Talk:Early modern human/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Homo Sapiens vs Homo Sapiens Sapiens

"Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, which differentiates them from what has been argued to be their direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu."

How certain is the link of these species to Homo Sapiens? Is their existence or link to Homo Sapiens generally accepted?MrSativa (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Better to change content that to redirect

There was a very clear consensus to keep this page, with a feeling that it should not duplicate the Human article but be a scientific one about the species Homo sapiens.

Rather than redirecting we should remove duplicated content and start to add desired content. I will start the process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's an acceptable option to me as well, provided there is a will to start the process. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have started by removing the unscientific Pioneer picture. The rest does not seem to duplicate the Human article as much as I first thought. What do you think needs changing? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should concentrate on biological features of the species, with mention of proven and established behavioural differences. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better title for that be "biology of humans"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC):::This is a good page to see and educate.Adam Jones (talk)

Should H. Sapiens redirect here, then, rather than to the Human article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.251.153 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Mmkstarr (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Now petitioning for the species in this article to be moved to one of the three Threatened categories.

Sharing a video on this topic - can it be added to this page?

http://www.cbc.ca/greathumanodyssey/episodes/episode-1-rise-of-a-species Ottawahitech (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No, only free videos can be uploaded to Wikipedia. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-existant / same / separate?

1. In this article: Homo, homo sapiens, homo erectus, and homo habilis, amongst others, are all referred to as homo sapiens. Does this mean that all these Species evolved/branched from the super-family: hominoidea?

2. This article (Homo sapiens) seems to say that homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens both evolved about 2 mya, homo sapiens evolving from homo erectus. Yet from the article on homo erectus they also emerged about 2 mya.

3. The article on Anatomically modern humans says that homo sapiens sapiens evolved from homo sapiens as a sub-species 0.2 mya BUT the article says on homo sapiens" evolved between 1.8 mya - 0.2 mya.

Can someone clarify? My head's spinning.

LookingGlass (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, LookingGlass, you're going to have to be more specific about your first question, because I see nowhere in this article that calls those extinct species "Homo sapiens". Please give the exact passage(s) that does this. As for dates, as you can see they are all very rough estimates, so no date span given is essentially "wrong", but since they are so non-specific, there is going to be some variation here and there. So slow down your spinning head and enjoy reading these informative articles. And by the way, all humans are in the family Hominidae, which taxonomically falls under the superfamily Hominoidea, so it appears the the answer to your question about evolution is "yes". – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 09:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Scowling Chap in the Photo

I always think articles like this about core aspects of humanity are better suited to a more optimistic tone, and I can't but think help that the man in the photo brings the whole thing down a notch. I'm not unsympathetic to his plight (whatever it is) but I think someone should start a crowdfunding campaign, rather than put him in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.15.57 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a good picture, I think. I also think that it might be your background that helps you misinterpret the man's facial expression as a scowl. I see it as the same look of mistrust for photographers seen all over the globe. Be prosperous! Paine 17:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Humes from Final Fantasy?

Humes from Final Fantasy look like Homo Sapiens from Neanderthals?

A clue please? 112.209.65.184 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

There's something wrong with the infobox on this page, it's showing some code such as "colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background-color: " . 2A02:8084:9360:3780:141:A29C:2CFA:4D6F (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion! I am unable to duplicate what you see either in desktop or mobile versions. I've checked all the meta templates used and none of them have been recently edited in a way that would cause this issue. Where precisely in the infobox do you see the superfluous code? Paine 20:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it's fixed for me too. It was probably just a glitch somewhere. Nevermind. 2A02:8084:9360:3780:141:A29C:2CFA:4D6F (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay! and please consider the creation of an account of your own! Happy New Year! Paine 21:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016

Laurenhauerslev (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC) there homo sapien sapiens~

Laurenhauerslev (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)lauren

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. MartinZ02 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

---

There is already a human article, there is no need for an article on this species's scientific name, if any objectors are going to say that the Homo sapiens article is more scientific, please point out the parts in this article that are more scientific than the human article, note that communication and culture is no more unscientific than taxonomy, since the common chimpanzee article also described their group structure and communication, yet there is no other article titled "Pan troglodytes". Editor abcdef (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Have you checked how long the Human article is? I see the Homo sapiens article as (at least supposedly) a scientific "spin-off" of the Human article. And since the Human article is so long, there should probably be more spin-offs as well. – Paine 00:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how this article is any more scientific than the human article. Also I failed to see how is article is any more than a summary of the history section of the human article. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

An explanation of this article's scientific content was not my aim, since I'm not a scientist, therefore not as qualified to do so as someone trained in biology and taxonomy. I do know that the very first sentence of the "Human" article seems to indicate that it should be mainly about modern humans and should be sketchy in its history section as regards any extinct subspecies of Homo sapiens. If you are correct and this article is a summary of the Human article's History section, then maybe the thing to do is to remove much of the content from that section and merge it into the Homo sapiens article? That history section should probably summarize the history of Homo sapiens sapiens for the most part, and the rest should go in this article with an obvious "Main article" link to this article. This article should perhaps cover in more detail what is known so far about H. s. idaltu and perhaps the Cro-Magnon and the Manot peoples. These are improvements that I would support. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine 23:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Otherwise every other animal should have a separate article for each of their names. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As they should, but only if their main-article pages are so long that the other names can become spinoff articles to shorten the main article. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Disagreed. I mean, agree that they should have their own pages, but disagree on the issue of whether it's a long article, or not. Even if they're short articles, they can still have their own pages. That way, as knowledge increases, the pages are already labelled properly to accomodate. Any relation between subspecies can be mentioned throughout the pages in linear format, as they pertain to the branch they derive from. Knowledgebattle (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. What seriously?? No. We are Human (homo sapien sapien), which is a specific subset. If we combined all of the Homo Genus onto the Human page, people would not be able to follow. Pages should be labeled by specie, not genus. Knowledgebattle (talk • contribs) 06:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What? No one is proposing to merge the entire Homo into the human article. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, I understand that, but if we merge homo sapien with Human (homo sapien sapien), then what's stopping the merge of homo erectus with Human, as well? After all, they are the modern Human predecessor, so should we label them as how we currently identify? Negative, ghost rider. That would be just as silly. Knowledgebattle (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The human article is not about Homo sapiens sapiens, the anatomically modern human article is, the human article is simply about the descriptions of Homo sapiens in general. Homo is the right article if you are looking for the "human" genus, hence your Homo erectus statement. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well then I'd suggest getting in contact with some Biologists and posing the question to them, if we're looking for a clear answer. I'm not a Biologist, so I can't give that clear answer, I'm just saying that we refer only really to ourselves as being human. I think WP:COMMONNAME would dictate that's enough to only keep that which is commonly-referred to as the article which is labelled Human. Just my stinky opinion, and susceptible to error. Knowledgebattle (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Merge makes absolutely no sense when we have a separate article on anatomically modern humans with Homo sapiens sapiens redirecting there. If there's to be any merging going on, the subspecies should be merged before we consider merging the species. Plantdrew (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

'Oppose'- The Human article is clearly long enough as it is, a more plausible debate would be to split the Human page into other similar-but-different-enough pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.42.160.222 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Homo Sapiens in popular culture anyone?

Humans come from Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, do they appear in Final Fantasy, Warcraft and other series? 112.209.28.192 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of "sapiens"

I am reverting back a recent reversion to an edit of the phrase "homo sapiens". The issue at stake is the meaning of the word sapiens. Any Latin dictionary will confirm that "sapere" is the Latin word for "to know", and "sapiens" is the present participle form of that verb. Thus "sapiens" means "knowing", just as "potens" means "powerful" ("able to do") or "tenens" means "holding".Wwallacee (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I see an increasing tendency to create a false singular "sapien". "Sapiens" is the singular, and "sapientes" would be the Latin plural.24.69.25.223 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

"Homo sapiens sapiens"

Is this a proper academic term for the taxonomic classification of AMHs? Why doesn't the AMH article mention this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editguy111 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It does, in the second paragraph of the lede, and in the Taxobox. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Link for Reference# 15 is dead

Link for "Modern human origins" - linked to " http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/241/4867/772 " is dead.

Here is the correct link that I found.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/241/4867/772

Compunuts (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor Compunuts: The new URL you gave has been added and the dead link has been removed. Thank you very much for your help with this! Paine Ellsworth ^{put'r there} 03:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Homo sapiens aresensis

Hi, its been suggested that this be the technical name for any humans born on Mars (presumably from future colonization). As due to the low gravity and other issues these humans would possibly speciate then we could end up with a hypothetical situation similar to how Neanderthals and H.sapiens were unable to reproduce much of the time.

I've calculated that speciation might occur around the 22nd century after 5-6 generations due to issues like radiation, change in muscle mass (turns out to be less of a problem than first thought), build etc. 7 foot tall humans might actually be feasible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.30 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which aims to document the world as it is now. To that end, we have a policy that is succinctly put as "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". In other words, we don't document things that might happen (or in this case, might be adopted as terminology) in the future. So this would not be an appropriate edit unless and until there are actually humans on Mars and scientists decide that speciation is occuring - which is quite far out in the future indeed. While I have your attention, by any chance are you the same user who has recently edited pages such as Nina Kulagina, Pauli effect, Psychokinesis and Raspberry Pi? If so, please come to my talk page to discuss, thanks. --Krelnik (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Timelines

I can see the need for the Human timeline template; however, though I try and try, I cannot see the need for the Life timeline template in this article. It will be removed unless there is good reason to continue to include it. Since it's linked in the Human timeline template, I see no need for it here. Paine Ellsworth ^{put'r there} 02:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove it. It's spammed all over articles on hominids, where it's really too broad in scope to be relevant. Plantdrew (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Plantdrew, that is a definite improvement! Paine Ellsworth ^{put'r there} 09:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Clothed picture?

Just out of curiosity, what is the reason for having as only picture of humans a picture of people wearing clothes? I understand this is a human specificity, but it might be worth considering if acceptable nude pictures would depict the species better? Like for animals, we never choose as only picture for 'dog', a photo of a dog in a costume... Also this is an encyclopedia so any puritan argument of not showing nude people like in school textbooks doesn't apply. Any feedback appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.18.5 (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with either way. But since most people do wear clothes at most times, I'd say the photo does accurately show humans in their typical state. 213.122.223.96 (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

There is no reason to have 2 articles, 1 common name and 1 scientific name, this article should be deleted. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the science article on all H. sapiens, to include H. sapiens idaltu, H. sapiens (both early – Cro-Magnon – and modern – us). A few even include Neanderthals, such as H. sapiens neanderthal, but most don't. My questions: Why this article? Why not one of the others like Human or Anatomically modern human? Why do you choose to delete this science article instead of one of the "common-name" articles? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 16:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Because common name is better than scientific name in article titles.Editor abcdef (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Better than?" What do you use to measure which is "better than" the other? That is very subjective, isn't it? Does that have any place in an encyclopedia that is for anybody and everybody? The policies and guidelines are crystal clear; you should find them and read them. This article stays, my friend, it's been here longer than I have! It's stood the test of time and is an excellent reference article! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 02:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Western gorilla doesn't have another article named Gorilla gorilla, and all the scientific things can be put into the long human article, anything wrong with putting scientific things into articles with common names as titles?.Editor abcdef (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there is nothing wrong with that in theory; however, in practice it is not a good idea to lengthen articles that are already very long, like the Human article is. When articles get long, then it is customary to find a subject within that article that can be expanded into its own article. So there is a hierarchy of articles that are related to the Human article that exist so that the long Human article doesn't get too long. Hopefully you see that merging this article into the Human article would be a definite step in the wrong direction. And yet the information in this science article is still very important and should be made available to Wikipedia readers. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 06:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The article should not, of course, be "deleted", but we need to face the fact that it has significant topical overlap with anatomically modern humans and at present is pretty much a WP:CFORK. If there is a potential for a substantially different scope between the two articles, I cannot see it. If there isn't, the two articles should be merged. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

How is this any more scientific than the human article? And the human article also covers all human subspecies, the anatomically modern humans article, not the human article, only covers Homo sapiens sapiens. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is still this article is no more scientific than the human and anatomically modern human article, and the content is practically the same. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it be better to merge AMH into here? Unless they are not really synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

yes 2602:306:BD95:45F0:15BA:E1BD:780A:D483 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Grammar correction needed

In the second para of Name and taxonomy, can someone please correct the current

"H. sapiens include Homo sapiens idaltu is an archaic subspecies of H. sapiens."

to

"H. sapiens includes Homo sapiens idaltu, an archaic subspecies of H. sapiens"

or similar? I cannot due to the semi-protection. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}

 Done Plantdrew (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible bad reference?

Moved from User talk:165.134.222.240

{{help me}}

Please help me with...

165.134.222.240 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am here simply to help correct an inconsistency with the page on Homo sapiens. In the end of the article, there is a statement made that natural selection has continued to have had an affect on human populations in the last 15,000 years. I went to the article that this was sourced on, an article by the NY Times writer Nicholas Wade found at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html . However on looking at the page on Mr. Wade, i found that many geneticists and biologists had filed a letter to the Ny Times criticizing this article and other work of Wade's and claiming that he had used pseudoscience and misrepresented research.

I have moved this conversation from the user talk page above. Please give your thoughts and opinions on the matter. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Temporal Range Change??

When and why was the temporal range changed from 195,000 years ago to 280,000 years ago? Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

changed anonymously without comment[1]

the long-standing consensus is near 200 kya. Some suggestions in 2017 were apparently made extending this to close to 300 kya. Speciation easily takes more than 100 ky, and it's a matter of consensus / convention. Let there be an actual consensus first before the "200kya" date (stable since the 1970s) is changed. --dab (𒁳) 15:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia with Homo sapiens - help me

I can,t add link to Polish Wikipedia with Homo sapiens: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cz%C5%82owiek_rozumny. Can anybody help? --S.Czachorowski (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

you need to edit the entry at wikidata.org. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Very confusing and inconsistent terminology

The article confounds throughout its entirety the difference between modern day humans (us) and anatomically modern; anatomically modern should be explained better, as it is as an umbrella of subspecies, as mentioned much later in the article: 'the subspecies H. s. idaltu, discovered in 2003, also falls under the umbrella of "anatomically modern".' Yet in the beginning, "anatomically modern" gives the impression that we are talking about true modern humans (you and I): "the term anatomically modern humans is used to distinguish H. sapiens as having an anatomy consistent with the range of phenotypes seen in contemporary humans." The same confusion is made with the term Homo sapiens. There is not a single clear mention in the entire article as to when true modern humans (us 100%, not "almost" or "nearly") arose based on archeological evidence. How old is the oldest true human skeleton (us 100%) which has been found? Why is this not mentioned?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajwa.moneeb (talk • contribs) 11:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Article scope

The page is in danger of becoming 100% WP:CFORKed by Human taxonomy on one hand, and Anatomically modern humans on the other. The article necessarily discusses

• the taxonomic question of how to define the cut-off of H. sapiens relative to its predecessor species
• the description of the actual species, defined as "anatomically modern" (viz., it is by definition the species of an 18th-century Swedish man, therefore it includes anything that can be still be considered the same species as Swedes in the 18th century).

Both points have an entire dedicated page already, and it may make sense to just merge the Homo sapiens and Anatomically modern humans into a single article. --dab (𒁳) 16:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Chrisrus (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I am working towards this. But the first step would be to update the pages on the past few years of progress. Stuff is being discovered rather rapidly now, and single studies, or newspaper reports on studies, tend to be tagged onto existing articles with "however, scientists in 201x have found..." phrases. This needs to be reworked into a coherent account of the current status quo.

It appears that H. sapiens is becoming increasingly "older", and increasingly more hybridized. This isn't surprising, as this was bound to happen as soon as more detailed information becomes available. Of course, there will turn out to have been hybridization to some extent back to the human-chimp split and beyond, so that at some point this ceases being relevant to "how old is H. sapiens". If too much information is available, speciation at some point will just have to be delineated by convention. I have no doubt that lots of basically "anatomically modern humans" roamed anywhere between Morocco, Ethiopia and Arabia throughout 350 to 200 kya, but at some point taxonomists will have to put their foot down and agree on a merely conventional cut-off. This will probably not happen for another couple of years, as new discoveries of admixture events and older-than-previously-known fossils will keep coming in. --dab (𒁳) 11:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that H.S.S. is equivalent to AMH. If you want to merge them, then you need to write a very clear explanation of the difference between the two, and there IS a big difference between them. I certainly would be unable to write such a section, so I wish you luck with that. Once you've written it, then we can revisit the question of a merge.173.184.30.37 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that H.S.S. means Homo sapiens sapiens, I agree completely. I never mentioned "H.S.S." Otoh, Homo sapiens has in fact, become entirely synonymous with "AMH", as the article already explains. "Homo sapiens sapiens" isn't a well defined term at all, and as such isn't necessarily equivalent to anything; it is predominantly used by people who classify Neanderthals as "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis". --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Admissible references

Please avoid adding journalistic sources and linkrot. I have fixed two such additions,[2] [3]. But unfortunately, people citing such "references" more often than not have neither read or understood the content of what they are citing either, so it isn't enough to just fix the reference. User:Oranjelo100, please pull your own weight, do your due diligence on the references you wish to include and then cite them properly. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Homo sapiens is singular. Homines sapientes is plural.

As Wiktionary notes, Homo sapiens is singular, while Homines sapientes is the plural form.

Back three months ago today, I made an edit to the page mainly to clarify this.

I see now that Mr. Moreno undid my edit fewer than sixty seconds after I had made it.

No explanation was given for this reversion.

It seems to me that, given the exorbitant level of misunderstanding about the singularity of the term Homo sapiens amongst laypersons, we really need to correct this misunderstanding in this article, that we need to use the correct plural form where applicable and to be clear in our usage. A layperson should be able to walk away from having read this article with a clear understanding that there is no such thing as a "Homo sapien" and that, when referring to more than one Homo sapiens, the correct term to use is Homines sapientes.

Does anyone wish to attempt to incorporate the correct singular–plural dichotomisation into the article?

allixpeeke (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Allixpeeke:, scientific names never take a plural form. They should generally be understood to refer to the species as a single collective entity. All of the places I see where you edited to pluralize can reasonably be read as referring to the species as a whole. Plantdrew (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew:

You write, "scientific names never take a plural form."

Does this mean that the first three citations presented here all happen to cite improper uses?

You write, "All of the places I see where you edited to pluralize can reasonably be read as referring to the species as a whole."

Does this mean that the Homo sapiens species as a whole (as opposed to just certain members thereof) may have migrated from Africa as early as 270,000 years ago, leaving the continent thus utterly devoid of the species?

Even if you are correct that scientific names are never supposed to be pluralised, it would still stand to reason that that line (as well as others) would require some editing.

But, if you are correct that scientific names are never supposed to be pluralised, then I do wonder from where this term Homines sapientes originates, and whether there was, at some point in time, any usage thereof that could be have deemed, in some context, appropriate—and if so, in what context.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is about the species H. s. Species names in their function as taxonomic identifiers in scientific discourse are never pluralized. The three citations present on Wiktionary I would interpret as allusive use of Homines sapientes to stand in for, literally, thinking man - fitting for the freer or more literary style those publications might have been aiming for. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomically, it is correct that (today), systematic names do not take a plural. Philologically, otoh, it is correct to note that such plurals have been used, and the modern rule more than anything is owed to the fact that academics can no longer be expected to know any Latin. Homines sapientes has seen occasional use in scholarly literature in the 1960s.[4] It is now only used outside of formal taxonomic contexts, either naively or else mock-naively. --dab (𒁳) 13:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus to move. No agreement that Homo sapiens is synonymous with human. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Homo sapiens → Anatomically modern human – Current title isn’t true to the scope of the article, and is synonymous to the article title Human   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Any reason the article isn’t called “Anatomically modern human” because the current title just makes me think why this isn’t a redirect to human? There’s absolutely no reason we should have an article about an animal and then a completely different article but the title is just the binomial name, otherwise the reader is completely confused about the scope of the article. I saw this article and thought it’s just gonna be a repeat of Human, but it seems it focuses more on AMH, so why not use this specific term? It’s a rather well used term in anthropology and is much less confusing than the current title   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Perhaps the article should be split/modified, but Homo sapiens is by far the more commonly used term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Most species articles should probably be moved from their common name to their binomial name, rather than vice versa, but in this case the rationale for using a common name is far weaker, since far more non-specialist readers would recognize the term "Homo sapiens" than "Anatomically modern human." In addition, some authors use "anatomically modern Homo sapiens" rather than "anatomically modern human", e.g., [5]. As per UnitedStatesian, there may be scope for splitting or revising the article, but I think the name should remain. Rlendog (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Rlendog Normally I’d agree, but human and Homo sapiens are 2 different articles, and the title Homo sapiens does not help the reader identify the scope of the article, that is, it doesn’t help the reader differentiate the 2 articles. A merge between the 2 articles would create more problems than solve, as it would become too big, especially when there’s a much simpler solution at hand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I am usually all in favour of simplifying to lay equivalents but I don't think that is the case here. Firstly, homo sapiens has a clearly demarcated scope and is widely understood. Secondly, I disagree that this and the term 'anatomically modern human' is synonymous. What's modern about it? Are we talking about a human in modern times shaped by the results of our lifestyle and environmental and genetic exposures? Are we talking about modern in a broad hundreds of thousands of years sense? Do we need 'anatomically modern' because we will create a suite of articles relating to 'anatomically less modern' and 'anatomically primitive' humans based on our feelings about various species and where they fit in? We should keep things where they are, clearly demarcated in a widely understood and commonly understood manner, reflected in a very broadly used scientific classification system. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Tom (LT) The layperson (yours truly included, and I’m rather well versed in anthropology) will not understand the apparent difference in scope between “Homo sapiens” and “humans” because the 2 are exactly the same in people’s eyes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedidia must have an article titled Homo sapiens, it being an extremely important term. It is different to human, and structuring the articles to avoid duplication is important, and if there is a problem, this rename is not the solution. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe How is “Homo sapiens” different to “human”? Aren’t they synonymous? What exactly would be here and not at human or vice versa, specifically?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

“Homo sapiens” is a scientific and technical term, going to speciation, morphology, genetics. “Human” is an ordinary English humanistic term, not scientific, and goes to sociallogy, anthropology, morally, religion, life and purpose. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the second one just the Culture article? Who says the term "human" excludes anatomy and evolution and taxonomy and so forth?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is ok. The human article has some overlap. Human#History is particular, that section should be severely cut back from coverage of pre-history, it should only seriously begin with the known histories of ancient civilisations. Fossils and subspecies belong on this page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure this is the right solution, but there certainly is some confusion and overlap between the different articles. The term "human" has a wider scope than Homo sapiens though, as it has also been applied to other, closely related species. Therefore, it may be problematic to have such a restricted taxobox in the human article (it only covers Homo sapiens, and does it even need a taxobox?). I would also expect the human article to mainly focus on philosophical and modern aspects about being human, rather than taxonomy and evolution, which should be covered at the binomial article. FunkMonk (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That is my first concern, two different taxoboxes for the same concept. The taxonomy had deep implications for the conception of human, for philosophy, religion, science and modernity, a term which has become less malleable since the description of the population as species Homo sapiens. The undefined phrase 'Anatomically modern human' allows more conceptual fluidity, unhelpful to the array of content forks, but accommodating of notions on the fringe of verifiable descriptions. cygnis insignis 06:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

So you expect Human to cover Culture, Philosophy, and Psychology, and Homo sapiens to cover Human body, Human evolution, and Human taxonomy? Whatever you want the scopes to be, the article titles as they are now do not reflect it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fringe theory

The article wrote: In November 2018, scientists reported that nearly all extant populations of animals, including humans, may be a result of a population expansion that began between one and two hundred thousand years ago, based on genetic mitochondrial DNA studies. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and the link to the one supposedly scientific article that is given does not work. Googling shows that the claims - which go far beyond the content of the lemma - have not found any significant positiv echo in science. -- Zz (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's far too early to start using this as a source. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

News 300,000 years ago

See also: Talk:Human § Humans much older than we thought; Talk:Anatomically modern human § Revisions to "earliest" dates?; Talk:Jebel Irhoud § Humans 300,000 years old?; Talk:Timeline of human evolution § Humans 300,000 years old?; and Template talk:Human timeline § Humans 300,000 years old?

"Homo sapiens much older than thought"

New academic research shows: Homo sapiens much older than thought.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed "... and may have originated about 300,000 years ago, based on fossil remain evidence found in West Africa ..." as there is a big debate on dates let alone if they are Homo sapien remains. Lets not jump on this 2 fast......wait for peer views--Moxy (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thank you for your comments - and noting text/refs - *entirely* agree - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Humans exited Africa 270,000 years ago?

Somewhat related - evidence suggests that Homo sapiens may have migrated from Africa as early as 270,000 years ago, much earlier than the 70,000 years ago thought previously - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

these are individual proposals. Please do everyone a favour and (1) cite the actual studies, never journalism, and treat these as suggestions not as "recent discoveries" to be taken at face value.

In fact, humans exited Africa close 2 million years ago. I believe the current proposal is that H. sapiens developed in the Mediterranean area (North Africa / Morocco?) 300 kya and migrated back to East Africa some 200 kya? In any case these are recent speculations and do not displace the received mainstream opinion. --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought Homo sapiens included Rhodesia man and Neanderthal Man.137.118.99.79 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Are humans a species or not?

In the about section at the top of the article, it says "For a more general perspective on the human species, see Human."

"The human species" implies that humans are a species. One species.

But then the first sentence in the opening paragraph is "Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man") is the binomial nomenclature (also known as the scientific name) for the only extant human species."

"The only extant human species" implies that there has been more than one human species.

The Human article says "This article is about humans as a species." That sounds like humans are one species.

So which is it?

TharosTheDragon (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"The only extant human species" because it's referring to all the other extinct human species and sub-species: H. neanderthalensis, H. sp Altai, H. sapiens idaltu, H. heidelbergensis, H. erectus, etc. They are all 'Homo', and therefore by definition all human. However, "human" isn't a scientific term and can mean a number of things in different contexts, which is why we use binomial nomenclature to describe related but distinct organisms like humans. The text is correct as written.

The context of the H. sapiens page is a taxonomic and paleo-archaeological overview of the species relative to all other species in the genus, which happen to be extinct, whereas the human page is a broad overview of modern humans in the context of arts, society, history, etc., including a section of human evolution. --Bpod (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's unclear and not entirely true.

Instead of describing the articles, we must describe their referents to see if we need two of them.

What is the referent of this article and what is the referent of that article and how are they different?

The ven diagrams of many referents on Wikipedia overlap, and that's ok.

It's not ok to have two articles about the same referent.

We need to know the relationship between THE REFERENT of this article and THE REFERENT of that article and other articles.

Sample responses might include "one is a subset of the other", "the two do not overlap", or "there's a gray area between the two" or "they partially overlap. Please explain as appropriate.

Example: "The article Dingo is about a type of dog native to Australia, while the article "Dingo (taxon) is about the taxon "dingo", not the animal. That taxon has at times referred to not just the Australian Dingo but also those of neighboring lands such as the New Guinea singing dog."

We could say that, while the referent of one article is "the last of the hominids"; the last remaining species of the genus Homo; and the referent of the other article is the taxon Homo sapiens, or term "Homo sapiens", like we have with the articles Dingo and Dingo (taxon).

Or there may be some other more accurate way we can describe the difference between the referents of this article and that one.

Having gotten that straight, we should then turn to the articles themselves to ensure that this is actually the case and that it can't be more clearly so.

If we cannot do that, something has to go. We can't have two articles with the exact same referent.

Please everyone think about the chaos there would be if we could have multiple articles on Wikipedia about the same thing, and please let's all agree that obviously we can't have that.

So if it turns out we do, something has got to give here, clearly. Such as a merge or something.

Agreed?

Chrisrus (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Humans are either a genus, Homo, or a tribe, with Australopithecus included. I've seen classifications calling all hominds after 7 million years ago as "human", while another says 4 million, 2 or so million, and even 200,000 years ago with modern humans.137.118.99.79 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Conservation status

Do we really need this there?32ieww (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because we are threatened with extinction due to nuclear war every single day.137.118.99.79 (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And we should be listed as Vulnerable at least, since it's a scientific consensus that humans will be extinct by 2100 due to climate change and that the extinction process has already begun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.208.205 (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Greece - Apidima 1 - 210,000 year old skull outside of Africa July, 2019

This article needs a major overhaul due to Apidima 1 being found in Greece in Apidima Cave (Needs to be created) Among other things I recommend:

• Mentioning this in "Early Homo sapiens" after Qesem Cave
• Replacing the phylogeny image. Perhaps waiting for another discovery. However, we may be waiting a while: This skull was first catalogued in 1970 along side neanderthals and they just got to cleaning it off Netdragon (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

References

I don't know that it necessarily needs a major overhaul. Early H. Sapiens remains have been found in Eurasia before (e.g. the Skhul and Qafzeh remains, the ca 180kya Misliya remains from the Levant, the possible early H. Sapiens remains in West Asia from ca. 270kya, the disputed Dali man specimen, and the early modern human lineage that is believed to have interbred with Neanderthals long before the later out-of-Africa migration). These specimens are generally considered to have belonged to an earlier wave or waves of H. Sapiens out of Africa that were later replaced by the more recent out-of-Africa wave/migration ancestral to modern Eurasians/modern non-Africans of about 50,000-70,000 years ago .---Skllagyook (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image: ethics

I think there's ethical problem with infobox image. Isn't it arrogant, racist and old-european-colonialism to put some poor asian people as a main image of the article which is viewing man as a specy of animal? Have someone asked their (asian couple) permission? What will you say if the main image is Obama? It would be more ethical and honest if some wikipedian took picture of her/his family and put it into infobox. --Lomogorov (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This really says more about your perception of "species status" as something degrading, than the image says anything about the motivation of the editors who put it there. To quote what I regard as an adequate summation, as it came up last time on this page (above): It's just a great picture showing a male and female specimen. It isn't supposed to show the most archaic or "original" form, or the picture would have to show humans in a Paleolithic environment (either a historical photograph such as this, or actors, or a museum reconstruction). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

So why can't I place Obama family here? Adorable male and female specimen. --Lomogorov (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Akha couple are more representative of humanity in general than a US President and First Lady. For similar reasons, these two astronauts would not be suitable for the infobox photo of this article. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Elisabeth Christina von Linné

The proposed lectotype is Carl Linne, but I fancy he would have said it was Sara Elisabeth Moræa or the kids to avoid any ontological bootstrap problem. cygnis insignis 04:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

in answer

to an unasked question? "Neanderthal ranges approximate the height distribution measured among Malay people, for one.[note 13]" For example of one what, implication by random correlation. cygnis insignis 04:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Plural: Homines sapientes

Non-intellectually evolved people and enemies of the polity of Rome write it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:1A00:A486:5F72:2389:EB7D (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox picture : Why use an Asian couple rather than an African?

Considering the fact that homo sapien stems from Africa, wouldn't it be more factually accurate and authentic to use an African rather than an Asian in the infobox picture? 2.27.120.93 (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We normally try to use the most common type of a species in lead pictures. Chrisrus (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is hardly the reason. It's just a great picture showing a male and female specimen. It isn't supposed to show the most archaic or "original" form, or the picture would have to show humans in a Paleolithic environment (either a historical photograph such as this, or actors, or a museum reconstruction). --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any good reason not to use a picture of the Khoi-San, especially the Ju/’hoansi, who are the oldest population alive, and who were most of the population for most of human history. "the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago." (NATURE) Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Dalhoa: I am writing regarding your recent additions referencing the 2019 Hayes Botswana mtdna study, to which you have also added the statement that the thesis of Hayes et al. (that modern humans originated in Botswana ca. 200kya) is compatible with evidence for the date of origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens. However, as I have mentioned in several edit notes, Hayes et al. make no connection in their study to the earliest evidence of modern homo sapiens (other than that proposed by their study itself). As I wrote earlier of the Hayes study: "The study claims that modern humans came from Botswana, not Ethiopia, and they do not use the Ethiopian fossil evidence to support their thesis, because their claim is different/distinct from the theory that AMH came from the Horn of Africa (which Omo could be used to support). Adding this to support the Botswana study is clearly WP:synthesis unless the authors use Omo to support their claim (Do they? And if so, where?)."

Making interpretations not explicit in the sources and/or combining sources (or combining sources wither information) to reach/synthesize an interpretation that is not explicit in either of them is WP:OR and WP:synthesis (respectively) and both are against Wikipedia policies.

The study of Hayes is actually at odds with (contradicts) the (more accepted) hypothesis that AMH originated in East Africa/the Horn of Africa 200,000 years ago. Hayes et al in their study say:

"Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa around 200 thousand years ago (ka)1,2,3,4. Although some of the oldest skeletal remains suggest an eastern African origin, , southern Africa is home to contemporary populations that represent the earliest branch of human genetic phylogeny. ..."Taken together, we propose a southern African origin of anatomically modern humans with sustained homeland occupation before the first migrations of people that appear to have been driven by regional climate changes."

The study not compatible with the traditional (and more widely accepted than Hayes' hypothesis) model of AMH originating around 200kya in the HOA based on the fossil record (and other evidence), a model which holds that AMH originated in the Horn of Africa (or East Africa). The Hayes hypothesis is in fact incompatible with that (and it is also incompatible with the model preferred by researchers like Schlebusch and Hublin, who propose a gradual development of modern humans from early H. sapiens populations from various regions in Africa.)

Again, to add your own comment to a study adding an interpretation not present in the study would seem to be editorializing.

This situation is different from that of the 2017 Schlebusch study, which actually says that its genetic divergence date estimate is compatible with the earliest evidence of H. sapiens in Africa. No such comment (regarding AMH) is made in Hayes' study. Skllagyook (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Update lineage diagrams?

The text makes clear the recent view that Heidelbergensis may have led to Neanderthalis but not to Sapiens. Given this, the lineage diagrams in the article are now wrong. Can we replace the diagrams with more recent e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/8ae20134-88e5-4664-a9e8-d05ed4496ade/jqs3137-fig-0001-m.jpg?

JCJC777 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Hello, I would like to request that the statement that says “ that have become the dominant species on Earth. They are the only extant members of the subtribe Hominina” on the Homo Sapiens page and have it changed to “they were once the dominant species on Earth. They are one of a number of existent members of the sub tribe Hominina, including the dominant species on the planet Homo Noeticus.”

The basis for this is that I am and others like me can be classified as Homo Noeticus and we have abilities which make us dominant over the Sapiens species. For example we can telepathically control the Sapiens and we can do things like see through walls or timespace.

Should you require references for the existence of Homo Noeticus you can google “Uri Geller CIA” this will be the first link; https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00791r000100480003-3

You can also go and see all the research from the Institute of Noetic Science here;

https://noetic.org/

Please change it ASAP as there are those from my phenotype who see the current description of Sapiens being the dominant and only Hominina species as simply laughable. If you are a Sapien and reading thesis let me tell you a story;

Jesica Utts, the head statistician for the USA presented her findings to the Sapien US congress that telepathy and remote viewing is real. They called her crazy and said nomatter what data she had they wouldn’t believe her. So please my Sapiens friend, actually look at all the data and don’t make the decision that you want to be right, change the article immediately to what is true. 2A02:8084:24:DE80:3167:993B:4410:E942 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: patent nonsense. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 14:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)