Talk:Homo erectus pekinensis

H.erectus yuanmouensis

Peking Man > Homo erectus yuanmouensis

--Shizhao 00:26, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Dragon bones cave

several new excavation in or near the dragon bones caves site have yielded comparable fossils after ww2. i think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.56.37.222 (talk • contribs) .

merge Sinanthropus here discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

support

• Nowimnthing 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Sinanthropus is a minor stub, should be no problem to merge.
• UtherSRG (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's so small, there's no point maintaining it as a separate article when it'll be easier to take the text, slip it into Peking Man and have this one redirect.^v^ [[User:orngjce223|my home page[[Talk:orngjce223|my talk page]]]] 03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

oppose

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

factoid

According to historian Tore Frängsmyr's book "Pekingmänniskan. En historia utan slut" ["Peking man. A never-ending history"] (Stockholm, 2006), Zdansky found one tooth on-site in 1921, recognized them as anthropoic, and took them with him along with the other stuff he'd excavated (which was in accordance with the agreement he had with Andersson, that he'd retain the right to work on what he'd excavated). Somtime between 1923-1926, working on the material he'd brought with him back to Uppsala, he discovered a second tooth. His findings, which did not include daring conclusions about what sort of human the teeth had belonged to, were published in 1926. Birger Bohlin was offered to head further excavations of the cave after the Rockefeller foundation had donated money for such work, and after Zdnasky had decline to take the job. In October 1927, Bohlin discovered a tooth from a hominid, and brought it with him to Davidson Black in Beijing, and Black concluded based on this tooth and Zdansky's two teeth that there really was a "Peking Man".

Being inexperienced in writing for Wikipedia, I didn't want to start messing with the text in the article, but I still wanted to offer these little factoids in the hope that they might be of use.

83.226.135.131 (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Creationists"?

Why does the last paragraph in this article refer to "creationists"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.147.146 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 December 2009

It is not the last paragraph of the article, but the last paragraph of the lead. However, as to why the mention is there, it was inserted by an anonymous editor operating on IP address 24.44.52.236. It is open to debate whether it is notable enough to include: do you wish to argue for removal? JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I will argue for removal and remove it. anon user 24.44.52.236 didn't just add that but in fact they cut and pasted and entire set of the current lead dealing with the specific skulls from another website. in fact if you google it you can see it here and if you go to archive.org it well predates the inclusion on wikipedia meaning it is the source of the wikipedia text and not visa versa

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.html

so the "creationist argument" hanging text is actually from a cut and paste text that included a hyperlink that was transferred and removed.User9933 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lubenow

Article states: "... in recent years the view of Lubenow that they were humans has been gaining ground."

Who is Lubenow?

Karl gregory jones (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird recent edit

There is a weird recent edit calling for citations on the lead section note that additional Peking man material has been found since the pre war finds. In fact that is entirely supported by the subsequent section " Subsequent Research"User9933 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mgiganteus v. IP

Discuss here. Come to consensus. Enjoy. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. This has been going on for almost two years now. See Tim Vickers's comments here. mgiganteus1 (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I suspected as much, which is one of the reasons I reverted to your version before protecting. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)