Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This is an archive of past discussions about Human. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 1 year ago73 comments33 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a rough consensus that the present photo may be getting a bit stale. Otherwise, no real conclusion can be drawn from this discussion. To replace the present photo, a new discussion should be held proposing a replacement. FOARP (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think the better comparison here would be gorillas and monkeys, which are species (just like humans).
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It should be updated, to reflect the increasing urbanization of human populations. These rural folks are not representative anymore. 68.199.125.5 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Disagree. Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species.
Including more modern technology is not important. Modern technology is not important to us as a species overall, just basic tool use which is already shown in the image. We lived for millions of years using only basic tools, and if all electronics stopped working tomorrow, humans would still survive because of our ability for tool use beyond computers.
Additionally, using images that display the human form would not be ideal. Those who are interested in learning specifically about the human body or its figure should be able to find pages directly related to that, but that would not make sense to use a representation of humanity overall. Huhbilly (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
A representation of humanity is fairly abstract. As humans would mostly agree our minds are what make us human, or our nature as collaborative social creatures, maybe a screenshot of this talk page discussing the topic would be the best possible solution. It represents what humanity is like, overall, in my opinion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
People have been raising legitimate concerns about the picture quality. If you're gonna be so insistent on using third-world farmers, then the least you could do is pick a high quality photo. There're tons of them on commons that would be a better replacement Dunkleosteus77(talk)16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The image is displayed at thumbnail size. There is no meaningful difference in an image's fitness for this purpose if has 400 pixels of revolution or 3000. This has already been pointed out multiple times, and I wish this thread had been allowed to have been archived already, because it's going to do nothing but attract further repeated non-arguments and provoke further disruption like the deeply embarrassing Jimbo stunt above. There is more to image quality than resolution, but here they seem similarly immaterial. There are no serious arguments here as far as I can tell: that might be my personal opinion, but the fact remains that I've yet to read a single convincing point from anyone concerning the image, and I'm normally someone who's embarrassingly quick to change their mind. Instead, there's been a months-long trickle of well-meaning people who nevertheless can't help but articulate in different way the core fact that they do not know what they are talking about here. Please let this thread die. Remsense‥论22:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, I really resent your representation that the image selection has merit specifically because the subjects are "third-world" (???) Remsense‥论23:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the quality of the image does matter. I reiterate that I can clearly see JPEG artifacting around the woman's hair and the man's face on my laptop, if someone has a desktop or larger monitor it will be even worse. It visibly appears low-quality.
Huhbilly said Ultimately, going to rural areas, and doing physical labor, are nearly universal in the human experience, though not always at the same time. The picture displays humans in their "natural environment", as well as showcasing how many live now and how nearly every human has lived throughout history. The image also showcases dimorphism, clothing, and the usage of tools. Despite it taking place in Asia, similar sights can be found all over the world. In my opinion, the image remains a perfect representation of the human species. and I think that's what Dunkleosteus77 was referring to. I think this is a reasonable argument and if we pick a single image (no gallery, no rotation, etc), I think this is a solid point that tool use / physical labor / farming are good and representative, and I agree that it gives merit to such images, including the current one. Note that all of Dunkleosteus77's suggested images fulfill this. I'm not sure where you are taking offense, possibly just using the phrase "third world" as a euphemism for being poor and/or subsistence farming? Anyway, their actual suggested images look fine to me. Leijurv (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The artifacting is a concrete visual issue: I will tamp down my earlier polemic and grant that. With that said, I feel all of the potential replacement issues have more fundamental drawbacks, either they do not depict both a man and a woman (I feel this to be necessary), or they are not full-face portraits that clearly show most of the bodies.
third world
It's immaterial so I won't say anything more about it, but I mostly couldn't see what it was being used as a shorthand for unless it does in effect mean those things—as otherwise its more precise actual meaning is beyond irrelevant to the task at hand. Remsense‥论09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Let's go for an example, let's consider the infobox of commons:Category:Couples: commons:File:A_Dagomba_couple_from_farm_02.jpg. This would be an improvement in my opinion, without straying from the same general idea as the current photo (man and a woman, farming, rural, clothing, tools). It is higher resolution, 6.8 times more pixels (however, we would probably crop it in a bit). Admittedly, if you zoom all the way into the faces, there is still some artifacting, but it's much better than the current one. So nevertheless, I think this would be an improvement. I skimmed through some categories of a few thousand couple photos on Commons and this image was the best in my opinion. My personal view is that a gallery is best but I recognize the overriding authority of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY disallowing that. With that constraint, my view is that the second-best option is probably a group photo, and realistically the best group photo will probably be a man and a woman. I also would be okay with having no humans in the infobox at all, instead the reader could view the gallery that's down in the "Human life stages" section, and the infobox would just contain a population density map (like Dutch people for example). Leijurv (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I think File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02.jpg is the most viable suggestion yet, so I hope I don't come off as stonewalling when I say I think it is still less ideal—as it more prominently features both goods (the basket and bowl) and more prominently implies activities that seem more particularized, to the effect that I feel it is less neutral and less representative of humans at-large. While the man in the present image carries a banana stem over his shoulder, and the woman carries a bag strapped across her torso, these elements seem less particularized, owing in part to their being less prominently featured in the photo—the focus remains clearly on the man and woman themselves, with everything else pictured parsimoniously "coloring in" key aspects of humans we want to illustrate, but not really catching the reader's attention in their own right.
I think File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02.jpg is perfectly adequate for illustrating the concept of "couples", but so much is wrapped up in the concept of "human" such that it's one of the few topics that begs scrutiny of this kind on all levels. I really don't want to come off as finding any argument to retain the status quo like I said, I really am trying to assess merits objectively, so I trust you take my argumentation in good faith. Remsense‥论04:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
To restate your position to ensure I understand: in the current image, the woman does have a bag, and the man does have a banana stem, but those elements are not very prominent or eye-catching in the image. The man and the woman are clearly and unambiguously the focus. Whereas in my suggestion, the bag and the bowl and the logs are quite prominent in the image, taking up literally a large fraction of the image and drawing the eye. I think this is a fair complaint, and I appreciate the most viable suggestion yet. I think it looks a bit better if you crop, like this: commons:File:A Dagomba couple from farm 02 (cropped).jpg, what do you think? Are there any other criteria or characteristics that you'd look for? Any other images that you'd point to for such characteristics? And, do you have a thought on eschewing a human / couple in the infobox, instead leaving illustration to the ten images under "human life cycle"? Leijurv (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense: As you can see right here ^, as of the most recent discussion on that image, I thought the ball was in your court. You had just called it the most viable suggestion yet, and I had just made an attempt to address your concerns by cropping it. Now you're calling this discussion "myopic drivel"? "hysterically"? "reckless"? Seems rather out of line to me. Leijurv (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Firstly, I'll put away the hyperbole. The fact I was frustrated in the moment with a wrongheaded RfC shouldn't be a distraction going forward. However, y factual accounts of this talk page are correct. Firstly, this conversation has demonstrably encouraged multiple bad edits to the article itself. Secondly, a clear reading of what I said should indicate I think one image was the most viable candidate, but insufficiently so to replace the longstanding image. Remsense‥论21:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
You don't have to respond to my message, but I feel as though if you're going to continue to argue against it, it would be courteous to do so. It's pretty simple: I cropped out the parts you complained about, so I'm curious to hear to what extent your concerns still apply. We could even crop it further to hide the bowl on her head. Leijurv (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
To adequately clarify since I genuinely left it improperly unclear: the parts of this thread I was frustrated at were not yours—cf. Devito. I have no qualm whatsoever with your participation, quite the contrary.
I do think the crop further helps. Will you allow me to sit with it for a bit? I'm a bit busy at the moment but wanted to properly acknowledge the effort you've put in—especially since I failed to do so before. If I don't respond soon, ping me again. Remsense‥论22:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your superhuman patience. Right—I won't waste any more time standing in your way. Proceed however you think is appropriate—an RfC, I imagine? Remsense‥论00:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
If an RfC is desired it still needs a lot of work to agree on the images to choose from. But in my opinion the current photo is iconic. Its slight blurriness should not outweigh that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in. I think the picture, while it is showing its age in terms of photo quality, is a perfect representation of humans. It shows two humans in what is clearly an agricultural setting- Something that makes humans unique (Our ability to culture, harvest, and domesticate plants and animals.) It shows humans wearing clothes and woven accessories, another uniquely human aspect. It shows both a human male and a human female, representing both common sexes. I saw that another Wikipedian mentioned how they liked that the lead picture didn't represent Western humans, to which I agree. Most of the humans on Earth are in Asia, after all. If we could find another photo similar to the leading image with higher quality, then I think it'd be an acceptable replacement. Or we could leave it as is, because the current photo is beautifully representative of Homo sapiens. Where Did God Put All The Plums? (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually, many species of ants will literally farm fungus for food. Particularly leaf cutter ants.
They dig specific chambers where they place a medium for the fungus to grow on. Then use it as a supply of food
Surprisingly, agriculture isn't unique to humans. They just don't use tools to do it. Otherwise, I struggle to find any fundamental differences from human agriculture. VoidHalo (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Kind of funny that this conversation is still on-going. My first comment I stand by. But here's an amusing thought, I think it'd be kind of fun if someone tried to recreate the original photo. Like exact same location, two similar-looking subjects dressed in the same way. It'd be an instant solution to the quality issue. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ]04:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
It would be like the National Geographic issue where they took a photo of that Afghan woman several decades later. Would be awesome if we could get that. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Assembly Line as an Invention?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Hey. That sentence comes from the Atlantic source. 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)
A lede image with staying power
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
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✨blather01:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.
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)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
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)
The woman is overweight -> fail to accurately reflect the human condition. That depends. According to the World Health Organization, 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.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.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)
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
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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?
I checked the writing, cooking, and clothing articles. Unlike the technology article, they do not mention any other species practicing those arts/industries.
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?
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
History is broken into four sections, which span anywhere from 60,000 to 160,000 years. The last three sections cover the past 6000 years. Even in the first section, by the second sentence we're talking about the neolithic revolution 10000-12000 years ago. So we get one sentence on 50,000+ years of human life, and the entire rest on the past 10,000 years. I realize information is more limited pre-history, but it not non-existent. I think I will fill out that section a little more this year. Minimax Regret (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
No, it is after the advent of behavioral modernity.
In a way the section headings crowd it out. In the evolution section humans are evolving to behavioral modernity (modern humans), which happened at latest 40,000 years ago. Then we go into history, which kind of means recorded history, which is only a few thousand years old. So those tens of thousands of years of pre-history are crammed into one sentence in the pre-history part of the history section. Minimax Regret (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
This sounds like this was made for animals to read
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The introduction makes it sound like animals are going to read this. I don’t even see why you should have this page, they should have two pages; this page about the biology of humans and the history of humans on another page. 80.4.77.218 (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
There's a section at the top titled Frequently asked questions, which you can view by clicking the word Show. That explains all. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wikipedia is not clear nor consistent on this. Does the word “human” refer to Homo sapiens as well as their entire lineage, does it refer to any member of the genus homo (such that homo erectus and Neanderthals are referred to as “human”), or does it only refer specifically to the species homo sapien. 50.239.58.6 (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago13 comments8 people in discussion
A skull found in central China has pushed human evolution back further than originally thought. The skull has been studied, tested, and retested by independent teams. Findings have now been published in Science. The skull is dated to 1 million years pushing back Homo sapiens 500,000 years earlier than previously known. It is therefore assumed that our entire evolutionary timeframe may be off for not only Homo sapiens, but also homo erectus and the rest of our evolutionary family. Further, this now puts the entire time framework of human migration out of Africa into question. I highly recommend that the editors review the newest findings and update this section accordingly. 2601:18E:C583:E880:E574:6408:B798:4F6D (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Why dont you just say evolved "at least" 300,000 years ago? Same if you change it to a million. who's to say they wont move the date back again in a few decades? Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Scientific consensus is the they. the article said humans evolved "around 300,000 years ago". wouldnt it be better to just say its believed humans evolved "at least 300,000 years ago?", so we can account for things like this million year old skull? Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
The skull in question was a Denisovan skull, not a Homo sapien skull, although most news reports didn’t make that distinction and just described it as pushing back the date of “human evolution”. I don’t think on older date for Denisovans necessarily means an older date for Homo sapiens as well. 2601:282:103:BD0:E43E:C7D:2933:A116 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
The paper doesn't seem to argue that Homo Sapiens is 1 million years old, but instead that the lineage that lead to Sapiens (its divergence from the ancestors of Neanderthals/Denisovans) could be that old. Nor does or seem to challenge the African origin of Homo Sapiens. Skllagyook (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Too much a biology article
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
So, I made a few things more precise (hopefully), but in general, this lemma is too much a biology article. While this makes sense for related articles for animals, plants, etc., where we usually do not know more than the biological aspects, I feel it does not make sense here. The effect is, as they denote here, that it reads like an article which an alien species has written about us. That can not be right. However, English is not my mother tongue, so I refrain from trying to fix it. I can just point to the German lemma, which does the job much better in this case, in my opinion Heronils (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Human has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change the "humans are in a biological sense animals." to "humans are animals.", the biological term is unnecessary, you might as well say that lions are biologically animals. Also, change the "Humans belong to the biological family of apes (superfamily Hominoidea)." to "Humans are apes (superfamily Hominoidea).", it avoids repetition. ~2025-32672-05 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
For most of their history they were hunter-gatherers...As opposed to what? Prior to the invention of agriculture, isn't it true that every vertebrate (and many an invertebrate) was a hunter-gatherer? I dislike this term more because it pretends to inform but doesn't. Last I heard, it's believed that some of our ancestors - possibly most at one point - lived by large bodies of water for many generations; by definition NOT hunter-gatherers. The blanket "they were hunter-gatherers" lacks nuance and implies they ALL were, which is dubious. Also, last I heard, our species is homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens is an abbreviation. This may no longer be true, IDK. But if it is now true, there are plenty of people (like me) who aren't aware of the change in terminology so this change needs to be mentioned - if it is actually correct. I note that in WP, the usage is pervasive. The article uses "history" to mean the non-literary prehistoric period. Our history began ~10,000 BCE. Before that is our prehistory. The meager paleoanthopological records we have don't qualify to be a convincing record of our past. I find this article squishy. Sorta right, but mostly wrong. What, for instance, does it mean to describe ourselves as a species when we're a mixture of species lineages? (i.e. some, but not all of us have Neanderthal dna, some Denisovian, and some not either?). Are we a species? Were we always? (I'd say yes, we are and no we weren't but what do I know.) Finally, the article is over-all severely lacking in authoritative references.~2025-31506-44 (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
For a start, most vertebrate species (or most mammals, anyway) aren't hunter-gatherers. The majority are herbivores, eating plants. A minority are carnivores, eating other animals. As for what you heard regarding 'living by large bodies of water', you are probably referring to the Aquatic ape hypothesis, which is generally discounted by academic scholarship as vague, unsupported by evidence, and bordering on pseudoscience. Regarding 'history', the term is somewhat ambiguous, and I'd call your objection somewhat nit-picking, though others might differ. As for being 'a mixture of species lineages', this is entirely true, but only if you adopt a particular position amongst the many definitions of 'species' that currently abound. There isn't any agreed scientific definition as to what exactly constitutes a 'species', and nor is there ever likely to be - there are biologists who will tell you that a 'species' is just a social construct, created to make a complex reality easier to think about. They are probably right.
I'm quite sure there are issues with this article, but if you wish to see it improved, you will have to do better than make vague complaints based on things you think you know. We need appropriate reliable sources to base content on, and concrete suggestions as to specific changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
From what I've read, the fringe aquatic ape hypothesis is very much orientated around an omniverous shoreline hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Such environments present very diverse food opportunities - fish, aquatic birds, mammals etc to hunt, along with many types of edible plant sources etc to gather. And then there are invertibrates like crustaceans and molluscs, which one doesn't really need to hunt, making the distinction between hunting and gathering more to do with the 'how' than the 'what'. I doubt that the OP has actually read our hunter-gatherer article, and I suspect they are just guessing as to what they think the words mean. Not a good start, if you want to complain about an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Confusion about the 12% Death rate to violence in medieval times
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have looked into the source for the stated 12% death rate in medieval times. the box plot (figure 3) in the study seems to show seems to show a much lower death rate of roughly 3% but the supplementary table shows the 12% again, it also shows higher death rate for the paleolithic. this seems odd to me. am I missing something?
Latest comment: 6 months ago9 comments9 people in discussion
I've noticed for a while about the photo used as the lead picture for the article. It really bothers me. Not only is the primary example of a human being not good, it also is low quality and very context based. Fill me in. ~2025-38581-58 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree, there are some things not in the FAQ which remain unanswered. Humans don't naturally wear clothing for example, we wouldn't use a photo of a dog in clothes as an infobox image for a specific dog breed. The "use of cultural products such as clothing" clause in A7 does not explain how that is a) neccesary for an article which discussing the biology of humanity or b) how clothing (generally) is a cultural product that is worth noting. TansoShoshen (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Humans do naturally wear clothing though. Almost every single human civilization and culture on planet earth wear clothing all the time, except in specific, out-of-sight, situations such as cleaning oneself and sexual intercourse.
Besides, if someone wants to learn about true human anatomy, then they can see the unclothed male and female images that are already present on the page ~2026-26185-3 (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Current evidence indicates that anatomically-modern humans were naked in prehistory for at least 90,000 years before they invented clothing. Today, isolated Indigenous peoples in tropical climates continue to be without clothing in many everyday activities. [...] A 2010 study published in Molecular Biology and Evolution indicates that the habitual wearing of clothing began at some point in time between 83,000 years ago and 170,000 years ago based upon a genetic analysis indicating when clothing lice diverged from their head louse ancestors.
Whether this justifies using clothed individuals as lede picture is up to you. I personally find individuals with utilitarian, simple pre-industrial clothing to be more representative of humans, for such use of clothing was normalized long, long before recorded history started, (and a necessity for survival when we migrated north towards the Arctic). 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk08:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Humans typically wear clothing though. If most dogs were wearing clothing I'm pretty sure the picture would have clothing. A picture representing Humans is supposed to.... represent Humans! And almost all Humans, in almost all cultures, in every continents since thousands of years, wear clothes. Putting two naked Humans in the first picture of the article would, in fact, be pretty unrepresentative on how Humans look imho, this is not just an article about biology but also about culture, society, etc Cosmiaou (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)
Why does the webpage linked state "Homo sapiens (This concept is no longer recognised)"? Is it saying that the species is no longer recognised - which seems unlikely - or that the concept of applying standard ICUN criteria to humanity is no longer recognised? The latter would at least make sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Something along those lines. But it's been discussed multiple times since c. 2007 and not worth re-opening the discussion as nothing has changed since then. - UtherSRG(talk)20:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Why is there an entire section dedicated to psychology?
Latest comment: 5 months ago12 comments6 people in discussion
It even has multiple subsections, I understand that psychology is more relevant to homo sapiens than other hominids but it only warrants a passing mention. Cognsci (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
If the topic relates to homo sapiens, then the topic should stay in the page. If the topic is related to physical qualities of homo sapiens, then the topic should also stay in the page as is. In other words, mass deleting an entire section without the basis of reason or proper judgement is not how you should edit articles in Wikipedia. Daniel6201 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
I didn't remove all mention of psychology from the article so the topic would still in fact be in the page. Cognsci (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I can't imagine why someone on the Human wikipedia page would be interested in the reasons why Humans are the way they are. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Be bold and be mindful to not become reckless. Content disagreement is natural and no need to take it personal.
Wikipedia accepts the concept of the silent approval - long-standing content (especially ones surviving many revisions) are presumed to be tacitly approved by the community. This presumed approval last until it was challenged - as in your case. If the approval is actually there (eg editors really do agree with the inclusion of psychology in this case), these users will respond to / defend the challenge.
Well, since there is a lack of consensus to remove the whole psychology section, I'll just remove the subsections. Cognsci (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
The section has been a part of the article in a similar format for over ten years now. While that is not a good reason to keep it per se a decent reason needs to be provided to remove it en mass. Aircorn(talk)19:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
There are a lot of sciences that study homo sapiens, I would argue a decent reason needs to be provided for why psychology is exceptional to the point that it is almost on par with biology in terms of detail in this article. I do not accept Esolo5002's reasoning of psychology being the reason "why Humans are the way they are". Cognsci (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I suppose a better question is, which topics merit more weight? Personally I think the article leans too heavily into evolutionary biology over concepts such as self or the human condition. Despite the taxobox, we can’t just view this article as any other creature article. As for the Psychology section, I am also unhappy with how it stands, seems to be more of a keyword dump than explanation of these concepts (no offense to the writer, there is a lot to unpack) Dunkleosteus77(talk)22:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
The why not improve the section instead of mass removing it? I see you stated that the article has leans heavily over evolutionary biology rather than concepts such as the self/human condition. The issue here, is that all of the topics are related to the article title human. You can add sections, but removing topics related to humans [the self or the human condition is psychological] is not advisable. Unless the topic is not related or semi-related to humans, the content should just be left alone as is. Daniel6201 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
"Human" is a GENUS, not the species named "Homo Sapiens", which is "MODERN Humans".
Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This article would be correct if someone checked all of the words "human" and changed most of those words to "modern human". That is the name of one SPECIES that is in the GENUS "Homo", i.e. "humans". The name of our species is "Modern Humans" which is a name coined to differentiate us from all of the earlier Humans who were not Modern. When you say "Modern Humans" the emphasis should be on the word "Modern", because what you're doing is marking the differentiation from other (non-Modern) Humans. If you send someone to get the RED apples then you're trying to exclude apples that are yellow or green etc.. But if you ask for the red APPLES then you intend for them to exclude the red fruits (strawberries etc.) that aren't apples. "Modern Humans" isn't starting from Modern things such as cheetahs and horses and excluding the ones that aren't Human. It's starting from all Humans (which must mean that NOT all Humans are "Modern Humans") and excluding those that aren't Modern. So it's like RED applies ("MODERN Humans"), and NOT like "red APPLES" ("modern HUMANS").
It's right there on Wikipedia's Disambiguation-page for the word "Human""
QUOTE:
Humans are a superfamily of highly intelligent apes.
UNQUOTE
It doesn't say that the word "Humans" refers to ONLY Homo Sapiens. It's the whole superfamily. But then the word "Humans" IN that sentence "Humans are a superfamily of highly intelligent apes" is blue-linked to this talk-page's subject, i.e. "Modern Humans" but mis-titled as "Humans". This is incoherent.~2026-14597-90 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
It's a classic example of the context-dependency of everyday language. "Human" does sometimes refer only to modern humans (e.g. when many years ago I studied "human physiology", I only studied modern humans), but also sometimes to the genus Homo, and sometimes to higher level taxa. It does mean that wikilinks need choosing with care. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
that would piss off the ChatBots that crawl Wikipedia, I suppose. . Seriously though, it wouldn't be consistent with the way we write about other topics, or the way other encyclopaedias write about this one (see e.g. ). So no, not a good idea in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
But I feel like for other topics, it doesn't hit the same when you read "All Wikipedia contributors are personally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view" in the disclaimer. So it makes sense to acknowledge that the original writer shares the same humanity as the reader. I like it. Orangeblossom6136 (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think that the 'disclaimer' is intended to be taken seriously. I don't, since it is based on an absurd premise. There is no CoI, since we are writing about ourselves (humanity), for ourselves (also humanity). There is no external 'interest' to be in conflict with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Post-classical History Section Western History Focus
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
the Post-classical section seems a little heavily weighted toward European history. What else was going on in Asia at the time? ~2026-16846-40 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Islamic golden age, Crusades, and the Mongol Empire. All mentioned. Is there something else you think should be added? Note it is the most overview of overviews for a history section. Aircorn(talk)08:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Changing the image
Latest comment: 3 months ago15 comments9 people in discussion
What do you think of changing the lead image to this one? Please state your thoughts below. The discussions over the years have showed dissatisfaction with the current image, so I was hoping we could see if this image or another image would be best. Interstellarity (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Please note that they are both women. Better to present an image which contains a male and a female human, as represented in the current long-term image. Another factor may be that Asians are the most populous people on Earth, and humans being represented in the lead image by Asians contains unsaid but accurate data. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The description says "English: A Dagomba couple from a farm. One carries a basket under her arm, and the other a bowl with two wooden trunks." Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The lead image should probably show a man and a woman to illustrate sexual dimorphism (and probably also clothing, tool use, a rural agrarian environment, etc). Honestly until just now I thought that image was a man and a woman. Even though I suggested using a crop of that image some time ago, now looking again I fear that the image isn't much of an improvement: it's actually still rather blurry, and now it's unclear if it actually is a man and a woman...:(:( Leijurv (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The suggested image is worse. It is busier and the humans blend in with the background. The existing image is simply iconic. The couple stand out from the background and their expressions look less posed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. None of the alternative images suggested, here or in any of the past discussions, are as good as the current lead image. Some1 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For the section Tools and Technologies (7.3), there is the sentence "China developed paper, the printing press, gunpowder, the compass and other important inventions." However, no other region or country is mentioned by name in this section, and this feels a little out of place. Should more explicit references to other countries and their technological contributions be added, or should this sentence be removed? MattDaCatt (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2026
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Human has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "There are intersex conditions in the human population, however these are rare" to "There are intersex conditions in the human population, however, these are rare" Ravencheshire (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Not done. You don't really need a comma after 'however' here. Try reading it with 'however' replaced as 'but', and the extra pause from the comma sounds especially awkward, but, it's really the same thing. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 13:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Edit request
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Can we mention the fact that the thing reading this article is either a human or technology created by a human, and so is the thing that wrote it? ~2026-30732-23 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
On the human part: an encyclopedia use concise, objective descriptions from a third person perspective to present a neutral tone; this means that we typically don't address the reader directly. while we can replace eg. "you are a human" with "it's likely that anything capable of reading this is a human", it can be perceived as addressing the obvious and/or trivial in its tone. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk20:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-30732-23 why would that need to be mentioned? any person reading this article knows they are a human. it might be a fun fact or something but it is very unnecessary Anarchnid (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Intersex and Trans people
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I agree that the article could better reflect human diversity by including more information on intersex and transgender populations. According to the UN OHCHR, intersex variations are a natural part of human biology, and many cultures worldwide recognize more than two genders. Including these perspectives would help address systemic bias and improve the article's neutrality. I suggest we add a brief mention of this under the 'Biology' or 'Society' sections. ~2026-28096-75 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Humans (Homo sapiens, meaning 'thinking man' or 'wise man')"
why doesn't it say "from lat."homo" etc."
it should have the latin etymology linked, like almost all other species names do. Anarchnid (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is actually a weak figure, why not put 99.9% or 99.5%, 99% is actually really not very much at all and does not tell us much~2026-32848-04 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
According to the introduction, humans are characterized among other things by "hairlessness". This is simply wrong. Other then people suffering from Alopecia or going through chemotherapy, humans have hair all over the body, including famously the top of the head. Humans do have a "reduced hair covering/hair density" compared to other apes, but are far from "hairless". Anarchnid (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Yeah there's a recent edit to that now! Someone on Threads noticed it too when the existence of this page got viral there. Eapuerto (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
You are complaining about an idiom not being literally true. The description of humans as "hairless" is decades old. It's never meant absolute baldness head to toe. It indicates that humans are anomalous among apes in lacking full body fur. It is correct to refer to humans as hairless apes. But explanation may also be appropriate. Some quick examples of this usage here and hereand one more here. And I'll throw in one more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35495-81 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Biphasic sleep
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I find it odd the article doesn't mention at all the fact that humans naturally sleep Biphasically and I would like there to be some mention of it in the sleep category KBalch1 (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps you should first establish this claim. And good luck doing that. All evidence points to any type of regular polyphasic sleep in humans as being a cultural product, not biological. Indeed, human wellness is observed to suffer when a person is unable to achieve regular monophasic sleep. The only notable observations of historical biphasic sleep in humans don't even bother to consider why these practices were employed (for example, as a possible intentional act to maintain security), they simply allege it was a natural phenomenon. And if we pay attention, they ignore some obvious flaws in their thinking. For example, it's been alleged that biphasic sleep patterns are the origin of banditry in the dead of night. But if everyone was "naturally" sleeping biphasically, then the "dead" of night would never have existed until modern times, and whole towns would be awake and active, thwarting the criminals. Then there's the universal phenomenon of having distinct waking versus sleep wear, and the contrast of napping in waking clothes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-35495-81 (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
While I agree that Wikipedia *should* discuss biphasic sleep, for WP: article size reasons I feel it's better for this "Human" article to very briefly summarize and link to the "sleep" article. That "sleep" article should go into more detail on biphasic sleep; and, in turn, to link to "biphasic sleep" for even more detail. --DavidCary (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Sleep practices are far from uniform across the world. Sure biphasic sleep in pre-industrial Europe was (still can be) a popular sleep practice in lots of places, but if we consider non-European populations biphasic sleep is not very popular. Like circumpolar populations (because the sun is either up for months or down for months) can practice polyphasic sleep (naps) across the 24-hour day and regular long 12+ sleep cycles in the 24-hour night. And many pre-colonial cultures through central and southern Africa practiced monophasic sleep (still can). Among animals (I think only primates are generally monophasic sleepers?) macaques in tropical locations can practice monophasic sleep and colder places (like Japanese macaques) can be biphasic sleepers. Or coyotes in the wild are normally biphasic but in the city monophasic (since humans in this region of the world are often diurnal). Like I don't think this biphasic/polyphasic/monophasic sleep pattern is too important to this article to introduce (I'd say it goes back to the issue of considering a strict default state of human as 1 single thing rather than being a cultural adaptable species) but if it is we shouldn't portray biphasic as the correct way to sleep Dunkleosteus77(talk)23:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
02:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
. Seriously though, it wouldn't be consistent with the way we write about other topics, or the way other encyclopaedias write about this one (see e.g. ). So no, not a good idea in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
