Talk:Early modern human

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Early modern human article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

Anthropology High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Mammals High‑importance

	Mammals portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primates High‑importance

	Primates portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology High‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Meta High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved.

Move logs: Early modern human
Homo sapiens

Discussions:

RM, Homo sapiens → Anatomically modern human, No consensus, 11 February 2019, discussion
RM, Homo sapiens → Early modern human, Moved, 10 August 2020, discussion

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 26 December 2016, see discussion.
speedy keep, 9 July 2013 (UTC), see discussion.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Homo sapiens was copied or moved into Human with this edit on 14:31, January 19, 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Oryza sativa#Continental East Asia|rice domestication]] The anchor (#Continental East Asia) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

A personal observation regarding this article[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete this article[edit]

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

Better title: Early modern man[edit]

"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)[reply]

Noting[edit]

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