Talk:Paleoanthropology

message: I understand that this does relate with evolution, but the study of human origin is indeed more interesting than the origin of animal and plant life, though it doesnt exclude those factors. I would enjoy reading more on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.100.66 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Origin

message: Time for an assessment. I notice in the history that quite a few users built this up and a few aren't on anymore. Wiki has grown some so maybe it is time for an assessment.
*The article seems to be in the right place for a "history of palaeoanthropology" topic and it is in fact such a topic. Palaeoanthropology has to be distinguished from its history. There really is no palaeoanthropology in here, only the history. Large parts of it are duplicated under the "History of Palaeoanthropology" subsection of Human evolution. In fact it is cluttering up the Human Evolution article as it appears to be about the evolution of the study of evolution and not about the evolution. The two are distinct; e.g., From Ape to Angel is about the history and Origins Revisited is about the evolution.
*Physical anthropology, which is a better Wikipedia article, though brief, references here.
Here are my suggestions. 1) Convert this into a history of palaeoanthropology article with a line up front saying "this article is about the history of palaeoanthropology. For information on the evolution of humans, see Human evolution." It shouldn't be too much trouble to clean the article up on that basis. 2)Remove the duplicated material from the Human Evolution article and leave a line stating "For information on the history of anthropolgy .... This will allow a cleaner article, Human Evolution, which also happens to need cleanup.
I would have said something like this in the discussion of Human Evolution but that article is now so sprawling and the discussion so lengthy and fragmented (Wiki-chaos) that I doubt anyone would even see it much less consider it.
These are big topics and I am sure there are many ways to organize them. My suggestions are based on what is there now, which is where we seem to have to start. There are more anthropology articles on Wiki now so I suppose a lot of the cleanup will be offloading material to the other articles and referencing those. After all, one article is not going to cover human evolution, but 50 or 100 might if we use cascades of links.  Dave 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment of the article

message: I have decided to raise some questions about the citations.  I do not doubt that there the citations are accurate (though, I do not know that they are either), however, there does seem to be a problem with an article that focuses only upon the history of the subject as opposed to the subject itself (a point made above).  There also seems to be a lack of genetic information, and, *of course*, PICTURES!  The genetic information would be most likely to yield scientifically reproducible evidence of a truthful kind, the history of the subject does seem to be marred in some politics, and hence, it might be best to remove the section and create a separate article for it.  MrASingh 13:53, 24 Feb 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: If no one objects, I'd like to remove the three individuals in the See Also section. There's no reason to list these three and not hundreds of others, many of whom are much more notable than these. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also listing 

message: The article is good and readable, but isn't Australia missing? As far as I can see discoveries there in the last 30,20 (?) years have blown the received wisdom on the timescale of Australian settlement to pieces. --Radh (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: Hi! I think the article could use some revision. The head section and the history section was (mainly) copied from one (secondary) source (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Paleoanthropology). However - please join in and check my grammar, spelling... - please.
ATB 
Wikirictor (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: new edits October 2015

message: Paleoanthropology, or paleo-anthropology (from Greek παλαιός palaiós "old, ancient", ἄνθρωπος ánthrōpos "man, human" and the suffix -λογία -logía "study of"), is the combination and a sub-discipline of paleontology and biological anthropology and is the study of the formation and the development of the specific characteristics of humans (hominization) and the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines in the family Hominidae by studying fossils, such as petrified skeletal remains, bone fragments, footprints and associated evidence, stone tools, artifacts, and settlement localities.
This is such a big mouthful with so many impediments, I'm finding it easier to recast the sentence than to delineate the issues. 
Paleoanthropology or paleo-anthropology—a sub-discipline of biological anthropology and paleontology—is a branch of archaeology which seeks to understand the early development of modern humans, a process known as hominization, through the reconstruction of evolutionary kinship lines within the family Hominidae from biological evidence (such as petrified skeletal remains, bone fragments, footprints) and cultural evidence (such as stone tools, artifacts, and settlement localities). The term paleoanthropology derives from Greek palaiós (παλαιός) "old, ancient", ánthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος) "man, human" and the suffix -logía (-λογία) "study of". 
I think I'm actually going to put that in. — MaxEnt 13:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the end, I went further still.  I wasn't trying to harm the pedantry, merely pace it more suitably to the human mind (rather than the squirrel mind). — MaxEnt 14:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a good first setence 

message: Is there are separate page for that? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:B49F:C58C:7467:E818 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the history's of the science not the modern science.