# Talk:Homo erectus

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Okie333.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought this Discovery article might be of interest here.  It discusses a 540,000-year old mollusk shell with geometrical carvings apparently made by Homo erectus.  Bms4880 (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Under "Use of fire" this article quotes Hominid Use of Fire, James. In Steven James' paper, he speaks of clay or ceramic clasts, but no where suggests that Homo erectus was making pottery or potsherds. I'm tagging it with "OR". Kortoso (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What the heck, I just took it out, since the article doesn't mention it. Kortoso (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. TimidGuy (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the first archive. I skimmed through the whole thing (yeah, I guess I was procrastinating on something) and the only things that seemed to be unaddressed were a request for pictures of tools (not sure if that's even possible) and the extinction hypotheses, which is what personally drew me here. II | (t - c) 06:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In the past, there have been a few requests for elaborating on extinction hypotheses. So the lead suggests that this may have been caused by Toba catastrophe theory, but it doesn't cite a source, and that page discusses the genetic bottleneck theory rather than hominim extinctions. The Hominina article repeats the Toba catastrophe claim, again without citations. Personally, I'm interested in the hypotheses for each of the extinctions.
Our prehistoric relatives also existed through the Quaternary extinction event.

One interesting article is Mankind's Genealogy: Theory and Facts which discusses sort of an odd "monocentric" versus "polycentric" approach:The Neanderthals lost competition with the superior species, so, like all the preceding species, they quitted the “evolution arena” without leaving progeny. This monocentric point of view is still dominant in anthropology but it is not the only one: the theory of multiregional evolution has been gaining increasingly more supporters lately. According to it, Homo sapiens could have evolved both in Africa and in Eurasia – wherever Homo erectus settled and gradually and independently “sapiensated,” i.e. evolved towards the behaviorally and anatomically modern human. Suggesting that there were several, rather than one, center of anthropogenesis, this theory allows seeing the hominin evolution scale in a new light and further develop our ideas of how the humans made it to the very top Note that it appears to be accepted these days that we have Neanderthal mixed in; at least that's what my genetic report says.
There is also the intereting Genetic traces of ancient demography which provides this mysterious quote:"Most of the familiar specimens of Homo erectus and of archaic humans known from the Pleistocene were not members of populations ancestral to us, instead “the fate of most such populations appears to be tragic” (13).
Digging up that cited article (13) Footprints of intragenic recombination at HLA loci, I found this conclusion: The analysis suggests that the recombination rate between two sites 1000 base pairs apart is about 10–5 per generation and that the effective size of human populations (equivalent roughly to the number of breeding individuals in a randomly mating population) has dropped from 105 to 104 in most of the Quaternary. One possibility for this reduction is discussed. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this paper.
Perhaps referencing that research, I found IJN Thorpe's The ancient origins of warfare and violence which starts off be commenting on the genetic research estimates that Homo erectus declined precipitously (to about 1000 individuals) about 500,000 years ago, quoting a researcher who believes that Homo sapiens may have been responsible, although the author of the paper doesn't go into that hypothesis really (or seems skeptical of it)..
I hope to build on this and trace a bit better idea of where the current research is pointing. II | (t - c) 07:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Someone needs to find out when the youngest Homo erectus fossil was found and it's age. It says at the top that it was 35k BP. Aside from that one reference, the rest of the article talks about stuff that happened at least a million years before. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence says, "nearly extinct."  I don't think that belongs, but I left it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.135 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC) 

Hi. For such an important page detailing human evolution, should the redirects section include things like
"For the seahorse species, see Hippocampus erectus. For the 2007 comedy film, see Homo Erectus (film)."
I havn't used the Talk feature of Wikipedia before, so apologies if this is not the right place for my query.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.155.3 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC) 

The speculation about Homo floriensis and orang pendek is unsourced OR and pseudoscience. Concur on removal? 
Kortoso (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Cryptid nonsense should always be immediately deleted. 98.67.182.113 (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I edited the "Cooking" section to reflect the sentence and reference immediately above in the "Use of fire" section. The references in the text were from 2009, 1986, and 1972. I can not believe that a 44 year reference contains contemporary facts, and the conclusions drawn from them. Every reference in the "Use of fire" section is more recent then the two references to support the "not generally accepted" statement (that I removed).  How can a thirty year old reference support what is currently generally accepted?!? So I removed the text, and replaced it with new text and a reference from 2015. That should be indicative of current thinking. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed this text—
And Fire There is no archaeological evidence that Homo erectus cooked their food. The idea has been suggested,<ref>Wrangham, Richard (2009). Catching Fire. Basic Books.</ref> but is not generally accepted.<ref>Zihlman, Adrienne; Tanner, Nancy (1972). "Gathering and the Hominid Adaptation". In Tiger, Lionel; Fowler, Heather T. (eds.). Female Hierarchies. Beresford Book Service. pp. 220–229.</ref><ref>Fedigan, Linda Marie (1986). "The Changing Role of Women in Models of Human Evolution". Annual Review of Anthropology. 15: 25–66. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.15.100186.000325.</ref>

No section for this yet.
A study throws cold water on the estimate of Turkana boy's maximum adult stature:
Just how strapping was KNM-WT 15000?
Kortoso  (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Would love to see that. It's what I came looking for. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I also came to the article to see how large they were compared to us.PopSci (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
From what I gathered from different sources over the years they pretty much were like us modern humans though they had a huge brow ridge and almost no forehead, with a jaw that stuck out. I can think of people that superficially look similar, and the Kow Swamp skulls are an instance of that, so they probably would be able to walk around in a large city just fine in modern clothing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.100.41 (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the topic and be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article. This one only covers the technical topics of defining or classifying H erectus but never describes what the H erectus were, e.g. social, tool-using humans who spread across Asia. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a list of videos about homo erectus would be a good idea as a section in this article or as a separate page, but I think it's really useful to have a list with such resources. I've found the following videos on YouTube:

BBC Planet of the Apemen Battle for Earth 1of2 Homo Erectus
First Humans Episode 2 - Birth of Homo Erectus
—  Ark25  (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-erectus 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021562  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhannhan1 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC) 

Apparently, it went extinct in Java, Indonesia only about 100,000 years ago, cohabitating the island with modern humans: [1], [2]. This shows once again that human evolution was not a linear progression, but a complex web of interspecies.  Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

When searching for homo capensis I was lead to this article, where it isn't mentioned at all. However I think it deserves its own page, not only because there is a lot of conspiracy theories about of this purported species, but more importantly because people claim skulls from the species actually exist in museums in Peru. These skulls eerily remind you of human skulls, except for the way that they are elongated into coneheads. However because of the anatomy of those skulls, there is reason to believe that they are in fact not artificially elongated, like alluded to in the article about the human Paracas culture—where such elongation isn't mentioned at all except for a single link to the Wikipedia article about artificial cranial deformation. Additionally there are other differences in the skull that indicate that it belonged to another species entirely. On top of that, an independent DNA test has purportedly shown that this species was indeed unable to breed with humans. The conspiracy theory—which I think also deserves mention—is the claim that this species had a higher intelligence than regular humans, and thus used it to control them, and in fact that they might even do it to this day. Now, of course, I don't believe any of that hokey pokey, but I think the information, and the fact that these skulls actually exist, makes it interesting enough to deserve its own page, or possibly as an addition to the article about the Paracas culture. Kebman (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The proper target for Homo capensis is Boskop Man. Afaik on purely morphological grounds, "Capoids" (Khoi-San) arguably qualify as a separate species of Homo, but for obvious reasons anthropologists are reluctant to there. 
I would be interested in references for the things you mention, especially the DNA test. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The Griquas (a Dutch-Khoikhoi mix) are one good reason not to separate off the Khoisan peoples. The problem is that there are two many species concepts for species to be a secure concept.  RichardW57 (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Khoi-san qualify as a separate species of Homo? WTF? Are you serious? I knew you had descended into alti-right style racism lately, but that is extreme even for alt right types. There is absolutely no criterion under which that argument can be supported.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Point being is even if they somehow were another species of human (which they ain't even a different subspecies), they are still fully human. Much like Neanderthal, and other modern people groups.137.118.100.41 (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Major races of H. Sapiens are not materially different from what we call subspecies in other taxa. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Except that there are no scientifically recognized  "major races" of Homo sapiens and therefore the argument is void. Considering human continental populations to be close to subspecies is an extreme position that is ont found within any mainstream works on human biological diversity since the 1960s. Dab's claim goes beyond even that to segregate Khoisan people as a separate species - not even subspecies. And he uses innuendo of political correctnes to smear the integrity of the entire field of paleoanthropology as being primarily politically motivated when they confirm the fact that Khoisan people are of course homo sapiens in every thinkable definition of that word. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"I knew you had descended into alti-right style racism lately". This is unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia. I have observed you have gone off the deep end with the politicization of anthropology, but this is beyond the pale, and should properly be dealt with on an administrative level under WP:NPA.
I have no interest in "racism" whatsoever, you are the one who keeps dragging it into anthropological discussion. Your "WTF?" is what I mean by "obvious reasons", objective classification of Homo has become a political minefield because of misguided ideological hysteria as exhibited by you. That's fine. What isn't "fine" is your smear-campaign against perfectly reasonable anthropology which just so happens to use terminology some people have decided is now "racist" beginning c. 2010. This is insane. "Racism" is an ideology attaching value judgement to racial classification. I invite you to show any statement by me that makes such value judgements. It is you who appears to keep implying that it isn't possible to make biological distinctions without attaching value judgements. You seem to be railing against your own conclusions by projecting them onto me. At the very least, you aren't attacking me for any position I either hold or have expressed.
Ghirla's statement is correct, the major races of H. sapiens would normally be categorized as subspecies, and on their extreme ends possibly as species. Any palaeoanthropologist will be aware of this as a perfectly unremarkable fact. The reason this is not done is proper caution, because the "Maunuses" of this world will become apoplectic over any possibly dubious proposal regarding classification of Homo, while they will not be bothered in the least over similar classification of Corvus or Canis etc. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
No both his statement and yours is uninformed in the extreme about the way that paleoanthropologists make taxonomical decisions. You cannot find a single paleoanthropological mainstream work that would support your claim that Khoisan peoples could be meaningfully set off from Homo sapiens as either a subspecies or a separate species within the genus. The claim is uite frankly ludicrous, and can only be found in the most ideologically colored webfora on the extreme right. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
>No mainstream work claims Khoisan can be set off as a genetic group.
>https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2140
Why is Maunus lying? 146.255.14.121 (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
That's one of the most ridiculous, knee-jerk extreme-left reactions to a reasonable scientific view that differs from your own that I've ever read on Wiki TP's. No one was being "racist" in any way whatsoever. This comment was made a little while back, and I hope since then you have calmed down and don't react in personal rants again during a rational discussion of the improvement of an article. 50.111.22.12 (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
That article makes absolutely no suggestion that Khoisan peoples are not full and entire members of the species Homo sapiens, nor does it suggest that Homo sapiens have any extant subspecies. And you would frankly not be able to publish an argument to the contrary in a respectable journal today (nor in 2012). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I rephrased the following sentences from this:
"There is very little evidence for religion among Homo erectus, however there is a possibility. However, due to the span of time most religious artifacts would not have survived, and as their descendants; Homo naledi, and Homo neanderthalensis/sapiens have religious or pre-religious behavior, it is possible that this species had it as well."
to this:
"There is very little evidence for religion among Homo erectus, though there is a possibility of it. Due to the span of time, most religious artifacts would not have survived; however, as their descendants, Homo naledi and Homo neanderthalensis/sapiens, have religious or pre-religious behavior, it is feasible that this species had it as well."
Please let me know if I did anything wrong in changing the wording of these sentences. (I'm safely assuming that I did nothing wrong in changing the first sentence's space/punctuation issues.) (Edit: Added italics to unedited sentence.) (Further edit in article as well as here: changed italics so that slash from "neanderthalensis/sapiens" was not in italics.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Laputa-skye: I am writing regarding some of my recent edits which you seem to have undone. I restored some of them with an attempt to explain my changes the edit notes. I will attempt to explain here as well:
You removed the ref I had added from Rightmire from the African origin hypothesis section. I added it back, because there seemed no reason to delete it since it posits that Erectus evolved in Africa and thus is a relevant ref. 
Regarding the two places where the Wood interview was cited:
You added back the interview with Bernard Wood to a section mentioning the likely descent of later hominids (like Neanderthals, Sapiens, and Denisova etc.) from Erectus. I removed the ref from this location because, as I had mentioned in a previous edit note, it (that source/interview) does not discuss the descent of those hominids from H. erectus but is rather about the possible origins of erectus and early Homo. Thus the Wood interview ref was not relevant in that context.
You removed my section further down (described as an additional disclaimer) on the Wood interview. And I see your point and can agree that there is no need for additional disclaimers, so I have not added that section back. I had previously removed the Wood interview ref (you had added) as a citation for the Asian origin hypothesis, but I have added it back (to that section). Skllagyook (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It is completely unknown whether H. erectus "evolved" in Africa or Eurasia. Part of the reason is that it is completely unknown at what point H. erectus is supposed to have emerged.
Some experts wish to include H. habilis in H. erectus -- in this case, probably Africa. Others consider H. habilis a separate species from H. erectus, or even make the distinction between H. erectus and H. ergaster. In this case: H. ergaster in Africa, H. erectus in Asia. 
The problem here is not that this is unknown, or perhaps even just a question of definitions or semantics. The problem begins when people begin to "treat references as soldiers" in support of their favourite viewpoint. 
You make very clear that this is what you are doing when you say "it posits that Erectus evolved in Africa and thus is a relevant ref."
This is not how it works. A given reference is not "relevant" because it "posits" any given viewpoint, even a completely mainstream one. It is "relevant" if it is a scholarly publication by experts in the field. 
Now a reference like  

"https://www.downtoearth.org.in/interviews/science-technology/-it-is-perfectly-possible-that-homo-genus-evolved-in-asia--54458"
is not "relevant". It is a journalistic interview with an expert, and if you want to represent this expert's viewpoint, kindly cite his own publications directly. Our articles on scientific (or any scholarly) topics are not based on journalists interviewing scholars, they are based on publications by scholars. Scholars are, as it were by definition, perfectly capable of making their views known without the help of journalists.
--dab (𒁳) 14:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This article states, "If considering Homo erectus in its strict sense (that is, as referring to only the Asian variety) no consensus has been reached as to whether it is ancestral to H. sapiens or any later human species," with a "citation needed" tag. This contradicts the article Human taxonomy which states, "Homo erectus is widely recognized as the species directly ancestral to Homo sapiens." There is no citation directly after the sentence in the "human taxonomy" article. The next sources after that sentence are [3] and [4]. I searched a few keywords in the former link, but the latter is a book preview and I couldn't find a search feature that only applied to that book. Which of the two statements are correct? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a single species and therefore should be written in the singular form, not the plural. See Homo sapiens, Australopithecus afarensis, and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) for other hominin examples. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean there's no real prescribed policy on using singular vs plural (just that you stay consistent within the article), but if we're trying to set a precedent for archaic humans, Neanderthal, which just got to GA yesterday, uses plural   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I've continued the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology#Species articles written in singular form. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone actually use the subspecies classification H. e. heidelbergensis anymore? I can't recall even one paper using the subspecies name   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure heidelbergensis is considered a separate species. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Before concentrated effort is laid on this article to get it to GA/FA level, which I'm sure is a goal for the future, I would like to raise two main concerns which I think should be resolved;

Scope: There is some debate in regards to what H. erectus should encompass; whether it should be seen as an adaptive grade of archaic hominins throughout Eurasia and Africa (H. erectus sensu lato) or as a solely Southeast Asian species probably not ancestral to H. sapiens (H. erectus sensu stricto). Obviously the article should present and discuss both views but it needs to focus on one of them since it has implications for what to elaborate on extensively and what to disregard. It seems that the article at the moment is going with the sensu lato approach but it should be made clear that this is not a universal view before statements such as "earliest occurrence about 2 mya" and "Homo erectus was the first human ancestor to spread throughout the Old World, having a distribution in Eurasia extending from the Iberian peninsula to Java"; which are not true if you go with the sensu stricto approach. I'd argue that this article should give more weight to the Asian fossils in order to avoid major overlap with the Homo ergaster article and the article on the Dmanisi hominins (an article I'm working on now). These articles would still work as articles independent of this one if the 100 % consensus in the future becomes to synonymize, just under titles like "African Homo erectus" and "Georgian Homo erectus". However, which approach is taken doesn't really matter to me as long as the scope is made clear. It's also important since H. erectus sensu lato is a chronospecies, but H. erectus sensu stricto is not.
Taxonomy: It says the subspecies have varying levels of recognition, but are the many Asian subspecies really still considered valid? I haven't seen many references to "Homo erectus yuanmouensis" or "Homo erectus lantianensis" in recent works. Also, what happens to Homo erectus tautavelensis if one follows the sensu stricto approach?
Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "Homo erectus" just by itself is a vague term, which is why we always see it with s.l. or s.s. so I think leaving it at the broadest level is the best way to approach. I haven't touched H. erectus taxonomy and I don't see subspecies names used very often (and a lot not at all) so I can't really speak for the validity of any of the listed subspecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true, and I certainly won't object seeing as that's the way it's often used in the literature as well. I just think that it should be made clear that this is the approach taken before something like "Homo erectus was the first human ancestor to spread throughout the Old World, having a distribution in Eurasia extending from the Iberian peninsula to Java" is presented without any note that this depends on what you think H. erectus is. If nothing else (since I can see how that might make the lede messy), s.l. and s.s. should at least be brought up at some point in the lede since there is no mention there of differing definitions and ideas on what the species actually encompasses at the moment. On the subspecies; yeah I wasn't calling anyone out, just noting that it needs to be addressed when you or someone else gets to work on taxonomy. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I note the the religion of other anthropologists is not identified. 
How is it relevant to the article's content that Weidenreich is Jewish? 
I note that in 1935 Germany was ruled by NAZIs.
"In 1935, Jewish German anthropologist Franz Weidenreich speculated..."
Lou (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Jewish is an ethnicity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Better to just not mention the ethnicity at all. Eleuther (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Generally in paleontology articles we mention this and occupation when introducing a person (like instead of saying "Alan Grant discovered a velociraptor" we say "American paleontologist Alan Grant") but I guess it's not a rule   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely no need for references to anyone's faith, or ethnicity, for that matter. Tp3lg (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That section is weird. One of the blue links goes to Tighennif which is a town in Algeria.
Another thing is that it links to subspecies.CycoMa (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I wouldn't normally leave a message like this but this is a question I've had for a long while: what's the deal with the H. erectus subspp. names listed here? No modern literature even acknowledges the subspp. names listed here and groups most under H. erectus or H. sapiens, ditching the trinomial names. For example, two ([5] and [6]) detailed analyses on the Peking Man investigation published August of this year fail to mention Homo erectus pekinensis as even existing, which leads me to believe it is disused or invalid, or possibly both. I have similar concerns for "Homo erectus naledi", which isn't mentioned on any other website and lacks a citation. Shouldn't these be removed as they're either obsolete, disused or outdated (and vice versa)? Just food for thought. MrSpikesss (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's one that uses pekinensis from 2020. But the entire Taxonomy section needs to be reworked; "H. e. naledi" and "H. e. antecessor" are not real names, and there have been no arguments to subsume any of the listed species as subspecies of H. erectus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. MrSpikesss (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to fix or delete whatever you see fit   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Which article are you evaluating?"
The article I'm evaluating is the Homo Erectus Article.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus)
"Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?"
I may as well get to know one of the early human species, as the course that assigned this exercise is a course on the Genus Homo. From a quick glance, I had a good feeling about this article, as it already seemed detailed enough. The evaluation will determine whether I was right or not.

-Evaluation
Lead: The first sentence gave me exactly the summary information I needed about the topic. Links about its origins, connections with other similar categories (connections and descendants) have been present all throughout, but are crucial resources. Despite plenty of details, it's concise enough to get a basic point across. 
Content: The content that Is present is indeed relevant to the topic, as Homo Erectus is known as the ancestor to other species. From Anatomical details to changes in understanding of the species, it's as up-to-date as an article can be. However, there are some points that require either clarification, or are perhaps missing citations. One paragraph in particular relies on just one source, but this one source addressed equity gaps, as comparisons are only done among one overly represented population. 
Tone and Balance: The article is neutral, and even uses academic journals to clear up any flaws made by previous researchers, which can address changes in over and underrepresentation. No persuasion has been found either.
Sources and References: Most paragraphs include a number of articles, which have proven to be reliable and up-to-date. It even gives names of notable researchers, as well as links to information on them. Articles have been used from 1975 to present day, most of which were made between 2010-2021, so the article seems to be updated.
Organization and writing quality: Headings and Subheadings are perfect for organizing articles, and this one makes good use of them. Writing is of high quality, and it's easy to understand and loaded with links to references and other entries within Wikipedia, perfect for those who need to expand their search. 
Images and Media: Images are detailed and serve as examples of some of the topic's key discussions. There's some extra images relating to the article in the gallery as well, so there's a decent abundance of imagery.
Talk page discussion: Some discussions are labeled as active, so a lot of work is still being done. Previous discussions addressed the deletion of some sources, which reflect the article's early stages, when all sources have been analyzed. 
Overall impression: Overall, I can put my trust in this article. It has plenty of information and references as well as their links to verify. Some clarification on some subtopics are necessary, but these are flaws we can fix with some research. The article is still well developed, but not yet complete, since the topic is that of ancient people. 
H3R05 D1A2 (Hydra) (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2022 and 3 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rrami052 (article contribs).

"In earlier populations, brain development seemed to cease early in childhood, suggesting that offspring were largely self-sufficient at birth"
This is nuts. It isn't true of any other apes, and isn't even true of monkeys. I suggest deletion unless a solid reference is produced immediately. Fig (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

we fundamentally do not know how sexually dimorphic homo erectus is, yet the article is written in a way that suggests that he exhibited very little sexual dimorphism, despite evidence being inconclusive .
it also seems to conflate stature dimorphism with sexual dimorphism as a whole. A species can exhibit reduced dimorphism in height yet retain significant dimorphism in other domains. If we assume homo erectus showed modern human like proportions of sexual dimorphism (which this article is going for), then it would be quite contradictory to in the same breath downplay the actual extent of it.
modern Humans show a globally very consistent and likely genetically constraint stature dimorphism of roughly ~7% (7-8%), which, whilst modest when compared to most other great apes, is still a noticeable degree that cannot be reduced to “roughly the same size as each other”. 
likewise, if homo erectus modern-like patterns of sexual dimorphism, he would have had significant (albeit moderate compared to the chimpanzee) dimorphism in body weight of roughly 16%, lean body mass dimorphism of 36% and lean muscle dimorphism of ~65% (up to 72% in the arms), as well as dimorphism in body composition (females having 1.6 more fat, stored in different patterns as to males), all of which would point to significant amount of dimorphism overall, and that does not even include the various other dimorphic traits he may have displayed if he truly had modern patterns (e.g vocal dimorphism, muscle Fiber dimorphism, facial dimorphism etc) . Whilst less than previous hominins, it would be erroneous to suggest he was near devoid of it, or possessed it only sparsely, which at least to me the article seems biased towards.
likewise, based on the the sexual behaviours of modern human populations, and based on the sexual dimorphism when compared to other primates (monogamous and polygamous ones), homo erectus would fall in between strict monogamy and total polygamy, likely exhibiting both depending on the circumstance. Whilst he would have become more monogamous compared to previous hominins (who are often believed to have lived in harems or otherwise a highly polygamous social structure), he would not have been monogamous per se, but largely intermediate.
I believe the article should be rewritten to take into consideration the various opinion on homo erectus, and the fact that we simply do not yet know his exact pattern of dimorphism.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9156798/ 77.47.38.183 (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


### Homo erectus
I'm trying to get this to FA. It's a pretty big topic with lots of nuances, but it's also a pretty popular article so I'm trying to keep it short, easily intelligible to a general audience, with all the technicalities constrained to notes or child articles. I'm trying to get more opinions on the prose in general, my usage of notes, and (if you happen to be familiar with H. erectus) comprehensiveness or portrayal of the subject.
Thanks, Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)


#### Comments from Noleander
Just  a few drive-by comments:

Quotes probably not needed around "Pithecanthropus erectus"
standard notation for defunct taxonomic names Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Garbled grammar... looks like  two sentences got mashed together: ...which may have been used in butchery, vegetable processing, and woodworking of maybe digging sticks and spears.
split Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Needs to be reworded, maybe broken up in to 2 sentences. This is too long & confusing.  Also, it seems to assume reader knows what Darwin thought (u cannot assume that:  tell the reader what he thought):  Despite what Charles Darwin had hypothesized in his 1871 Descent of Man,[b] many late-19th century evolutionary naturalists postulated that Asia (instead of Africa) was the birthplace of humankind as it is midway between all continents via land routes or short sea crossings, providing optimal dispersal routes throughout the world.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
No need for word "Nevertheless" ... why make reader do the mental gymnastics?  Nevertheless, Haeckel's model inspired Dutch scientist
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Confusing:  Why say "continued"? Was Dubois argument discussed in prior sentence?  Dubois continued to argue that "P. erectus" was a gibbon-like ape  A lot of readers will jump-around when reading WP articles, so it is best to not assume they read the prior paragraph and/or understood it.
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Vary wording of "better understood" (if you want this to go to FA someday, best to not repeat certain phrases or words close together):  In the 1970s, as population genetics became better understood, the anatomical variation of H. erectus across its wide geographic and temporal range (the basis for the subspecies distinctions) became better understood as clines
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Older than what? In the late 20th century, far older H. erectus fossils were ...  Again, either spell it out "..older than the fossils from ...";  or reword to not refer to other things:   "... In the late 20th century, very old H. erectus fossils ... ".
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Describe minority opionion for FA:  H. erectus is generally considered to have its origins in Africa ...  If you are going to use the word "generally" the reader will  think there is some disagreement, so either state the minority opinion (could be in a footnote); or of the majority view is nearly unanimous, then, remove the word "generally".
Citations and sources look good; I have not done any spot checks, but before you take this to FA, you'll want to verify that all cites are valid.
WHy red link for this author?   Ciochon,  R. L.  ... remove red link.
typo in the link, fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Word "similarly" is not quite correct:  Evidence of fire and cave habitation by H. erectus is sparse, and similarly, populations appear to have preferred warmer climates and usually ate meat raw.  Probably best to re-word the whole sentence.
better? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
It is largely unclear when human ancestors  Consider removing word "largely" ... doesn't seem to add anything.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding pics:  WP:ALT requires "alt" text for visually impared readers, for _some_ pics.  Article has none yet.   FA will check for that.
Ambigous:  It is largely unclear what function this could have served.  What is "this" referring to?   Prior sentence?  Entire prior paragraph?    Better to replace word "this" with what it is referring to.  If only prior sentence, then the 2 paragrs should probably be merged.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Overall, looks like an interesting article!  Good luck with the FA process. Noleander (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)


#### Jens
Your use of "bauplan" is not what is described in the linked article?
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
But, that of H. e. georgicus was as low as 546 cc – Not a complete sentence and lacks context. Link "H. e. georgicus"? This also confuses me because georgicus is not east Asian.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
when the last savannas in the region gave way to jungle – What region is this talking about?
added Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Image caption: In 1868, Ernst Haeckel suggested early humans dispersed from the now-disproven hypothetical continent "Lemuria" (above) – above what?
Lemuria is pictured above Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Above what? It's not at the top of the image? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
evolved on the now-disproven hypothetical continent "Lemuria" in what is now Southeast Asia – Lemuria is not Southeast Asia, is it?
removed. In the picture you can see it was supposed to span from Somalia to the Philippines but sinking under the Indian Ocean gives enough context I think Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
his "missing link" in Java. – why "his"?
Haeckel's missing link Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
That's not encyclopedic language, you should write "the missing link he postulated" or something. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
many fossil human species and genera around Asia, Africa, and Europe (including "Pithecanthropus erectus" and "Sinanthropus pekinensis") were reclassified as subspecies of Homo erectus. – Isn't Pithecanthropus erectus the type species? If so, the species still exists (as Homo erectus) and was not reclassified as a subspecies.
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Will try to get to the rest soon, but can't promise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
This will be in PR for a while I think Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
By the middle of the 20th century, human taxonomy was in a state of turmoil – unclear what you mean with "turmoil" here. Oversplit?
specifically taxonomic turmoil Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
various other putative Asian, African, and European taxa – putative means they are technically not taxa anymore? They still should be.
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
The ancient Georgia fossils – No need for ancient if you already have "fossils"; or when they are older than the others you should say it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There is little discourse on the usage of H. erectus subspecies that I can find. The article currently uses the most recent source I could find which was from 2003 in addition to a few later proposals. Should subspecies names be used so casually in this article? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)