This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homo floresiensis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Homo floresiensis is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 24, 2004.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
"Hobbit banned as title of lecture on prehistoric 'hobbit'". The Guardian. 30 October 2012. "I am very disappointed that we're forbidden by the representatives of the Tolkien Estate to use the word 'Hobbit' in the title of our proposed free public event … especially since the word 'Hobbit' is apparently listed in the Oxford English Dictionary (and hence apparently part of our English-speaking vocabulary), the word 'Hobbit' (in the Tolkien context) is frequently used with apparent impunity in the written press and reference to 'Hobbit' in the fossil context is frequently referred to in the scientific literature (and is even mentioned in Wikipedia on Homo floresiensis). I realise I'm in unfamiliar word proprietry territory (as an earth scientist) … so I've gone for the easiest option and simply changed our event title." said Alloway.
There are a few things I wish to note here. First, I believe the word Scandal is not only sensationalism but also an opinion and is therefore subjective and is not neutral. I would like to suggest renaming it Specimen damage after all that is what the section is really about. Secondly, I have updated citations and added one to a sentence where the {{who}} tag was invoked. I also added an answer for the tag, but I'm not sure how to use the part of other "anthropologists", since the word in the article was simply "Anthropologists" in addition to the one professor, of course. Should this simply be , et al in relationship to the professor, or something similar? In any case, I hid the {{who}} tag and directed them here. I would like feedback on this.
Well, "scandal" suggests something improper took place. But there certainly was a row between the team that discovered the remains and Jacob. People who actually uncover fossils often forget they do not necessarily own them. It all depends on the legal system. In this case the team was definitely not amused when they were confronted with the simple fact they had to obey the Indonesian state. They reacted by expressing wild accusations, distortions and exaggerations to the press. In popular science books they portrayed Jacob as the villain of the story. This was reflected by an earlier version of our article. I made the text more neutral last May. "Scandal" might be replaced by "conflict".--MWAK (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of using a more neutral word than "scandal" and I think "conflict" would do that well. I understand you feel passionately about the issues around the handling of the fossils. If you have additional reliable information on that might offer greater insight into Jacob's actions, I invite you to include it in the article. WynnAurelium (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we do not know, and may never know, the exact timing for when the settlement of Insular Southeast Asia (specifically Wallacea) by anatomically modern humans started, considering that Australia was certainly starting to be settled by c. 50,000 BP and could well have been first entered as early as c. 65,000 BP (even earlier dates have been proposed, but they are more controversial and widely considered dubious), very likely before 60,000 BP anyway (ultimately, it's more likely because of drowned evidence that an earlier date is correct rather than the latest possible date), and given that Flores was far closer to Sundaland (even neighbouring it, and easily reached over only a small maritime gap), and even en route (at least if the earliest arrivers used the Timor route rather than the Moluccas route, which is more likely if the earlier rather than later date is correct, compare Prehistory of Australia § Arrival), a fortiori it is quite likely that anatomically modern humans were present on Flores as early as 60,000 BP (or even earlier), and therefore co-existed with late H. floresiensis just prior to its extinction, after all, and may well even have encountered the species. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a contention regarding the recent edits surround the species' classification? It appeared that recent edits had removed a lot of information, of which I attempted to restore in a balanced fashion. Some clarification regarding any criticism of my edits would be appreciated. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're readding material that's extraneous or irrelevant. The 2.1 million year old China paper "Hominin occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau since about 2.1 million years ago" that you readded in support of the early migration hypothesis never mentions H. floresiensis even once, in the main text (freely viewable here) or in the supplemental material (viewable here), nor does it even suggest that there was a migration of Homo habilis or even more primitive humans outside of Africa, so it's clearly a fail of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material to reach a conclusion not in the source by whoever originally added it.
The Larson et al. 2007 study (freely accessible at[1]) also doesn't argue in favour of H. floresiensis descending from an early migration either, see page 12 We believe these are not chance similarities, but part of a previously unrecognized functional complex that characterized early H. erectus and was retained in H. floresiensis, so I don't see why it is cited in this section as if its in favour of the early migration hypothesis when it's clearly not.
I have also recently removed the 2007 wrist article [2], because upon reading it it also doesn't argue that H. floresiensis wrists are more primitive that Homo erectus because there was a lack of data on the wrists of H. erectus. The paper was arguing that the wrist was more primitive than H. sapiens.
I really don't like blow-by-blow accounts of the views of different research papers. I think this really bogs the article down and makes it read more like a review paper than an encyclopedia article. A pretty egregious example can be found at Early European Farmers for excessive use of this style. It also places undue weight on earlier research papers that are now nearly two decades old and quite outdated. I think it's enough to summarise the positions of the two sides of the dispute and simply state the facts without lending undue weight to either side. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be clear the information in question were not my personal additions. The mentioned text appeared to have been there for a while, and your edits appeared to be a mass removal that I was attempting to restore. However if the sources are irrelevant, I think it would be best to mention so in your edit comments. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but my intention was to restore, then discuss what to remove on an individual basis; again having edit comments describing why the sources were irrelevant in your removals would have been helpful.
But regarding how the debate is presented in the article, the concern is that your edits is favoring the "insular dwarfism" side of the debate, when the due weight should be equal weight. Chris Stringer himself stated recently that it remains an open question, and he could see evidence for both sides. The various phylogenetic trees, published in studies over the years, indicates that there is a good amount support among palaeoanthropologists for the "early migration" position, for example. Also the "early migration" position can encompass any hominin species that diverged before H. erectus, not specifically Australopithecus or specifically H. habilis. The recently published 2024 study should also not be considered a definitive conclusion to the debate, especially since several anthropologists have been publicly skeptical.
I would also like to be clear that I have no objections to removing irrelevant material. My edits were prioritizing on restoring and organizing the existing information first, in which verifying said sources individually would come afterwards. I think most would consider this a more collaborative and less disruptive approach. A concern regarding summarizing the existing sources is that we may start placing our own personal interpretation of the sources into the article, as well as flattening each researcher's specific opinions and positions.
Regarding the 2018 paper regarding the site in Asia, my understanding is that the paper did not make any statement regarding what species occupied that site, but the site's age raises the possibility of a migrating species outside of Africa earlier than H. erectus, since the 2.1 million year old dating itself may predate the appearance of H. erectus. A Nature article, covering the study's publication, specifically discussed this possibility with palaeoanthropologists. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the two 2007 papers, again, I was organizing first on good faith that the text in the previous article revision accurately reflected the studies cited, where verifying the sources can be done afterwards. I had placed them under "early migration" because the edited text stated their wrists and joints more closely resembled to apes and early Homo than to modern humans. KinthermStopenfi (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
