![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sorry about the previous edit of hominin to hominid :) I wasn't thinking and instinctively saw it as a typo. Mishac 15:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This entry is so badly riddled with errors that it needs to be completely rewritten. I am reluctant to simply wade in and do so, and would prefer input from others about the best way to handle it. But I do want to post this warning to users. User:MBalter
Maybe you could lift the veil just a little bit and tell users some things about what's wrong here. I wanted to make a link to Homo georgicus, but am in doubt now. I don't know anything about the subject. Soczyczi 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have begun an attempt to make the pages on Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, and Homo georgicus resemble each other in format and content more closely. I shall try to present each competing interpretation, but have often settled, half-way through the page, on presenting each species as legitimately distinct (while letting readers know, of course). My main concern is that these six pages present many prevalent and valid interpretations but no conformity of tone or content between pages (or sometimes even paragraphs). I shall also try to make conglomerate authorship less detectable between pages, personally editing large chunks using my own tone. I shall attempt, however, to let no personal interpretations of our ancestry interfere with the hypotheses presented. I will not eradicate any additions to these pages' content, obviously, but will attempt to make their voice and presentation uniform. Homo Ergaster ( talk) 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hate to be the one to point out the obvious here, but the skull photograph is sideways and needs to be rotated 90 degrees clockwise.
Audaciter ( talk) 04:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Homo georgicus is not a recognized species, and these findings are not mentioned in standard textbooks on human history. They are probably a hoax by Georgian nationalist scientists - they certainly do not have credibility among paleoanthropologists. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 00:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
skull. Nature 434:717–18: Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A., Ferring, R., Rightmire, G. P., Zollikofer, C. P., Ponce de León, M. S., Agusti, J., Kiladze, G., Mouskhelishvili, A., Nioradze, M. and Tappen, M. (2006), A fourth hominin skull from Dmanisi, Georgia. Anat. Rec., 288A: 1146–1157. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 02:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
We will soon be merging this article into Homo erectus. It truly is a no-brainer. Cadiomals ( talk) 21:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted to the tags-only version before the merger. I'm not anti-merge, nor pro-merge at this point. I have yet to better educate myself on this subject. But it is best for all to settle things first on the talk, and then to do the merge, if that's the consensus. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sorry about the previous edit of hominin to hominid :) I wasn't thinking and instinctively saw it as a typo. Mishac 15:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This entry is so badly riddled with errors that it needs to be completely rewritten. I am reluctant to simply wade in and do so, and would prefer input from others about the best way to handle it. But I do want to post this warning to users. User:MBalter
Maybe you could lift the veil just a little bit and tell users some things about what's wrong here. I wanted to make a link to Homo georgicus, but am in doubt now. I don't know anything about the subject. Soczyczi 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have begun an attempt to make the pages on Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, and Homo georgicus resemble each other in format and content more closely. I shall try to present each competing interpretation, but have often settled, half-way through the page, on presenting each species as legitimately distinct (while letting readers know, of course). My main concern is that these six pages present many prevalent and valid interpretations but no conformity of tone or content between pages (or sometimes even paragraphs). I shall also try to make conglomerate authorship less detectable between pages, personally editing large chunks using my own tone. I shall attempt, however, to let no personal interpretations of our ancestry interfere with the hypotheses presented. I will not eradicate any additions to these pages' content, obviously, but will attempt to make their voice and presentation uniform. Homo Ergaster ( talk) 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hate to be the one to point out the obvious here, but the skull photograph is sideways and needs to be rotated 90 degrees clockwise.
Audaciter ( talk) 04:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Homo georgicus is not a recognized species, and these findings are not mentioned in standard textbooks on human history. They are probably a hoax by Georgian nationalist scientists - they certainly do not have credibility among paleoanthropologists. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 00:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
skull. Nature 434:717–18: Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A., Ferring, R., Rightmire, G. P., Zollikofer, C. P., Ponce de León, M. S., Agusti, J., Kiladze, G., Mouskhelishvili, A., Nioradze, M. and Tappen, M. (2006), A fourth hominin skull from Dmanisi, Georgia. Anat. Rec., 288A: 1146–1157. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 02:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
We will soon be merging this article into Homo erectus. It truly is a no-brainer. Cadiomals ( talk) 21:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted to the tags-only version before the merger. I'm not anti-merge, nor pro-merge at this point. I have yet to better educate myself on this subject. But it is best for all to settle things first on the talk, and then to do the merge, if that's the consensus. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)