This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The information contained in this article seems to be incorrect when comparing it to the definitions found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paleoanthropology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.135.26.183 ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 March 2005 UTC)
I understand that this does relate with evolution, but the study of human origin is indeed more interesting than the origin of animal and plant life, though it doesnt exclude those factors. I would enjoy reading more on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.100.66 ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Time for an assessment. I notice in the history that quite a few users built this up and a few aren't on anymore. Wiki has grown some so maybe it is time for an assessment.
Here are my suggestions. 1) Convert this into a history of palaeoanthropology article with a line up front saying "this article is about the history of palaeoanthropology. For information on the evolution of humans, see Human evolution." It shouldn't be too much trouble to clean the article up on that basis. 2)Remove the duplicated material from the Human Evolution article and leave a line stating "For information on the history of anthropolgy .... This will allow a cleaner article, Human Evolution, which also happens to need cleanup.
I would have said something like this in the discussion of Human Evolution but that article is now so sprawling and the discussion so lengthy and fragmented (Wiki-chaos) that I doubt anyone would even see it much less consider it.
These are big topics and I am sure there are many ways to organize them. My suggestions are based on what is there now, which is where we seem to have to start. There are more anthropology articles on Wiki now so I suppose a lot of the cleanup will be offloading material to the other articles and referencing those. After all, one article is not going to cover human evolution, but 50 or 100 might if we use cascades of links. Dave 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to raise some questions about the citations. I do not doubt that there the citations are accurate (though, I do not know that they are either), however, there does seem to be a problem with an article that focuses only upon the history of the subject as opposed to the subject itself (a point made above). There also seems to be a lack of genetic information, and, *of course*, PICTURES! The genetic information would be most likely to yield scientifically reproducible evidence of a truthful kind, the history of the subject does seem to be marred in some politics, and hence, it might be best to remove the section and create a separate article for it. MrASingh 13:53, 24 Feb 2007 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'd like to remove the three individuals in the See Also section. There's no reason to list these three and not hundreds of others, many of whom are much more notable than these. Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is good and readable, but isn't Australia missing? As far as I can see discoveries there in the last 30,20 (?) years have blown the received wisdom on the timescale of Australian settlement to pieces. -- Radh ( talk) 19:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday, I added a section called Controversy to the article, in which I mentioned the work done by Michael Cremo and his book Forbidden Archeology. I named the section so because the contents of the section are about something that is often seen as controversial. Now I see that an anonymous user has removed the section, with the comment "There is no legitimate controversy. Also WP:UNDUE". First, I don't understand what is meant with "no legitimate controversy". What is it that is illegitimate, and why is that?
Second, the article WP:UNDUE starts with saying that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view". This article (Paleoanthropology) is already angled from the mainstream view, which is and have been affected by confirmatory bias and is therefore not neutral.
The book Forbidden Archeology illustrates this bias very well, as it consists of numerous examples of reports that have been banned from mainstream archeology because they contain evidence that don't fit the dominant views of human origins and antiquity. It is over 900 pages long, required eight years of research consisting of reading a large number of reports in many different languages, ant it has had a large impact on media ( [1]). It summarizes research done by other people who have in many cases risked or ever sacrificed their careers; the research that has been summarized has most likely taken far more than eight years in total, and I still don't see any trace of it in the rest of this article.
We need to have this section in the article in order to make it more neutral. I have therefore restored the section.
If you want to improve on the section, please feel free to do so. If you think the name "Controversy" is misleading or incorrect, please feel free to change it to anything you think is more suitable. — Kri ( talk) 14:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Kri, don’t tell a biologist he doesn’t know about biology. If humans were as old as Cremo says they are then humans would have had vertebral columns before the earliest forms of segmentation arose. Humans would have had fingers before anything else had fins. Humans would have had kidneys before anything else had protonephridia. And humans would have had well developed endoskeletons before anything else had notochords. The suggestion that humans could have had derived features before those features existed in their most primitive forms is absurd.
Furthermore, Cremo’s proposal would have humans living on an earth whose atmosphere they couldn’t even breathe.
Also, the genetic distance between humans and chimps and bonobos goes a long way towards establishing our place in the tree of life.
Cremo’s bullshit has no place in this article. We shouldn’t pretend that Cremo’s war on reality is anything more than creationism. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 18:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I see no controversy - what I do see is one user trying to use this article to support pseudo-scientific nonsense published by a religious organization. Seems when the content the user wanted to include was rejected per consensus here said user decided to declare a controversy and tag the article. Nah ... please push your pseudoscience elsewhere. Vsmith ( talk) 01:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I think the article could use some revision. The head section and the history section was (mainly) copied from one (secondary) source (
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Paleoanthropology). However - please join in and check my grammar, spelling... - please.
ATB
Wikirictor (
talk) 22:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Paleoanthropology, or paleo-anthropology (from Greek παλαιός palaiós "old, ancient", ἄνθρωπος ánthrōpos "man, human" and the suffix -λογία -logía "study of"), is the combination and a sub-discipline of paleontology and biological anthropology and is the study of the formation and the development of the specific characteristics of humans (hominization) and the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines in the family Hominidae by studying fossils, such as petrified skeletal remains, bone fragments, footprints and associated evidence, stone tools, artifacts, and settlement localities.
This is such a big mouthful with so many impediments, I'm finding it easier to recast the sentence than to delineate the issues.
Paleoanthropology or paleo-anthropology—a sub-discipline of biological anthropology and paleontology—is a branch of archaeology which seeks to understand the early development of modern humans, a process known as hominization, through the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines within the family Hominidae from biological evidence (such as petrified skeletal remains, bone fragments, footprints) and cultural evidence (such as stone tools, artifacts, and settlement localities). The term paleoanthropology derives from Greek palaiós (παλαιός) "old, ancient", ánthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος) "man, human" and the suffix -logía (-λογία) "study of".
I think I'm actually going to put that in. — MaxEnt 13:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there are separate page for that? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:B49F:C58C:7467:E818 ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The information contained in this article seems to be incorrect when comparing it to the definitions found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paleoanthropology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.135.26.183 ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 March 2005 UTC)
I understand that this does relate with evolution, but the study of human origin is indeed more interesting than the origin of animal and plant life, though it doesnt exclude those factors. I would enjoy reading more on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.100.66 ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Time for an assessment. I notice in the history that quite a few users built this up and a few aren't on anymore. Wiki has grown some so maybe it is time for an assessment.
Here are my suggestions. 1) Convert this into a history of palaeoanthropology article with a line up front saying "this article is about the history of palaeoanthropology. For information on the evolution of humans, see Human evolution." It shouldn't be too much trouble to clean the article up on that basis. 2)Remove the duplicated material from the Human Evolution article and leave a line stating "For information on the history of anthropolgy .... This will allow a cleaner article, Human Evolution, which also happens to need cleanup.
I would have said something like this in the discussion of Human Evolution but that article is now so sprawling and the discussion so lengthy and fragmented (Wiki-chaos) that I doubt anyone would even see it much less consider it.
These are big topics and I am sure there are many ways to organize them. My suggestions are based on what is there now, which is where we seem to have to start. There are more anthropology articles on Wiki now so I suppose a lot of the cleanup will be offloading material to the other articles and referencing those. After all, one article is not going to cover human evolution, but 50 or 100 might if we use cascades of links. Dave 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to raise some questions about the citations. I do not doubt that there the citations are accurate (though, I do not know that they are either), however, there does seem to be a problem with an article that focuses only upon the history of the subject as opposed to the subject itself (a point made above). There also seems to be a lack of genetic information, and, *of course*, PICTURES! The genetic information would be most likely to yield scientifically reproducible evidence of a truthful kind, the history of the subject does seem to be marred in some politics, and hence, it might be best to remove the section and create a separate article for it. MrASingh 13:53, 24 Feb 2007 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'd like to remove the three individuals in the See Also section. There's no reason to list these three and not hundreds of others, many of whom are much more notable than these. Thanks. TimidGuy ( talk) 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is good and readable, but isn't Australia missing? As far as I can see discoveries there in the last 30,20 (?) years have blown the received wisdom on the timescale of Australian settlement to pieces. -- Radh ( talk) 19:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yesterday, I added a section called Controversy to the article, in which I mentioned the work done by Michael Cremo and his book Forbidden Archeology. I named the section so because the contents of the section are about something that is often seen as controversial. Now I see that an anonymous user has removed the section, with the comment "There is no legitimate controversy. Also WP:UNDUE". First, I don't understand what is meant with "no legitimate controversy". What is it that is illegitimate, and why is that?
Second, the article WP:UNDUE starts with saying that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view". This article (Paleoanthropology) is already angled from the mainstream view, which is and have been affected by confirmatory bias and is therefore not neutral.
The book Forbidden Archeology illustrates this bias very well, as it consists of numerous examples of reports that have been banned from mainstream archeology because they contain evidence that don't fit the dominant views of human origins and antiquity. It is over 900 pages long, required eight years of research consisting of reading a large number of reports in many different languages, ant it has had a large impact on media ( [1]). It summarizes research done by other people who have in many cases risked or ever sacrificed their careers; the research that has been summarized has most likely taken far more than eight years in total, and I still don't see any trace of it in the rest of this article.
We need to have this section in the article in order to make it more neutral. I have therefore restored the section.
If you want to improve on the section, please feel free to do so. If you think the name "Controversy" is misleading or incorrect, please feel free to change it to anything you think is more suitable. — Kri ( talk) 14:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Kri, don’t tell a biologist he doesn’t know about biology. If humans were as old as Cremo says they are then humans would have had vertebral columns before the earliest forms of segmentation arose. Humans would have had fingers before anything else had fins. Humans would have had kidneys before anything else had protonephridia. And humans would have had well developed endoskeletons before anything else had notochords. The suggestion that humans could have had derived features before those features existed in their most primitive forms is absurd.
Furthermore, Cremo’s proposal would have humans living on an earth whose atmosphere they couldn’t even breathe.
Also, the genetic distance between humans and chimps and bonobos goes a long way towards establishing our place in the tree of life.
Cremo’s bullshit has no place in this article. We shouldn’t pretend that Cremo’s war on reality is anything more than creationism. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 18:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I see no controversy - what I do see is one user trying to use this article to support pseudo-scientific nonsense published by a religious organization. Seems when the content the user wanted to include was rejected per consensus here said user decided to declare a controversy and tag the article. Nah ... please push your pseudoscience elsewhere. Vsmith ( talk) 01:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I think the article could use some revision. The head section and the history section was (mainly) copied from one (secondary) source (
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Paleoanthropology). However - please join in and check my grammar, spelling... - please.
ATB
Wikirictor (
talk) 22:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Paleoanthropology, or paleo-anthropology (from Greek παλαιός palaiós "old, ancient", ἄνθρωπος ánthrōpos "man, human" and the suffix -λογία -logía "study of"), is the combination and a sub-discipline of paleontology and biological anthropology and is the study of the formation and the development of the specific characteristics of humans (hominization) and the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines in the family Hominidae by studying fossils, such as petrified skeletal remains, bone fragments, footprints and associated evidence, stone tools, artifacts, and settlement localities.
This is such a big mouthful with so many impediments, I'm finding it easier to recast the sentence than to delineate the issues.
Paleoanthropology or paleo-anthropology—a sub-discipline of biological anthropology and paleontology—is a branch of archaeology which seeks to understand the early development of modern humans, a process known as hominization, through the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines within the family Hominidae from biological evidence (such as petrified skeletal remains, bone fragments, footprints) and cultural evidence (such as stone tools, artifacts, and settlement localities). The term paleoanthropology derives from Greek palaiós (παλαιός) "old, ancient", ánthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος) "man, human" and the suffix -logía (-λογία) "study of".
I think I'm actually going to put that in. — MaxEnt 13:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there are separate page for that? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:B49F:C58C:7467:E818 ( talk) 17:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)