Talk:Human/archive

Capitalization?

Is there a consensus on whether "human" should be capitalized when it's used as a species name? -- EtaPiscium 17:07, 22 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Evidently not. I was wondering the same thing, over four months later.

The question is whether "human" should be treated consistently with other sentient species ("Vulcan", "Klingon") or whether it should be treated as it is in contemporary usage (i.e., not capitalized). My leaning is toward the latter, but a consensus on this would be helpful. --Josiah Rowe 19:18, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)

I like it in caps, as we are speaking within the trek universe. However, I will bow gracefully to a community consensus. Tyrant 19:41, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT)Tyrant

Out of the hundreds of species we have in the Trekverse, all of their names are uniformly capitalised, except for "human". This seems rather Human-centric imo, and too 21st-century for MA's supposedly 24th-century pov. Therefore, we should either start writing "klingon" and "vulcan" in addition to "human", or go the easier route by just uniformly capitalising "Human". Randee15 22:16, 6 Mar 2005 (GMT)

4 species?

What are the other 3 species from earth?

I believe it is supposed to just be three, the other two would be the Voth, and the Cetaceans. Evidently someone mistaked the Federation as a species, to make four. --Gvsualan 23:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The forth is Neanderthal. Jaf 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf

Picard quote

I've removed the sentence about humans no longer having aquisition of wealth as their driving force. Perhaps Picard was only trying to make us sound better than we are in First Contact, but we've seen enough evidence of humans still trying to make money. -- Redge | Overleg 11:52, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

"Threshold"

Should we include the eventual evolutionary tract of Humanity as depicted in "Threshold"? — THOR ^=/\= 18:15, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

• It can only be a possible evolutionary tract as evolution is not linear, if it were every species on Earth would be the same, everything coming from one cell and all. I have no idea why sickbay would have caused such an odd survival adaptation... heh. Jaf 19:24, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Suggestion

How about a heading called "views by other species"? It may be interesting to see how Vulcans, Klingons, Borg, etc feel about humans. We might also note that the Vulcan word for the species is "koomihn" and Ferengi call them "hew-mons".--StAkAr Karnak 12:59, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Feeble bags of mostly water

As feeble as they are looked upom by other species of the United Federation of Planets, humans are called the glue that holds the Federation together.

The above is a recently added sentence that I edited. But is it really needed? --From Andoria with Love 07:48, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Well... Are they considered "feeble" by others (sources!)? Are they specifically called "the glue that holds the Federation together" (sources!)? If so, then yes, it should be part of the article - perhaps with the colloquial "feeble" changed to something else. If not, then not. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Temporary PNA

I'm too tired to find the exact place where the table was added showing different ethnicities and I apologize to whoever worked so hard on getting all those pics to align the way they do, but the table was just too wide. Hopefully someone else will be able to sort it out because I'm going to bed, for now it has a table with lined up but oddly sized pics. Oh, and to correct my edit summary, I understand the table's placement now, but that goes to show I need sleep. ;) --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 08:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I figure it has the most relevance to "Biology" and I moved it there with an altered title to better fit. Personally, I don't like the 'racial scorecard' quality of the table at all, since that kind of thinking is supposedly left behind in the Trek universe. --Aurelius Kirk 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I too don't know if it is even necessary to showcase all the different ethnicities - unless this was addressed in the episodes somewhere, ethnicity/descent generally seems to be a non-issue on Star Trek. Perhaps with the exception of "Native American" (Chakotay, some of the relocated groups found on other planets), but I guess we have an own article for that (if not, we should). The main problem here, though, seems to be the do-it-yourself style of this "gallery". There's a Mediawiki feature for exactly that, so maybe we should try to find all the existing self-made galleries, decide which ones are really necessary and convert them into correct markup. The way it is now, simply uploading another revision of an image contained in this table will break the complete thing if the aspect ratio isn't exactly the same. Bad idea... :) -- Cid Highwind 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... Originally, it had some pics on the side that said humans of whatever descent, which is fair enough. My initial reaction when I saw the gigantic table was to just remove it, but then I thought other people would oppose that decision. Now I'm starting to think it might make sense from a "scientific" standpoint, but I don't know. Also, thanks for fixing it Aurelius. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 05:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Races

I'm not so sure I like the listing and titling of race groups, the social sciences and biology have been avoiding catagorizing in that way for years because of its obvious problems and I'm assuming Wikipedia is avoiding it for similar reasons. But, more to the point for MA, do these terms and groupings have trek references? Otherwise I really don't see what they add to the article. Jaf 13:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf

There is only one race - The human race.--MikeStrett 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected Human from being edited by non-registered users since some IP user continues to add irrelevant inforation to the article. --From Andoria with Love 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

really though

there are at least a handful of episodes that clearly show the human race was the product of "seeding" by other species, doesn't that mean that the canonical explanation is that darwin was horribly wrong? and that biological evolution DID NOT happen at all on earth, at least not to humans?0101010 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't those episodes say 'life was seeded' not that humans were seeded (I am taking it you are refering to TNG 'The Chase'). If that is the case Darwin was correct (We all evolved from a common ancestor).--MikeStrett 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. They are commonly confused to be the same thing, but they are not.

Moved from talk:Species 5618

This shoud be merged with and redirected to Human, like Species 180 redirects to Ferengi. Kennelly 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, merge. --Alan del Beccio 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree. It's a distinct enough a term to merit its own article. Just has "Terran" has its own page, instead of an unimaginative redirect to Human. -- Krevaner 23:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Consistency is the key, there shouldn't be one Borg species designation a separate article while the others aren't. Also, Terran is more than just another name for Humans, its an adjective describing a whole lot of things.Kennelly 00:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Not too mention that Terrans was used far more often than Species 5618. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What makes humans different

Perhaps more so than in other Science Fiction series (like Farscape and Babylon 5 (see example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se9FNdyKFtk, touching isn't it? )) the defining thing about humanity is a very strong will and perspective that can get them through anything. This fact belongs in the article I think. It is obvious (to those looking for it) in most episodes and movies. 65.27.139.162 12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems more like POV fan speculation/perspective than anything else to me. It isn't something really stated in canon, I don't think it really belongs. It isn't like Babylon 5, where human qualities are emphasized and flat stated, like that "humans form communities, it is their greatest strength". We don't have a speech by Emperor Malari, or something equivalent that I can recall. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I know there is nothing as obvious as a speech (that clip was from a movie anyway), but if you look for it, you can see it all through the multiple series and movies. There is always the human factor that makes Humans different. Usually it is portrayed in contrast to the other races (the other races are basically based on individual aspects of humanity). There is always that factor of how humans are superior in some important but not too apparent a way to most aliens.

And that clip wasn't an example of how it is in star trek, it is an example of some of the qualities I am talking about. 65.27.139.162 05:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Past Tense

Can I please go ahead and put this article in the past tense, like the other species articles? It just seems inconsistent. --Commodore Sixty-Four^(talk) 11:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's driven me nuts for too long. If we are going to have a past tense policy here, it needs to apply everywhere. So I did it. If you disagree, you can always revert. --C64 11:03 10/10/2007

Biology

I added a PNA cite to the Biology section. While true, it needs Trek citations.– Cleanse 09:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Every episode?

So far, humans are the only species to have made a appearance in every episode of all six Star Trek series and all ten films. In addition, the lead characters of every Star Trek series so far has been a human.

How do we define "appearance"? What about "Living Witness", where only representations of humans were seen?--31dot 23:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Humans are the only species to have made an appearance in every episode to date of all six Star Trek series and all eleven films." What about "Living Witness"? AFAIR, there were no humans there, only holograms. 95.25.43.33 16:34, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

So... you're repeating exactly what is said immediately above? -- sulfur 17:05, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

This should read like this:

Humans are the only species to have made an appearance in every production of Star Trek, with the exception of VOY: "Living Witness", where the humans seen were just holographic representations.

- Archduk3 17:54, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Questioned note

Several episodes of Enterprise and Voyager reveal that such interspecies breeding was risky, and would most likely fail without medical intervention. One prominent example is that of a Vulcan-Human hybrid such as Spock, who is explicity stated in 2009's Star Trek motion picture to have been the result of genetic adjustment to allow Amanda to concieve; real physical law indicates that a natural half-Vulcan such as Spock is chemically impossible, because the two species' blood chemistry (copper vs. iron) are biochemically incompatible.

I haven't removed this yet, but the article already states that medical help is sometimes needed, and I don't recall it being mentioned in the movie. Does anyone know what scene it was in?--31dot 10:49, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

In case of belanna torres, it is said that its guite possible with Humans and Klingons. These 2 species are biologically compatible, but within other species it can get quite risky. Truth of this can be found within Belanna Torres & K'Ehleyr (different combination of half human half klingon father mother combo). Klingons even looked much more like humans in original Star Trek series and when asked worf about it, he only breafly comments it as "It was genetical mishap" and that "We rather dont speak of it" (episode where Enterprise crew revisits episode of the original series due timetravel where they had a problem with furry species overbreeding). Racial trait being klingon forehead ridge, which is slightly smaller than of the Klingon equivalent. --JHawx 16:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't in the movie I saw. - Archduk3 17:50, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well your right about that, because it was seen in the series, where the crew went back to find a person who tried to alternate the past, thatswhy i said they "revisited" the movie. --JHawx 19:09, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't in the episode either. First, it wasn't the crew of the Enterprise that went back in time, second, Worf never made any mentions of genetic mishaps. All he said was "we don't speak of it with outsiders." --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:16, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Naming incostincency?

I just figured out that naming is intypical to the universe on humans. Other species is referred by their originating planetary systems (eq, acamarian, lives at acamaria III). Now humans are called "human" or "Terrans", but accordingly to the logic of intergalaxial naming, humans should be then called "Solarians". Oh, and btw: humans are also being called "Pinkskins, hue-mans" and so on... Maybe its nothing special, and maybe writers were just a little lazy on naming issues, dont know, but its kinda funny. --JHawx 16:01, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, consider the Klingons, who definitely don't come from Kling or Klingus (although those were presented in earlier non-canon productions)--they come from Qo'noS. It would seem that some species (if not many) have "alternate" names for themselves--humans almost exclusively refer to themselves as such, but sometimes aliens will refer to them as "Terrans". Similarly, when someone from Acamaria III (to use your example) refers to themselves as an Acamarian, they may be doing it primarily for the purpose of simplifying communication with aliens. -Mdettweiler 17:47, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well thats also little bizarre, as "Terra" is latin reference to earth, or infact ground soil surface opposed to sky or moon. Our star, which is a sun, is latin for "Sole", thus it would be more consistent that other species would speak of us as in "Solarians" from Sol III. But as you mentioned it, it might be how aliens have self image and relationship to their sun. Humans seem to believe they came from the erath and revolve on the idea. People who live in the moon also dont refer themselfs as "Moonians"... I wonder if it would be different if Earth was not only livable planet in the solarsystem. But is there another notable races which home planet differs from the name of theyr race? Bajorans are still bajorans, vulcans are from vulcan, Romulans are from vulcan (but thats different story alltogether). I dont remember this correctly, but isnt Klingons originally from another planet? before accident of the energy moon or something??? (movie where cpt. kirk is accused of murder with bones???) Wasent that planet called klingon? --JHawx 19:32, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

No, as seen in Enterprise they were on Qo'noS the whole time. The planets atmosphere did seem to change in color somewhat between ENT and TNG, however, so that may have been a result of the Praxis incident. -Mdettweiler 06:42, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

it is also possible that this is an exception that proves the rule scenario it may well be that most beings do refer to themselves as something such as acamarians from acamariaIII while there just happen to be a few that go by something completely different such as klingons from Qo'nos (Thetrekinator 14:58, March 26, 2010 (UTC))