map from the bottom of the infobox to the top, replacing the current image? Leijurv (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the better comparison here would be gorillas and monkeys, which are species (just like humans).

Jews are members of a religion, so the comparison is weaker. Bremps... 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

True, the pages for gorilla and monkey have a single image, but other species with variation like cat and dog have collages. Humans have tons of diversity and variation that could be shown like that. Leijurv (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There were lengthy discussions about the picture, all now archived. And turned out the picture is good enough, because is fulfills basic requirements like showing humans of both sexes, standing in a posture that shows most body features, and humans being in possession of tools (in a way, computers are just another tools). Plus millions of humans depends on subsistence agriculture and farming for living even today, so I think the picture isn't outdated. I'm against changing the picture, if there isn't a concrete alternative that is better. --Bananice2 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well said, Bananice2. There is always an instinctive urge to critique, which can be a great thing, but there's a big difference between thinking something isn't good enough and actually finding a solution that improves it meaningfully. The image serves every practical purpose that could be asked of it.

It is slightly lower resolution than you'd hope, but it's still serviceable. 138.64.65.74 (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m jumping in, I think the page’s image should stay the same way it is, we could picture them in different environments such as deserts (my father spent most of his life in the deserts) or forests (if Germany has forests, they’ll be top 1 on my bucket list), other than that, it should stay same. Cometkeiko (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It could use an update.....I would suggest something where someone is standing. I highly discourage use of a montage as seen at Primate.... as these photos are so small on phones they're indistinguishable thus deter readers understanding. Moxy-  02:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

When we take a picture of an ant for Wikipedia, we do not search for the most advanced, largest ant colony, basically I say the same should apply to humans. A random human of the 8 billion on earth is fit to represent the species, not its level of technological development. Kreuner (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The picture is good, fine, and representative. Remsense诉 14:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

At this point, picture on this page is iconic. I would agree we could have more pictures, including a gallery, but generally think the current one should be included in some capacity. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this specific image was chosen due to its representative aspect across different world regions and ages. While humans may be generally more acquainted with computers now, this has not always been the case. In contrast, humans have been farmers for millennia. I think if the image should represent humans across history, then the image chosen does that job well.

This all depends on what you think the image should represent, though. And if you think it should represent humans as they are right now, then it's true that computers would be a more accurate symbol for technological advancement in the modern age. However, it is important to recognize that not all people have equal access to the latest technology, and the world is still built on the large population of farmers. Gherickson (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The photo itself has a low resolution and quality compared to other Wikipedia articles so I agree that it should change. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is primarily intended for thumbnail display, and as such its resolution of 331×554 seems adequate to me. Remsense诉 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

On Commons, to be a good image you need at least two megapixels, this image is less than one tenth of that, and it is very JPEG artifacted. For instance if I lean in even a little bit I immediately see the JPEG "shimmer" effect around the woman's hair. Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• If we're debating this again, I would say the most neutral decision would be a picture of Jimmy Wales or Larry Sanger, such as File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • I disagree, the most neutral decision is clearly Danny Devito.

     

  GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  WHAT??? 2A02:CB80:4215:168A:BD3C:B99A:464C:D429 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I think File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal.JPG would be very funny because it's Jimmy, and it's a high quality image, and I can't see anything wrong with it, and someone should just WP:BOLDly replace it in. :) Leijurv (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hey, one of the things WP:BOLD doesn't say is "go for highly visible things that are clearly against existing consensus". Many people above are fine with the image, and I'm embarrassed that I let that stay on the article for even the couple seconds it was there. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 21:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I personally think this or this is better. We shouldn't use any famous figure per WP:BIAS. Additionally, we should keep both male and female, because it just feels like the right thing to do. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The present picture is fine, and I don't mean to come off the wrong way with this, but I've read enough distinct, distinctly weak alternative arguments that it seems like editors are going out of their way to compose them rather than naturally assessing the article. Remsense ‥ 论 20:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

To better represent all of humanity a new image should be selected at random from a pool of approved pictures

I've come up with some tentative criteria for eligible pictures. One or more adult humans must be the subject. No historical figures or celebrities. No death, injury, or violence in or implied by the image. No overtly sexual imagery. The subject must be engaged in some common activity such as work, no niche activities.

The pool of images should be balanced along gender, race, and national lines.

A new image could be selected yearly, bi yearly, or quarterly.

This would better represent the full scope of humanity. 2607:FEA8:440:29A0:5E46:FE13:6CF9:2676 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Within the section, many tools and technologies are listed obviously. What is odd to me is that the only culture or geographic region mentioned for any of the technologies developed is China, where it states "China developed paper, the printing press, gunpowder, the compass and other important inventions." While this is true, we don't mention the geographic origins of any other technologies on the list. Should we mention the Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain in the sentence one after the one naming China, for example? Should the mention of China or other geographic/cultural origin points be eliminated to avoid this problem entirely? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

--Why isn't "human being" written into this article? Just curious. Is all.
--MadeForLaw (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Being" is a synonym for organism, as in "living beings" or "sentient beings." Calling us "human beings" is a bit redundant feeling in this century, as the word "human" is largely understood to mean the same thing, at least in my opinion. Rather then using it in an academic context, I'd imagine it is more commonly used in philosophical, and literary when we are trying to lean on older ways of speaking to invoke more emotions. At least in my opinion, I'm not an English professor and only did a brief Google search to establish this opinion, if others have more concrete explanations or reasons for doing it differently, I'm open to the suggestions. As a native English speaker, "Human" is fine and how I'd refer to members of the species in academic writing. "Human being" is what the protagonist of a film would yell in a monolog directed at the villain, "How could you delete these Wikipedia pages, they are for human beings!" If someone called me a human being, I'd assume they were trying to be persuasive in some way. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Being" can't be a synonym for "organism", since plants are organisms, but not "beings".

At least in my idiolect, it's often more natural to use the singular "human" as an adjective, whereas "human being" is clearly a noun phrase. So if I imagine a context where aliens or robots might be confused with humans [note plural], I would ask "Is it human?" [adjective] or "Is it a human being?" [noun phrase] but much less likely "Is it a human?". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Using Meriam Webster for my conclusion that "organism" is a synonym, although it doesn't explicitly say "organism." Definition 3 is "a living thing" and uses the text "a sentient being" as an example. This implies that there may be "non-sentient beings" like trees. Not likely to be used in an encyclopedic context, I can see using "living being" to describe a tree in particular in a poetic or religious contexts. If the terminator showed up tomorrow, I would ask "How can we be sure it's human," not "How can we be sure it's a human being." That could just be my way of speaking, but using "human being" would seem overly theatric to me in almost every situation. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply