Talk:Human

September 2006: As per the recent race names vote at Project talk:Writing policy#Race name case, the correct race name spelling is "human" and not "Human"

Origin?

Is there any lore in the origin of the humans, like with the dwarves, centaurs and the such? -AaFf

I've added a section on Tolkien lore regarding humans. -Piroko, 06.23.2006

Why add all that Tolkien lore? While it might be relevant to refer to some similarities between the humans in both Warcraft and Tolkien's lore, it's not relevant at all to add the actual lore if there's no real need for it (nothing you're referencing through it). Cool Z 06:54, 8 July 2006 (EDT)

well i think that they in the beginning was some kind of trolls, but their psysical bodies was left behind at some point in evolution (as trolls are far stronger) but their brains somehow lept forward in evolution... kinda like humans and monkeys in the real world

Who says Trolls are stupider than humans? They probably have the same brainsize, they Humans just have more advanced civilization. Saimdusan

Highly doubt they were related to trolls. Lore implies they, then known as Azotha were barbaric and warlike like trolls, but nothing implies they looked like trolls. Also trolls are just as smart as humans, their brains are about the same size. Only difference is cultural differences.Baggins 10:25, 22 November 2006 (EST)

I personally think that trolls and humans are related. Look at the night elves! They can look almost human. Charred But Alive 17:26, 20 December 2006 (EST)

And Blood Elves can look even more human ;) Although, I rather think Humans share a common ancestry with the Dwarves.--Odolwa 14:51, 23 December 2006 (EST)

Okey, now we got our answer! The Humans originate from the Vrykul. --WoWWiki-Odolwa (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya and the Vrykul come from...  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 11:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the Vrykul-article, it seems they were created by the titans.--WoWWiki-Odolwa (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that humans came from high elfs high elfs came from night elfs and night elfs came from trolls —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christracy19 (talk · contr).

Uh huh... in any case, please sign your comments. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:58, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

"Out of the millions that once populated the Eastern Kingdoms in many splendid and wonderful fort cities, merely two hundred thousand are still alive."

I dare to say that this is nonsense. While it is certain that humans once numbered millions (even currently the population of the city of Stormwind, the largest remaining human city, is 200000) it is ridiculous to say that only 200000 are still alive. --Theron the Just 08:07, 22 November 2006 (EST)

The population of stormwind is either 200,000, or 20,000. Its been said by the current editor of the rpg books, that the 200,000 may have been a typo. For people who have done the math that comes out to 203,160 humans in eastern kingdoms according to the numbers established in lands of conflict if the 200,000 in stormwind is utilized. Considerably less if city is only 20,000, in which case it limits humans in eastern kingdoms to a mere 77,160 individuals.

As for the population of humans living in Kalimdor? Its alot less than in eastern kingdoms according the numbers given in Lands of Mystery. Going by its numbers in largest single human settlement in Kalimdor, theramore there is only 5040 humans, other zones with humans usually don't go more than 300 individuals. That is to add up all the zones where humans make up 1% or more of the population in Kalimdor, that only comes to about 7500 total.

Between Eastern Kingdoms and Kalimdor that comes out to a total about, 210,660 humans, or 84,660 humans depending on how many people actually live in Stormwind.

If we figure in the known populations from Undermine(2000), and Northrend(6600), total of 8600, that only comes out to either, about 219,260 or about 93,260 humans in the world. Baggins 09:32, 22 November 2006 (EST)

The funny thing is, the RPG book things aside, theres millions of human player characters in existance. if we count players thats still millions of humans in all of Azeroth. I think its worth taking into account and the 200,000 or 20,000 numbers should be dropped as old news. Nurizeko

Yes, but since when does game mechanics work into lore? If it did, then all the raid bosses and instances bosses would be said to have some sort of immortality power. And that NPCs in instances are somehow considerably stronger than your average individual of that race, and that the majority of blood elves are Paladins and the majority of draenei are Shaman, etc. -- Archmage Rodyn

I think when they say 200,000 in stormwind they mean members of stormwind i see members in ironforge and outlands and not all of stormwind is human. So i think stormwind only has 20,000 in the city and only 15,000 are humans and i think there are 500,000 humans in the alliance yes 500,000. The alliance page says there are 800,000 members in the alliance and each race dose not have that many members so there must be 500,000 human but that's what i think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christracy19 (talk · contr).

Human Aging

According to the aging statistics in the rpg middle age is an average of 35 years, old age is an average of 53 years. If someone lives to be venerable, they are average of 70 years old. Granted aging statistics are part of gameplay mechanics and are determined by dice rolls, so aren't 100% reliable, they also pretty much only hint at a ballpark age range.Baggins 09:40, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Human Warlocks Starting Attributes

The article says they have Starting Int of 24 and Starting Spr of 22... shouldn't it be Starting Int of 22 and Starting Int of 23? --Gollum 19:18, 25 December 2006 (EST)

why not hunter?

Article says: "The humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers and divided into many tribes."

Yet they can't be hunter class! Weird! Humans are prolly the most suited to be hunters, historically speaking!

Sign your posts, please. "hunter-gatherer" is an anthropoligical term, and does not have anything to do with the hunter playable class. Also, just because playaers cannot be hunters, does not mean that there aren't human hunters in Azeroth. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:35, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Also, note the key-word "were". They've changed much since those days. --Korgo 18:02, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Class balance always boils down to two things: Flavor and balance. Every race has a counterpart on the opposite faction which must conform with each other in available number of classes to be chosen. Taurens-gnomes, blood elf-draenei, human-Forsaken. Hunter is one of the classes that make the least sense for gnomes and humans from a flavor standpoint.

Virtually nothing in lore discredits anyone from being anything. Nothing is stopping an orc from being a paladin or a gnome from being a druid as long as they have the appropriate teachers. It's just for balance, and also to maintain a certain "feel" for the race.--Zexx 19:48, 11 January 2007 (EST)

I think they should be hunters. Actually the opposites of humans are orcs, not forsaken. And the opposites of gnomes are Trolls. The Tauren's counter parts are the dwarves.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.X8 (talk · contr).

Sign your posts... Actually trolls and goblins aren't very good examples "opposites" and they hardly have anything in common. Strangely if one was using  [Orb of Deception] to track "opposites" gnomes are the opposite of tauren. Closest analog to an "opposite" to gnomes however, would probably be goblins.Baggins 01:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No Standard

Why is the crest of Lordaeron used to symbolize Humanity? Humans, unlike Night Elves or Tauren for example, are seperated into Nations, they don't exist solely as a race. There is no symbol for them, so scrub the crest. Mannerheim

The article is mostly about the humans we play in WoW, and the infobox reflects this. User:Kirkburn/Sig 01:25, 23 January 2007 (EST)

He brings up a good point. I request a change. The humans we play in WoW hail from Stormwind, not Lordaeron.--Zexx 10:17, 23 January 2007 (EST)

If you can find Stormwind's crest and make the image appear similar to the other racial crests, that's fine. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:03, 23 January 2007 (EST)

By the way, I was wondering why Lordaeron symbol is present on Horde PvP Shield?User:Sul'jin/Sig12:35, 23 January 2007 (EST)

The humans we play in WoW don't all hail from Stormwind... they come from wherever the player says they come from. (I.e. the paladin I RP as is from Lordaeron.) --TM41 17:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The humans we play come from Stormwind, suck it in RP'ers, the game starts you off in Northshire, the intro goes on about the humans of stormwind, you are a citizen of Stormwind, Stormwind, Stormwind, Stormwind. Now the RP whine aside (why do RP'ers always cry?) I vote in favour of a Stormwind crest if a suitable one is found. Nurizeko

I don't know the exact reason, but the Lordaeron crest is used in World of Warcraft to represent humans, in the officially licensed World of Warcraft products. I have a bookmark that shows that symbol as well. Its also that way in the World of Warcraft manual as I recall, as well as on Sons of the Storms website, Samwise gallery (where its referred to as the "Icon of Courage"). I can only guess they chose Lordaeron's crest as it has history pointing back to older nation of Arathor. That is most humans originated from the north. In anycase the "Icon of Courage" is the official "standard" representing playable humans created for the World of Warcraft game, and should not be changed.Baggins 14:18, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the reason Blizzard made the human symbol as Lordaeron is probably because Lordearon was the last true human nation to exist. Azeroth/Stormwind was wiped out and occupoed by orcs in the first and second wars, Stromgarde fell to the Syndicate, Gilneas secluded itself from all the world, Alterac was traitorous and the king was forced to abdicate. I can go on and on. But Lordaeron was the last bastion of hope, Lordaeron was the nation that was basically the head of the "Grand Alliance" (The grand alliance of the second war). Basically, Lordaeron was the greatest human nation in the world until the it's fall in the third war. The Kingdom of Stormwind/Azeroth is now the only true human nation and everyone is a citizen of it, by birth, exile from home-land or just plain protection. Stormwind is the only human city around and people don't have much of a choice but to be a Stormwind citizen, because if they're not part of Stormwind, they're alone. Stormwind is a kingdom but its citizenship is greatly diverse, Exiles from Stromgarde, Survivors from Lordearon, like I said before, they don't have much of a choice.Evaristo

Exactly as stated above, the main reason that the lordaeron crest is used even in stormwind is because lordaeron led the humans in the second war against the orcs and succeeded, so for nostalgia's sake, stormwind kept it as their banner as lordaeron fell in the third war to honor "the greatest nation of the alliance" Smokinhot151 (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC) smokinhot151

Lifestyle, Magic and Technology, and Warefare

These three lore sections were originally written by me, as an attempt to bring some flavor and flesh out the human article a little more a while back. Now I realize that alot of it is just based on general observations from the games and lore, rather than any direct fact. I've been told recently to be more careful with this sort of thing in another article, when doing articles relating to lore, so my question is, since its more fluff than citable lore, should these large sections be removed or largely edited? --Korgo 13:28, 31 January 2007 (EST)

If it's not factual, it should be removed. If it can be backed up by lore facts, then it can stay, provided it's marked as observation/speculation, not fact.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:52, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Racial Talent: Increased Swim Speed?

Now, I could swear as far back as v1.10, humans could swim much faster than any of the other playable races... Whatever happened to that? Did it get removed altogether, or is it still listed? ~ Doc Lithius (U)(T)(C) 12:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Never existed afaik. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 01:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Still Existent?

I've never played Warcraft I(although i'd love to!) but the way i understand it the humans of Stormwind/Azeroth was largely destroyed exept for a few thousands who escaped with Lothar. The Second War ravaged Alterac, Stromgarde, Dalaran, Kul Tiras Gilneas(If memory serves) and destroyed large parts of Lordaeron. Then the plague came about killing many more, followed by Arthas return with the Scourge where thousands should have been killed to.

So looking at this, every human area of the Eastern Kingdoms has been under enemy control(even it has only been briefly) either by the Old Horde or the Scourge, and these enemies aint the kind of guys who just wanna be kings themselves and leave civilians alone.

So should there be even those 200.000 left in the world? And should more than 20% be male, as they are most likely to die on the fronts? -Rovdyr 00:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Warlike view of diplomacy"

A quote from the article: "...they have a warlike view of diplomacy — swing first, ask questions later." What is this statement based on? PRH 12:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is right out of World of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game.Baggins 12:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I haven't read that. I just didn't see any examples of that in the actual human history (aside from Admiral Proudmoore's invasion of Durotar). PRH 12:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hunters

Shouldn't we add something about them being hunters. I mean there's a lot like Daryl, Leupold, that guy in Light's Hope, all the Scarlet Beastmasters and Huntsmen. Mr.X8 Talk Contribs

Humans, defenders of the what?

While many humans are paladins and stuff, that doesen't really qualify them to be titled "defenders of the Light". What about human Warlocks? Are they to defenders of the light? I just feel it's a incorrect description of the race... --Ose 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PALADINS, not HUMANS, are the defenders of the light, so that can mean dranaei or even dwarves Smokinhot151 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC) smoky151

Dalaran's Neutrality/independance

Noticed in the table regarding the human nations, nothing is mentioned about Dalaran becoming independant, and neutral in the conflict between the horde and allaince, as they are in WotLK. Should this be updated, or are we waiting for more information and the expansion to come out?Tweak the Whacked 20:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of note they have been independent and neutral since before World of Warcraft, see Lands of Conflict. That's actually listed in the Dalaran page.Baggins 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of this. My point is that on the table on this page, while there is note about Stromgarde and Gilneas leaving the allaince, no such note is made in regards to Dalaran, which, in my eyes, makes the table somewhat incomplete. Yes, the information is mentioned elsewhere, but I think it should be listed on that table, as well.Tweak the Whacked 20:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Um...I started the table before we knew anything about Dalaran. I thought they were still Alliance until WotLK comes out? Okay, how about this, I'll change it a bit now and then when WotLK comes we can change it some more. --Kinst 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply believe that it should be updated for accuracies sake.Tweak the Whacked 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, I gave it a shot. Dalaran's kind of complicated but if there's a better way to summarize it for the chart feel free to change stuff around. --Kinst 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when do Humans = Dwarves?

I've been looking around, and most of the pages related to Humans (including the Azotha page) say they were originally Dwarves. Why? There is ZERO evidence this is true (I'm sorry, but a fake faction in the RPG book that can use one Dwarf spell is not evidence), so I have no idea why it's included on every Human page. --WarlockSoL (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, I doubt the possibilty humans are decended from dwarves based on the fact that the azortha were around back when dwarves were still earthen. I'd like to say that the Sisters of Steel is as offical a faction as anything else, moreso than some(A lot of stuff in wow is just put in for dumbed down gameplay).Tweak the Whacked (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On both Human and Azotha, the novel The Demon Soul is cited. Perhaps it could be phrased less "certainly", but what's wrong with the DS citations? Kirkburn  talk  contr 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation basically amounts to characters saying "well he looks like a tall Dwarf." You could say a High Elf looks like a Human with pointy ears, but that doesn't mean they are in any way related. It's just an observation on appearance, particularly given that the Night Elves had not seen a Human before (logically they would jump to a race they knew about which looked the most similar for comparison). It's just not a good justification for claiming a connection between the two races. Especially when, as Tweak pointed out, Earthen and Humans (Azotha) co-existed in the same time period. --WarlockSoL (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, quote in The Demon Soul as actually more of a hypothesis of "perhaps" they evolved from a dwarf.

Alliance Player's Guide, however connected humans, dwarves, and gnomes together mentioning that some women have been able to take on the stoneskin hinted at being based on Khaz'Goroth. This of course doesn't mean that Humans directly evolved from dwarves, but it points out that they were likely originally a stone creation from the Titans.

Point of note the Azotha page doesn't state that they evolved from dwarves, just that it was one hypothesis given. It specifically states "may", something that "may" is hardly solid fact, and it certainly a qualifier that points that out. Its only a hypothesis, and a suggestion only. Now if it had said, "Humans irrefuteably evolved from dwarves" then it would be incorrect. But as it is written now, its only one possibility out of any number of possibilities.

Finally, as far as evolutionary history goes a race evolving from another race doesn't necessarily mean that the previous race went extinct. There are a number of examples in earth paleohistory of species evolving from another species and both species coexisting at the same time. It is believed that polar bears for example evolved from brown bears (it is possible for both to reproduce, though it wouldn't happen in the wild).

Finally, its a bit silly for one that distrusts the RPG, to try to use information from one source in the RPG to discredit another source in the RPG. It shows hypocricy, and a proclivity to pick and choose sources based on ones own personal tastes and a lack of objectivity. Remember the idea that humans living at the time of the dwarves, originates from the RPG. Its not mentioned anywhere else.Baggins

The human page however stated they were "apparently" cousins of dwarves, which twists a bit too far. I've edited it to "may have been". Kirkburn  talk  contr 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I could probably find you references where they are said to be cousins of dwarves :p... I know the rpg called night elves cousins of humans and high elves, heh heh. See Talk:SpeciesBaggins (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"When the human mage Rhonin was captured and magically scanned to discover what manner of creature he was, the sorcerer examining him found that he was biologically closest to the Earthen.

Anyone care to confirm that reference? Because if that scanning took place it changes the idea from a mere hypothesis to a scientific/magical tested fact. If they are biologically close then they would be "cousins" (in the roughest sense of the word). Not necessarily that they evolved from the Earthen, but representing a seperate creation of the Titans.Baggins (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's not a good idea to present what are essentially theories in the main articles (at least not without the big "This is a theory" tag in front of it). I think removing that first paragraph entirely (with the exception of the very first line about being Azotha) would be more consistant with what we actually know, rather than guessing. Ex: "Before the Great Sundering, the earliest humans (then known as the "Azotha") were a primitive nomadic race."

Regarding the RPG comment, aside from my opinions on certain things like Appendix III, even if you are to take that as an official group, how does having the ability to use Stone Skin make them absolutely related to the Dwarves? I mean, a Rogue learning how to cast a Fireball doesn't automatically make him a Mage. It's just an aberration. In any case, even a connection to the Titans doesn't necessary imply a relation to the Dwarves. Personally I see a lot of possibilities coming out with WotLK and potentially Uldum answering some of these questions - though of course, that is just a personal guess at this point. But overall, so far all of the evidence suggesting a connection to the Dwarves is very shakey at best. --WarlockSoL (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the part concerning the theory about the relation between Dwarfs and Humans should be placed under a speculation tag. Just me though. Warchiefthrall (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also speculation is something fans make up based on content in other sources. However, a cited informaton coming from a source doesn't fall under the purpose of the speculation sections, but as just another form of lore. As long as it is citeable it can exist (but it has to be cited as a possiblity not the only truth) as is the case in the Azotha article.

Alsoit should be noted stone skin is not described as a spell but a biological phenomena in most of the sources it appears in, something of heritage tied to the Titans. Its much different than a "fireball" spell. The use of stone skin in the games is of a spell but the descriptions say otherwise. Lore > Game Mechanics.

Also, legends, theories, myths, or hypothesises make up a large part of ancient history. If we simply removed them from articles, then articles would be much shorter. It is clear to most people, that something stating "may be" or "may have been" if from a cited source, is hardly set in stone, but points to a suggestion made by Blizzard sources. Which are considered far more credible than fan speculation.Baggins (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Baggins (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dwarven Stone Skin perhaps, but Mages can cast things like Molten Armor on themselves - who is to say there are not spells to produce very similar effects to the Dwarven racial trait?

I should also point out, the Sister of Steel turn their bodies to Steel, not Stone. So I'm not exactly sure how that relates to the Dwarven racial (there are no steel-based Earthen, at least that we know of). --WarlockSoL (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The lore in the Sisters of Steel for one. It discusses it may be from an ancient titan heritage, and the fact that it isn't a "dwarven-only phenomena" that these women start to change over time. Its nothing that they ever cast upon themselves (although initiallly in the game mechanics section some of it can be used as a spell-like "feat"). Lore > Game Mechanics. It has nothing to do with "Molten Armor".

Actually go back and read information on Sisters of Steel it says specificall "Stone or steel" or stone or metal or rock in a few spots. Also if you read into some of the articles on stone skin in the rpg its also described sometimes as being stone or steel. Steel roughly being equated to a type of stone. Some of the late end aspects of this actually has sister turning into mobile stone and metal statues;

"...the sister of steel surpasses her mortality and becomes a being of living stone and metal..."pg, 64.

Sisters of steel is more of a nickname than a description the lore sections specify stone, rock, granite on more than one occcasion.

Also the intial problem in this page was do "humans equal dwarves" no one has stated that humans equal dwarves. From a evolutionary standpoint a species that evolves from another species is not the equal of the previous species as it has evolved into something different. Being a cousin does not mean that they are "equal". In other words even if humans have evolved from a dwarven prototype that doesn't mean they are dwarves themselves. No way does it state that they are "equal". Humans and neanderthals are cousins that doesn't mean they are equal. BTW, there are legends that state that night elves evolved from trolls, that comment is cited into their page as well. It hasn't been confirmed but represents a valid lore myth, and thus citeable.Baggins (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Baggins, let's try and keep the steady stream of talk page edits to a minimum - edit conflicts ahoy :P Kirkburn  talk  contr 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So sorry, :(.Baggins (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Except Night Elves evolving from Trolls is taken from an in-game text that explicitly states this (even if it's in a legend/possible myth format), not a few very weak sources that result more from coincidence and hearsay than actual evidence. Also, I believe Magusrogue has come out to say that Blizzard considers that to be generally a true legend. --WarlockSoL (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

1. We don't listen to hearsay from outside sources, i.e what authors say outside of publications (there were problems caused by that in the past). 2. Once Blizzard publishes a source that confirms the idea that trolls are night elf ancestors then it will be cited here. The Troll Compendium was last source to bring up the subject, but it left it nebulous yet again, stating it was only the belief of a few historians (I.E. fairly similar to the idea from night elf researchers studies concluding that humans were some kind of variation of a dwarf). 3. We are objective here, we don't pick and choose sources, as long as it is from a citeable published source then it is considered credible. It is hypocritical and biased point of view to do otherwise. To view one source as "weaker" than any other is certainly a biased point of view.

From, Project:Lore policy;

Official sources of lore All official sources of lore are considered valid. This includes the games and the manuals, the novels, the manga, and the RPG books.

Comments by authors, artists, and Blizzard employees may also be of interest, but should always be clearly cited as such, and not taken as definitive statements of fact.

Baggins (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the night elf scholars examining Rhonin, if I remember correctly taht examination was more them giving him a look over than any spell work being involved, but I can't seem to find the exact page that the scene was on, so I can't confirm it.Tweak the Whacked (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The exact quote (page 21) is: "He called himself a human, but some of the Moon Guard had divulged that their studies indicated he was some variation of a dwarf who had simply grown much taller than his fellows." --WarlockSoL (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it then, I was looking in the wrong book. I remembered that line from the demon soul, but I thought I remembered the actual examination detailed(well, as close to detail as you get in a knaak book) in the well of eternity, so I was looking in there.Tweak the Whacked (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence suggests that the Alliance Player's Guide was severely mistranslated from the original Dwarvish it was written in. Dylan Bissel (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually matter of fact Brann makes repeated references to the fact he usually writes in Common throughout his books. Minor point though, and doesn't change much.Baggins (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Looks like a vandal moved the page from Humans to human. Please revert back. --Shargas the Naga (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been moved, just the displayed name has been changed. I will remove the line that does this, as it's not really required. Kirkburn  talk  contr 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Human (playable)

I noticed that in the boxes at the bottom of each race page they have WoW's playable races and and among other ones, everyone here knows that. Dwarf and Undead have playable after them which is understandable as their are different forms. However with humans they also have "playable" after each. There's no other forms of human (except the forsaken and they're listed seperatly), so why do they have it ater their names? I mean there's the azotha, but they're widely unknown and there's little on them. On a completely unrelated note I was walking and I saw a block with a memorial to one "Patrick Guldan". Funny huh?   Mr.X8 Talk Contribs 23:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For starters, this page is lore while the other is largely stats etc. Also this page is about all humans, wether they are from Lordaeron, Stromgarde or Theramore, while the Human(Playable) page covers the humans of Stormwind that you are playing(thats not stopping RP'ers that want to be from Kul'tiras however) -Rovdyr (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and that Guldan guy sounds cool :P -Rovdyr (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

X8, surely you clicked the links? Kirkburn  talk  contr 11:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Azotha

Well, we have to decide if Azotha is the term of the ancestors of the humans or not. The only evidence I've found supporting it is just the following: ...and named the land as a whole in homage to their ancient ancestors: Azeroth.. From there it is said that their ancestors were named Azeroth or something similar, and as the Azotha is the only matching word then I suppose that Baggins[1] supposed that the ancestors were the Azotha. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking the sources of the Azotha article I found out that most of that information should be here in the human article as most of those sources doesn't contain the word Azotha.

Besides, is anyone opposed to add in the article the citation from above? I think it's pretty obvious that those mentioned ancestors were the Azotha. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll cleanup the Azotha article and add back the citation to this article if no one oppose. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

More Nations

Just wondering. We include in the 'nations' table a list of supposedly all the human nations of the world, yet there is conciderable evidence that there are more. Tol Barad is almost always refered to as a kingdom (albeit on that was conquered by Stromgarde, and has passed through numerous hands since), whilst several regions arround Stromwind are called independent (if quite weak) human nations (e.g. Elwynn and Duskwood). Thus i must ask why these nations are not included in the table, with their histories recorded like the others (with something like 'independent-annexed by Stromgarde, conquered by horde, annexed by Kul Tiras' for Tol Barad etc. I will be happy to do it if this gets the go-ahead. gadget (talk) 09:38, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

I've seen several versions of that table (Here, in Seven Kingdoms and in Alliance of Lordaeron. I think we should make it a template, and put a header saying "Seven Kingdoms" or "Main Kingdoms". Also, you can find here the independent Stormwind regions' table. And maybe Tol Barad should be added, but I think we should wait until the Cataclysm release, with a possible expansion its past lore. Benitoperezgaldos (talk | contribs) 04:10, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Regions like Duskwood and Redridge are not independant, they are autonomous. Tol Barad seems to be only autonomous as well, but as it's also refered to as a kingdom I take it that is has unique historical and cultural importance and can be considered a nation.--Weasel (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Population of Lordaeron

Do we have a number on how many humans escaped the plagued Lordaeron, how many became Scourge and from there how many Forsaken broke free? TherasTaneel (talk) 09:44, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Forsaken: The Undercity has a population of 13,000 according to the WoW RPG book, and a few thousand more in Tirisfal proper.

Survived & Escaped: Apart from the Human Expedition that fled to Kalimdor under Lady Jaina, there's mention of an unspecified number of 'refugees streaming to Khaz Modan and Azeroth' in the RPG books.

Survived & Remained: The Scarlet Crusade was 12,000 strong as of Dark Factions. A number of them later broke away to form the Argent Dawn. There's also the human presence in Southshore, Dalaran Crater, and Silverpine.

Scourge: Beyond the above, it's a grey area.

Deepred (talk) 12:07, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Image

It has been changed a hundred times, I think we should decide on one.  High Warlord MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe (talk contribs) 01:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed it because the last one looked a little small. But I like the current one if you guys want my two cents on it. It's big, looks cool and is a human. (Sports72Xtrm (talk))

No No I like that image it's just something of the article.  High Warlord MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe (talk contribs) 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this page deals with all things human, I think the first thing someone sees when they come here should give them a good idea of what the average Warcraft human (both male and female) is going to look like and dress like. These strike me as good introductory images for those reasons:

• http://www.wowpedia.org/File:Nightelves-160x.jpg
• http://www.wowpedia.org/File:BloodElvesSots.jpg

In the absence of multi-character pictures, images like these are also good because they depict generic representatives of those races with very traditional attire:

• http://www.wowpedia.org/File:Playable_Orcs.jpg
• http://www.wowpedia.org/File:JungleTroll.jpg

I think it's kind of misleading to use someone like Garrosh to represent all orcs, or Fallingstar to represent all night elves, because they're so different from what the "normal" members of those races look and dress like. Using Varian as the "iconic human" isn't quite as jarring, but he's still a character with unique equipment and a very distinctive appearance. Egrem (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, if there was a good image of a human Paladin I'd say use that because of the title. If not I'd say use this image: [2]. Erthad (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The human mage used to be in the infobox, until someone changed it. So it's funny you suggest that. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Capital/Leaders

This page isn't about the playable humans or Stormwind so Stormwind and Varian shouldn't be the only things listed in the info box. Either the other kingdoms need to be represented or it shouldn't be in the info box at all. Erthad (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Stormwind is capital of the whole Alliance. Varian is High King. Add any others if you want but they stay.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, Varian isn't High King yet.--SWM2448 02:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean he's not high king?  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 23:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Cite that he is.--SWM2448 23:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought since he's leader of the Alliance... but what do you mean by "not high king yet". Is this something I haven't heard of yet?  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 00:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"High King" is a new concept to be added in a Mists of Pandaria quest chain.--SWM2448 00:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah... that's strange. I'll change some things around.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 00:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Title

I changed the title slightly as it was shared with draenei. It also gives the idea all humans are light worshipers while they are much more diverse.  The Artist Formerly Known As, MoneygruberTheGoblinMind your manners (talk contribs) 01:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Population?

I am a bit confused over human population. Where is it written that humans are the most populous race? The only source that I can think of are the non-canon RPG books. Humans seem to be close to extinction now if we look at their recent history.

It could well be a quote from the RPGs. It's highly unlikely that they are currently the most populous, compared to, say, murlocs, but before the First War they were likely the most populous land race - they were certainly spread across the largest geographical area.--Weasel (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, we should remove the sentence then. At the moment, humans are basically just the survivors of each kingdom.--Anurajbh (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Anurajbh

Untitled?

I seem to remember that they were titled "Defenders of the Light". Why was this removed?

It was agreed upon to remove them in the forums, Forum:Racial Titles. --DoomeЯ TC 14:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Human Nation Populations

Considering they're taken from the RPGs and are listed in the non-RPG section, should they not be removed or at least moved down to the RPG section? Right now they're posing as false canon which is wrong in itself but could also confuse people who don't look at the actual sources. – WarGodZajru (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

They should be moved down, yes. Xporc (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Problems with racial leaders list

If Aiden is going to be on this list, it raises the question if all AoL human leaders should be on it to. Even if he's just here because he was to last leader of his nation, that brings another problem. Varian and Anduin are both on this list, so should we be adding every other former human king as well? I proposed putting Jaina in the current leaders because she has still been an influential leader after Theramore's destruction, first as leader of Dalaran and now she is going back to Kul Tiras. If father and son Varian and Anduin can be on the list, then can't mother and daughter Katherine and Jaina as well? Theramore was always just a city-state anyway, not one of the Seven Kingdoms. But do we really want to list every single former human leader? And doesn't Supreme Allied Commander count as an important leader among humans? That's why I thought Turalyon belongs here as well. --ShadowShade81413 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe the author's original intentions was to have leaders of kingdoms/nations, not just people that happened to be influent, but at this point IDGAF anymore Xporc (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Theramore was considerate as a kingdom: Tides of War - "My kingdom (...)" - pg. 228, and Jaina left the Kingdom of Dalaran and the Kirin Tor in Khadgar's hands so she is currently a former leader of the kingdom/nation of theramore and a notable human without political power over the humans

It's better only have information about the last leader of every kingdom, with Varian as a exception for his role as High King of the Alliance and leader of the humanity, but this can be delete.

Turalyon is a notable human who curently lead the Army of the Light and the Lightforged, and similar to Jaina, don't have political power over the humans

SargerasDoomhammer (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with those points. Xporc (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

About Khadgar being Alliance. In BfA he's not going to take any part in the faction battle, so in every way that means he's out of the Alliance. He is like Magni. He has a past with the Alliance, but not anyomore. If he is not willing to fight for his faction that menas he is no longer part of it because if he was, that would be considered treason imo. And apart from the Second War, Khadgar has never been hostile to the Horde, on the contrary. In WoD he was told by Jaina to not aid them, but he showed her the middle finger and did it :/ I mean, how can you be with a faction you won't help in the next war? --Ryon21 (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, Kadghar isn't willing to take up arms against either side, I think that he is neutral (for now) SargerasDoomhammer (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because he refuses to fight doesn't mean he is no longer an Alliance character. The same with Magni, Blizz still consider him Alliance as seen on his official site page. --Mordecay (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's the same with Thrall during Cataclysm and MoP, during that time he had the neutral icon and the Horde affiliation, or the Kirin tor, the faction currently have the neutral icon and Alliance affiliation. SargerasDoomhammer (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Young race"

This sentence here sounds rather strange:

"Though humans are among the younger races on Azeroth, they have faced many challenges with fortitude and resilience. Their continued ability to adapt and rebuild has made them a vital force in an ever-changing world."

Humans appeared somewhere between -15,000 and -2,800. Dwarves appeared around -2,500 and Orcs really surfaced around -800, with the earliest possible appearance around -1,000 when the Ogres started evolving.

Dwarves and Orcs have demonstrated similar feats of strength, and I'm not mentioning even younger races. While I believe that sentence isn't false in itself, I'm not sure it belongs in the introduction paragraph.--KIROCHI) 12:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ehh I dunno, I think it's fine. PeterWind (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)