![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
during which AMH populations exploded vastly outnumbering Neanderthals (my new version) vs. during which human populations exploded vastly outnumbering Neanderthals (previous version, restored by Wretchskull)
Whats the definition of human here ? As one of 2 possibilities of taxonomic positioning of the (sub)species is homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the adjektive human for non-Neanderthals doesn't make sense, plus isn't used in that sense (for indicating h.sapiens resp. h. sapiens sapiens in contrast to h.neanderthalensis) a second time in this article.
Why wouldn't AMH be adequate plus more precise ? Is AMH exclusively attributed to another period of time ?
This wasn:t intended to be any kind of vandalism, but a serious attempt to correct a given glitch. -- MistaPPPP ( talk)
@Wretchskull I cite from this same article: "...traits such as human bipedalism and language". Well, bipedalism isn't specifically or exclusively sapiens sapiens at all. With language we don't know. When I read the passage we're discussing, I became confused: How can humans replace Neanderthals who are temselves humans ? - and then intended to find a less confusing form.
How about: "... during which populations of anatomically modern humans exploded, vastly outnumbering Neanderthals". The term AMH is used in the same article preceding the passage here in discussion, for anatomically modern humans. The rather pleonastic term AMH humans is also used. ;-] -- MistaPPPP ( talk)
The section on recent human evolution cites source 251 and talks about the reasons for human brain expansion. However, if you go to the main article on recent human evolution, it says that the human brain is shrinking. How can both be correct? EditorPerson53 ( talk) 02:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
SimplisticReps thanks for sorting out the refs for File:Homo skull changes.png. A couple of points 1. Refs 56 and 67 are showing errors. 2. It would be helpful to add the refs to the image file for the benefit of any editor who wants to use the image in another article. Dudley Miles ( talk) 22:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Ontoraul: Edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=1120234055 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_evolution&curid=10326&diff=1120323463&oldid=1120234055 changed |date=August 22, 2002
to |year=2002
with ne explanation of the reduced precision and changed a citation to
Boyd, Robert;
Silk, Joan B. (2003).
How Humans Evolved (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
ISBN
978-0-393-97854-4.
LCCN
2002075336.
OCLC
49959461. (9th edition 2021)
Which edition is correct and shouldn't it be in |edition=
rather than a parenthetical note? Or is that intended to be a citation of two different editions?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
18:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
during which AMH populations exploded vastly outnumbering Neanderthals (my new version) vs. during which human populations exploded vastly outnumbering Neanderthals (previous version, restored by Wretchskull)
Whats the definition of human here ? As one of 2 possibilities of taxonomic positioning of the (sub)species is homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the adjektive human for non-Neanderthals doesn't make sense, plus isn't used in that sense (for indicating h.sapiens resp. h. sapiens sapiens in contrast to h.neanderthalensis) a second time in this article.
Why wouldn't AMH be adequate plus more precise ? Is AMH exclusively attributed to another period of time ?
This wasn:t intended to be any kind of vandalism, but a serious attempt to correct a given glitch. -- MistaPPPP ( talk)
@Wretchskull I cite from this same article: "...traits such as human bipedalism and language". Well, bipedalism isn't specifically or exclusively sapiens sapiens at all. With language we don't know. When I read the passage we're discussing, I became confused: How can humans replace Neanderthals who are temselves humans ? - and then intended to find a less confusing form.
How about: "... during which populations of anatomically modern humans exploded, vastly outnumbering Neanderthals". The term AMH is used in the same article preceding the passage here in discussion, for anatomically modern humans. The rather pleonastic term AMH humans is also used. ;-] -- MistaPPPP ( talk)
The section on recent human evolution cites source 251 and talks about the reasons for human brain expansion. However, if you go to the main article on recent human evolution, it says that the human brain is shrinking. How can both be correct? EditorPerson53 ( talk) 02:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
SimplisticReps thanks for sorting out the refs for File:Homo skull changes.png. A couple of points 1. Refs 56 and 67 are showing errors. 2. It would be helpful to add the refs to the image file for the benefit of any editor who wants to use the image in another article. Dudley Miles ( talk) 22:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Ontoraul: Edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=1120234055 and
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Human_evolution&curid=10326&diff=1120323463&oldid=1120234055 changed |date=August 22, 2002
to |year=2002
with ne explanation of the reduced precision and changed a citation to
Boyd, Robert;
Silk, Joan B. (2003).
How Humans Evolved (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
ISBN
978-0-393-97854-4.
LCCN
2002075336.
OCLC
49959461. (9th edition 2021)
Which edition is correct and shouldn't it be in |edition=
rather than a parenthetical note? Or is that intended to be a citation of two different editions?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
18:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)