Talk:Human

Fire date conflict

(I don't often edit. Apologies in advance if I'm doing this wrong)

I was cross-checking the dates for fire usage by hominids and noticed a discrepancy. On the wiki page for Fire it says "Evidence of cooked food is found from 1.9 million years ago, although fire was probably not used in a controlled fashion until 400,000 years ago." and there is a citation. On this page it says "The controlled use of fire began around 1.5 million years ago." without any citation. I lean towards using the value with a citation behind it. But should the citation be re-cited here, or is a link to the fire page is sufficient?

68.8.202.217 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lordy! Just noticed there is an entire page devoted to JUST this topic Control of fire by early humans. I'm way out of my league in trying to determine what value should be used. 68.8.202.217 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe fire was given to man by Prometheus and not invented by any mortal person. I need to check my sources on this but I'm pretty sure it was a Titan and not man that made fire. We should all respect his legacy and not rewrite history as we see fit.

Antarctica

Technology has allowed humans to colonize all of the continents and adapt to virtually all climates. Within the last few decades, humans have explored Antarctica... although long-term habitation of [this environment] is not yet possible.

Is it just me, or are these two sentences directly contrary to one another? --MQDuck (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Long-term habitation of Antarctica I think is possible with current tech?! Theres quite a few permanent stations there, see here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the fact that the first sentence claims that humans have colonized all continents while the second claims that we haven't colonized Antarctica. Is Antarctica not a continent anymore? --MQDuck (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a problem with the wording there. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes... more like "long-term habitation of this environment is not yet comfortable." :P

That second line is definitely factually incorrect, it should probably instead say something about the fact that humans have large resident populations on every continent bar Antarctica - it is colonized but not 'settled' (or some other more precise word - I'm unsure of the best term to use).  • Gliktch •  ^(Talk)  08:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Permanent settlement in Antarctica would be impossible without continuous support from outside (particularly for food and fuel). I've lost track of what in the article is being debated here. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"A settlement is a general term used in archeology, landscape history and other subjects for a permanent or temporary community in which people live, without being specific as to size, population or importance." therefore humans" "Colonization, (or Colonisation in British English), occurs whenever any one or more species populate an area." "Human colonization is a narrower category than the related concept of colonialism, because whereas colonization refers to the establishment of settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations, colonialism deals with this and the ruling of new territories' existing peoples." "There are no permanent human residents but anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 people reside throughout the year at the research stations scattered across the continent" "Antarctica has no indigenous inhabitants, but there are permanently- and seasonally-staffed research stations, and former whaling settlements. The largest of these, McMurdo Station, has a population (summer) of about 1200 residents. Approximately 29 nations, all signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, send personnel to perform seasonal (summer) and year-round research on the continent and in its surrounding oceans; the population of persons doing and supporting scientific research on the continent and its nearby islands south of 60 degrees south latitude (the region covered by the Antarctic Treaty) varies from approximately 4,000 in summer to 1,000 in winter; in addition, approximately 1,000 personnel including ship's crew and scientists doing onboard research are present in the waters of the treaty region. At least ten children have been born in West Antarctica." Therefore this article is not correct. Humans have colonized and settled in all continents including Antarctica.

Technology has allowed humans to colonize all of the continents and adapt to virtually all climates.

It's true since the beginning of humankind. since the invention of fire, through the ice age etc. I think there's no need to explain much here...

Within the last few decades, humans have explored Antarctica...

This is not true. Antarctica was explored long before a few decades ago. Even if you are referring to the exploration of the whole continent itself.

"Belief in the existence of a Terra Australis—a vast continent in the far south of the globe to "balance" the northern lands of Europe, Asia and North Africa—had existed since the times of Ptolemy (1st century AD), who suggested the idea to preserve the symmetry of all known landmasses in the world. Depictions of a large southern landmass were common in maps such as the early 16th century Turkish Piri Reis map. Even in the late 17th century, after explorers had found that South America and Australia were not part of the fabled "Antarctica", geographers believed that the continent was much larger than its actual size. European maps continued to show this hypothetical land until Captain James Cook's ships, HMS Resolution and Adventure, crossed the Antarctic Circle on 17 January 1773, in December 1773 and again in January 1774" "Cook in fact came within about 75 miles (121 km) of the Antarctic coast before retreating in the face of field ice in January 1773" "In December, 1839, as part of the United States Exploring Expedition of 1838–42 conducted by the United States Navy (sometimes called the "Ex. Ex.", or "the Wilkes Expedition"), an expedition sailed from Sydney, Australia, into the Antarctic Ocean, as it was then known, and reported the discovery "of an Antarctic continent west of the Balleny Islands". That part of Antarctica was later named "Wilkes Land", a name it maintains to this day. Explorer James Clark Ross passed through what is now known as the Ross Sea and discovered Ross Island (both of which were named for him) in 1841. He sailed along a huge wall of ice that was later named the Ross Ice Shelf (also named for him). Mount Erebus and Mount Terror are named after two ships from his expedition: HMS Erebus and Terror. Mercator Cooper landed in East Antarctica on 26 January 1853.[14] Nimrod Expedition South Pole Party (left to right): Wild, Shackleton, Marshall and Adams During the Nimrod Expedition led by Ernest Shackleton in 1907, parties led by T. W. Edgeworth David became the first to climb Mount Erebus and to reach the South Magnetic Pole" few decades? wtf?

although long-term habitation of [this environment] is not yet possible.

This must be a joke. long-term habitation is even possible in space and other planets! it's a proved fact that humans have this ability. "not yet possible"? what a joke. __-_-_-__ 03:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Image Region

I think it should be mentioned beneath the image that the people featured are east-asian, as not all humans look like that.

e.g. "East-Asian human male and female" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.139.127 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, not all East Asians look like that. In fact, just about everybody looks different from everybody else. But then, everybody knows that already, right? Rivertorch (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Other lead images have captions, I suggest 'An Akha man and woman'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, absolutely NOT! Captions should describe what is being illustrated. In this case, the image is an illustration of the general body plan and gender differences (and use of cultural artifacts like clothes) of humans. We are most pointedly not illustrating "how Akha people look different than other people", which would be the meaning of Martin Hogbin's proposed caption. LotLE×talk 18:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. "Random humans" is the idea, although I suppose that would sound silly in an encyclopedia caption. Rivertorch (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The two people shown are 'random' humans in that there is no particular reason (except for the availability of suitable images) to show them as opposed to anyone else. They are also two Akha people and we have no reason to want to hide this fact. Have a look at say wasp, beetle and tree for example, in all cases an arbitrary example is given but with a caption giving more specific information. We should do the same here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The examples mentioned by Martin Hogbin are all at the level of Linnean family or higher (in fact, order or higher for his examples). In contrast humans are a species. I do not believe that any (or certainly very few) other articles on a particular species distinguish by variety or breed within the species infobox (the obvious exception here being canis lupus familiaris). We should follow the pattern of the large majority of WP articles. LotLE×talk 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is why the image should be a collage. JPotter (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ explains why that's not the best idea rather well: Talk:Human/FAQdraft --Cybercobra (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, in fact it commits a logical fallacy in the explanation. JPotter (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

LotLE By your statement,'"how Akha people look different than other people", which would be the meaning of Martin Hogbin's proposed caption', you seem to have presumed that this caption would have some meaning which is neither stated, implied, nor intended. On the other hand, I have no objection to the current caption, 'Human male and female' Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we agree about the caption. LotLE×talk 21:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just want to third the motion to keep the caption as-is. Without accusing anyone of prejudice for thinking otherwise, I think including the race of the humans would be essentially racist in meaning. Obviously race exists, and these people are from a particular place, but why build race into the image at all? By contrast, the surprised reaction most humans might have to the generality of the caption has a wonderful set of implications about how we are all one species. It's funny, but I think that the current caption might make us think *more* about race than we would if it was in the caption, but that its a really good and also just plain fun thing about the article. The fact that it's also following the standards for other species is a bonus too, obviously the Human article should follow the standard for other species. Jeremyclarke (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way as Jeremyclarke does, and I thought I'd share my findings after a quick trip around WP looking to disprove LotLE's assertion that the breed isn't specified for the example image on species pages. The first place I looked, of course, was dog. This does give the breed. But I then went on to check cat, horse, camellia sinensis and vitis vinifera, none of which specify which breed or cultivar the image portrays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balfa (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. A good picture of a human male and female. There's no such thing as a "typical" human, though I guess if you wanted the most populous ethnic group you'd have to go for Han Chinese. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sexism or Sex-based Hierarchy

There is a section on race, but not on sexism, or any mention of division of labour between men and women or roles in society, the patriarchal structure of societies, or anything of that nature. I think this page ought to mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.223.98 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the anon here. We give a general mention of the physiological sexual dimorphism of humans, but really do not have any words at all about cultural sexual structures. Obviously, it's tricky to walk the line correctly, since there are few universals in the exact nature of sexual division in human societies. But there are enough broad patterns that we could figure out brief and well-cited mention, with links to appropriate related articles for broader discussion. LotLE×talk 09:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It may stir up some heated discussion but we should write something. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose something like this sentence and more: Msushi (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The sexual division of humans into male and female has throughout history been marked culturally by a corresponding division of roles, norms, practices, dress, behavior, rights, duties, privileges, status, and power.

Sounds good to me. Ideally, it should be referenced though. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think this is one of those cases where the point is too broad for one narrow citation, and wikilinks to relevant and more detailed (and cited) discussions works better. E.g. to Gender#Sociological_gender, Patriarchy, Division_of_labor#Sexual_division_of_labour. I do think we could find some Intro to Anthropology book or the like that would say something similar, but I'm not sure the real benefit. LotLE×talk 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That said, I think this citation for the Division of labor article is pretty good: "Sexual Division of Labor by White, Brudner and Burton (1977, public domain)." LotLE×talk 00:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a suggested expansion of the above first sentence.Msushi (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The sexual division of humans into male and female has throughout history been marked culturally by a corresponding division of roles, norms, practices, dress, behavior, rights, duties, privileges, status, and power. These cultural differences have traditionally been understood to have arisen naturally out of the biologically based division of reproductive labor, extended from women's giving birth to nurturing and caring for children and household. Historically, there have been fewer matriarchies i.e., societies in which women hold the greater degree of political power, than patriarchies.

Just looking at the above; here's a proposed modification for better clarity and to say something about feminism:Msushi (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The sexual division of humans into male and female has throughout history been marked culturally by a corresponding division of roles, norms, practices, dress, behavior, rights, duties, privileges, status, and power. These cultural differences have traditionally been understood to have arisen naturally out of the division of reproductive labor; the biological fact that women give birth led without question to their further responsibility for nurturing and caring for children and the household. Challenges to these gender roles have been mounted with some success by 20th century feminism, mainly in first world countries, where organized opposition to male power over women has increasingly won for women greater political rights than they had previously. Historically, however, patriarchy (i.e., societies in which men hold the greater degree of political power) has been greatly predominant over matriarchy.

Population density

One of the conversions is an error in the Green-headed column 'Human society statistics'.

Autochtony writes - a square mile is bigger then a square kilometre - by a factor of, roughly, very roughly, two-and-a-half.

Accordingly, if there are about twelve humans in every square kilometre, there should be about thirty in every square mile (because a square mile hass about two-and-a-half square kilomtres in it, and thirty is about two-and-a-half times about twelve). That is for overall planetary area.

190,000,000 square miles, at say thirty per square mile, gives nearly six million people [which is right within a factor of 1.2 - not out by a factor of >7, which the figure of <5/square mile will give].

Now, someone needs to look at the numbers per square kilometre of land and per square mile of land. And then change the number cited (at 2144z, 24.11.09) for each square mile. Thanks.

Autochthony wrote 2144z 24.11.09. 86.151.60.238 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. The same blunder is at Population density#Human population density. I don't have time to fix it atm, but here are my calculations:

• Population = 6,799,171,622 popclockworld
• Earth total surface area = 510,072,000 km², land surface area = 148,940,000 km² Earth
• Square kilometers per square mile = 2.58998811

These figures produce population densities:

13.3 per km² (34.5 mi²) by total area

45.7 per km² (118.2 mi²) by land area

Johnuniq (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many things happening here for me to reliably fix this atm...the figures at Population density are correct... Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

picture in anatamy

I think the picture of the man and woman nude shouldbe removed because a lot of kids visit this sight at school and this picture would be considered "inapporaite" in a school area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the school can filter it themselves. Wikipedia is not censored. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to suggest that your school technology staff look at this:Options to not see an image.  7  03:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Will someone just remove it and get over with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs)

In a word, No. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Now you've asked three times and received the same answer three times. Enough, please. Rivertorch (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What if you put a picture showing the inside of a human such as a skeleten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Because, that is not what human being look like. If your cause is to protect children, then I strongly urge you to take he advice you have been given. The presence of that picture has been hashed out in debate which you can read in the archives. The consensus of the editors is that this picture is appropriate in demonstrating the exterior anatomy of the human body. An encyclopedia article that discusses human beings must ultimately discuss anatomy, and to do so selectively is to be a disservice. This encyclopedia is filled with topics that may not be wholly appropriate for children of all ages, and it is up to parents and educators to make that decision, and to take appropriate actions on their end of the internet. It is generally inappropriate for an individual or small group of individuals to demand that this website do the job that they themselves should be doing on their end. What would happen if a group of (for example) people representing faith X complained that articles related to faith Y were inappropriate, because their children might read them, and might be tempted to change faiths? I would think the appropriate response would be that this is not the concern of the encyclopedia, and is the concern of the parents. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think thats a good example plus a kid could possibly get into huge trouble for seeing a puicture like this while doing a report on humans I just don,t thiink it is a good picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any harm in the nude pictures. Even if a kid came across them, they have a right to know about his and his opposite's body and what it constitutes. These images are not sexually suggestive telling kids to engage in any sort of sexual intercourse. And if they get caught at school, is it really their fault?? Plenty of books in the school library will at least have illustrations of the human body. Many religious cultures teach that the human body is a vice and must be covered at all times. I reject such dogma. Mat Wilson (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I thought better about it, I realized you are right, kids could really get in trouble for seeing an image of nude people on en encyclopedia. Anyway, there's an official Wikipedia policy that says that if someone asks for the same thing five different times, then he really means it. I will remove the pictured and change it for pictures of skeletons shortly. Won't somebody please think of the children? --Fixman^{Praise me} 05:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is an attempt at WP:SARCASM. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It would have succeeded, too, had it not taken eight days to arrive. :) Rivertorch (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My issue with this picture is not at all the nudity. Rather, I'm totally perplexed as to why both the man and woman have no pubic hair and the man is virtually hairless. If the picture is meant to present the exterior anatomy of fully developed humans, it would be greatly amiss for both of them (who are clearly post pubescent) not to have pubic hair. Frankly, it seems that the lack of hair is a reflection of contemporary Euro-American hairless beauty standards and not an accurate example of human exterior anatomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.160.90 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a case of using what we've got. If you know of a better image, please provide a link so we can argue about it discuss it. :) Rivertorch (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The pictures that demonstrate the changes in age should show people who look very similar.

The differences in ethnicity are greater than the differences from aging. Surely the little black girl's skin did not turn white when she went through puberty! I think it would be better to have a selection of pictures that show some of the various skin colors, facial features, weights and heights of humans, and have an illustration to demonstrates the changes through aging. Citizen Premier (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP is WP:NOT a picture gallery, and even if we had suitable images to show the cross-product of skin tone, facial feture, age, weight, etc. it would disrupt the article to put in dozens or hundreds of images to illustrate such differences. The range we have shows a decent snapshot of humans of two genders in three general age ranges (child/young adult/older adult), which is plenty. Readers can guess that humans (like other animals) vary along many ranges of features. LotLE×talk 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. And re "the differences in ethnicity are greater than the differences from aging", how on earth could such visaully subjective differences be quantified and why on earth should we try? The current images are satisfactory. Rivertorch (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request: Conservation status

Please update the conservation status from "Least Concern" to "Overpopulated" as of December 17, 2009.

Edit request: last sentence of lead

In the last sentence of the lead: "humans are the only species known to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies", please take out the part about cooking food. The other things in the sentence are about technologies we made to be useful, but cooking food is a human-specific adaptation based on our diet, not a thing we made because we're so clever. Maybe you could replace it with something to do with transportation or communication technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.131.175 (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite in the second person.

This would really make more sense, since everyone reading about this is a human, and referring to them in the 3rd person is kind of strange.

For instance.

Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family.[2][3] We are the only surviving members of the genus Homo. We have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the arms for manipulating objects, has allowed us to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that we as modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago.[4] We are widespread in every continent except Antarctica, with a total population of 6.8 billion as of November 2009.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.255.115 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE! Name any other animal that could read and comprehend this article. There are none! Only us!! Mat Wilson (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is silly, and is clearly not going anywhere. As a start, the person mentioned is known as "first person" not "second person". Articles on Wikipedia are not written in the first person. Not the article Man, even though many editors of it are indeed men. Not the article on Catholicism, even though many editors of it are Catholics. Likewise not the article Left-handedness, or Party of the Democratic Revolution, even if left-handed PRD members write those articles. And not the article Anonymous, even if 66.31.255.115 decides to edit it. The voice of an encyclopedia is the third person, so it has always been, and so it shall be. LotLE×talk 08:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Main Article Image

I dislike this article's main image of the two Thais. I find it would be better to place a more "modern" couple. Think of an industrial American business man and woman.. the height of human progress! These farmers are living in the past!!

Am I prejudice? Probably! ;P But as beings capable of abstract reasoning, art, math, sciences, etc.. let's put something that represents are defining characteristics at their peak.. not as serfs!

Mat Wilson (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The image should be representative of typical humans. The current picture fits that purpose very well. Balfa (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove the racist rant simply to maintain the courtesy of discussion here. Whatever the merits or flaws with the current lead image, the fact the pictured subjects are Thai (rather than great and glorious "modern American business men" is not a flaw. The perfectly modern Thai farmers pictured are at least as capable of abstract reasoning, etc. as is any other modern human. Xenophobia, progressivist ideology, and cultural bias is simply ugly, and has no place on the article, nor really even here on the talk page. LotLE×talk 08:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, let's leave it be, if only as a reminder that human folly knows no bounds. I was left scratching my head, wondering whether Thai businesspersons or American farmers would have been acceptable but the combination somehow wasn't. I also wondered at the strange reality of "modern" humans "capable of abstract reasoning" but apparently incapable of understanding that if farmers are "living in the past", we're all due to starve very soon. (Also, some of these "modern" humans seem woefully incapable of proofreading their own talk-page posts, but that's neither here nor there.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually.. yes, my previous comment was somewhat racist. Thailand has business people too! I just prefer the industrial style over any sort of farmers (whether they're Thais or any nationality). But that's probably because I ain't a farmer and I like industrial cities with skyscrapers and all that. Then again, Balfa said: "representative of typical humans".. and it is true, still, a large portion of the race is not industrialized and still doing traditional farming methods and not yet rich enough for more machine power due to abusive governments that stifle man's mind. I did not mean to express that Thais were inferior in anyway! And indeed, I should have proofread before I posted, like Rivertouch said. I am not racist and I agree 100% with user, "Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters" that Thais are just as fully capable and have same type of brains as Americans. By "modern", I mean anything within the past 100 years and specifically from the past 50 years on up in terms of technological progress... like machines, computers, steel building, et. al.. I also hate progressivist ideology and the new racism: multi-culturalism. Cheers! Mat Wilson (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a species that is about 200,000 years old. During at most 150 years of that existence, humans lived in the large, industrialized cities that Mat Wilson mentions. Choosing such a narrow and unrepresentative depiction would be something like insisting the article Canis must be represented by an image of Soviet space dogs. In contrast, the current image represents (approximately) a level of technology and style of social and economic activity that humans have engaged in for at least a large part of our history (still probably only 20,000 years, but at least that is 80x as long). LotLE×talk 23:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is very true!! I just recall (maybe it wasn't this article) of the main image being the Pioneer plaque and I really liked that because of it's simplicity and nakedness. Again, nothing more than personal preference.. I am being arrogant in this case! ;) If I don't like it though, I'm free to write my own webpage on my own server. ;) And the Pioneer plaque is great for aliens!! So.. we can end this discussion. The image is fine for Wikipedia! Mat Wilson (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Aliens might read this, so go with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.198.158 (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

See response just above! ;) Mat Wilson (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)