Talk:Early modern human

A personal observation regarding this article

It's not of any importance to the substance of the article itself, but I find the following sentence, "The name is Latin for "wise man" and was introduced in 1758 by Carl Linnaeus (who is himself also the type specimen)" to be quite humorous. I enjoy when something has this kind of subtle humor. I'm curious if this was intentional, and if not, I would like to say that this line should be kept the way it is permanently. --User:WolfShadow — Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 6 December 2018.

Stereotyping with Featured Photo of Akha Couple

Is there a better photo to use for the homo sapiens page that doesn't feature the Akha Couple? I think the photo perpetrates Asians in a negative light. Instead of Homo Sapiens for "Wise Man", the photo show a very awkward and primitive posture that's reminiscent of apes...that East Asians are barbarians, uncivilized, and dumb. I over exaggerate but I hope you can understand. Every time I come across this page with students, I feel they generalize Asians with a primitive association.

A simple Google search shows many alternatives https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=homo+sapien&atb=v174-1&iax=images&ia=images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooshoo7 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You could attribute "negative stereotyping" to absolutely every picture used in this position, and a variant of your above paragraph could be written with minimal effort for the image of an African/Polynesian/Caucasian/Amerindian/whatever man/woman/child/couple/group/whatever. The current picture is the result of a fair amount of consensus seeking, and I don't see any new or valid arguments in the above to challenge that - sorry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree but for different reasoning. The photo is used already in the Human wikipedia page (I guess we'll call that "Late Modern Humans" or whatever you'd like for the purposes of argument), and using it in this context is wrong. The couple in the picture aren't Early Modern Humans, simply put. Instead, have a EMH skeleton or artist's interpretation of EMH. It's not only more appropriate and avoids any implication of primitiveness in extant populations, but also it'd make this article more unique and better distinguished from the extant Human article. However similar Early Modern Humans and Late Modern Humans were, they were not in fact completely indistinguishable and are separated by hundreds of thousands of years of genetic drift. It's a matter of one population from 300,000 years ago; and another extant population from 100,000 years ago that acts very differently. To put it another way, it'd be like the articles for Wolf and Dog having the exact same picture. Yes, same species, but not the same and the articles should reflect that in their header images. 69.41.130.132 (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point. The picture appears to be a carryover from when the article was titled Homo Sapiens, and it was less clear what distinguished this article from the Human article. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020

Please include a Neanderthal section under the Homo sapiens section. These too were early humans who have now gone extinct. Many humans still have Neanderthal DNA User:Swk) 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

USER:Sweetu101 Neanderthals, though "human" in the sense of sharing our genus (homo), are not generally classified as "modern humans" (i.e. of the species "Homo sapiens", or "Homo sapiens sapiens", that includes all modern people). This page is specifically about the species of humans/homo to which modern humans belong (in prehistory). Neanderthals belonged to a different, though closely related, human species. Skllagyook (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete this article

there is no such term 109.252.64.97 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Better title: Early modern man

"Early modern human" is strange wording. "Human" is typically used as an adjective, not a noun. It would sound more normal and professional if the article were titled "Early modern man."

Human is a noun   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  11:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Noting

Noting 58.145.189.248 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)