Talk:Homo georgicus

Hominin v hominid

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)

Errors

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)

Well, for starters, it says "transition between Australopithecus and Homo erectus", which is obviously false, as besides the very early Afarensis, no Australopithecenes are ancestral to the human lineage. Homo erectus came from H. ergaster, who came from H. habilis, as far as most reconstructions go. Jalwikip (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and Inclusion

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)

Skull photo oriented wrong

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)

POV

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)

How dare you to move around all the Georgian topics and call everything about Georgia a "nationalist"? This user is fighting every Georgian topic. This user needs to be stopped and blocked, at least for some time. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 00:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a hoax, just a another example of immediately assigning a new species name as soon as the discovery is announced, only to have the community conclude that it is something already named. It is a disused name that shouldn't be immortalized with its own page. Agricolae (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that after a little research. The original typespecimen appears to be pathological as it isn't representative of the other fossils. They are of course classified as Homo erectus now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• In these papers the discoverer Lordkipanidze himself retracts the proposed species and states that the fossil is a member of Homoe erectus. Lordkipanidze D, Vekua A, Ferring R, Rightmire GP, Agusti J, et al. 2005. The earliest toothless hominin

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)

Do not edit war here. Just because you heard about it yesterday that does not gives you right to annul this topic. What a Georgiano-phobe. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)After someone provides many references for there conclusions - it would be best to try and confront the references over the person themselves. Do you have anything to rebut the classification that has been in place since 2006? Moxy (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit war. You yourself mentioned this article in a discussion with Maunus, so it is hardly surprising he read the article - and it seems evident that the article needs to be revised to meet the current scientific consensus. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Georgian nationalism in any case. Regardless of whether this is a new species, or another example of H. erectus, it wasn't 'Georgian' Do you really think that such early hominids had any concept of 'nation'? And that they not only did, but had one that coincided with the boundaries of the modern Georgian state? Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert the topic back as it was before user Maunus came and edited it. He is edit warring here. And just because he's Georgiano-phobe about anything does not give him right to delete or redirect all the articles about Georgia. And, yeas, AndyThGrump, it was just found in nowaydays Georgia. No one says that it was of any nationality. How immature some of you are. --Georgianჯორჯაძე 16:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why should we revert the topic back to a state where it doesn't reflect the current thinking of the person who first claimed to have found a new species? We base article content on reliable sources, not on the wishes of POV-pushing nationalists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You watch your language when you talking to me. Everything for guys like you sounds nationalistic. Do you even know the word meaning of it? --Georgianჯორჯაძე 16:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So if your demand that we revert the article back to its previous erroneous state isn't motivated by nationalism, what is your reason? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 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)

Yeah it should be merged, that much seems pretty clear. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:27, 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)

Why? The sources indicate that this 'species' is no longer recognised. The only arguments against the merger seem to be based on personal attacks. What is there to talk about? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops... I thought *this* was the discussion, not the one on H. erectus. Reverted myself. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)