Talk:Peking Man

message: I read somewhere that Peking Man was actually a type of ape unrelated to humans. The book says that when Peking Man was found, the scientists thought it was a missing link between apes and men because it was discovered with various tools and bones. But according to the book, it turned out that Peking Man was hunted down by a modern human, and the tools were used on them, not by them. Could someone link this to the article? Charizardmewtwo (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is creationist pseudoscience. Ultimately, this has its origin in a, now discarded, hypothesis by Marcellin Boule from 1937, as related in the text.--MWAK (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Modern man]]

message: Peking Man > Homo erectus yuanmouensis
--Shizhao 00:26, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: H.erectus yuanmouensis

message: ===support===
*Nowimnthing 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge [[Sinanthropus]] here discussion

message: *Nowimnthing 17:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: support

message: According to historian Tore Frängsmyr's book "Pekingmänniskan. En historia utan slut" ["Peking man. A never-ending history"] (Stockholm, 2006), Zdansky found one tooth on-site in 1921, recognized them as anthropoic, and took them with him along with the other stuff he'd excavated (which was in accordance with the agreement he had with Andersson, that he'd retain the right to work on what he'd excavated). Somtime between 1923-1926, working on the material he'd brought with him back to Uppsala, he discovered a second tooth. His findings, which did not include daring conclusions about what sort of human the teeth had belonged to, were published in 1926. Birger Bohlin was offered to head further excavations of the cave after the Rockefeller foundation had donated money for such work, and after Zdnasky had decline to take the job. In October 1927, Bohlin discovered a tooth from a hominid, and brought it with him to Davidson Black in Beijing, and Black concluded based on this tooth and Zdansky's two teeth that there really was a "Peking Man".
Being inexperienced in writing for Wikipedia, I didn't want to start messing with the text in the article, but I still wanted to offer these little factoids in the hope that they might be of use.
83.226.135.131 (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factoid

message: Article states: "... in recent years the view of Lubenow that they were humans has been gaining ground."
Who is Lubenow?
Karl gregory jones (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lubenow 

message: There is a weird recent edit calling for citations on the lead section note that additional Peking man material has been found since the pre war finds. In fact that is entirely supported by the subsequent section " Subsequent Research"User9933 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird recent edit 

message: Discuss here. Come to consensus. Enjoy. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. This has been going on for almost two years now. See Tim Vickers's comments here. mgiganteus1 (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I suspected as much, which is one of the reasons I reverted to your version before protecting. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mgiganteus v. IP 

message: Hey why didn't anyone put top of the skull found. As it shown in a BBC documentary,  this anthropologist was aloud to look inside the collections and the chinese paleontologists showed her an actual remaining fossil of peking man.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastronomer (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia would prefer a site more immediate than a documentary. Kortoso (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  peking man 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Peking Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408234740/http://users.rcn.com/granger.nh.ultranet/bulletin/MorganLucas3.pdf to http://users.rcn.com/granger.nh.ultranet/bulletin/MorganLucas3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927172801/http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CN/200909/t20090923_43433.shtml to http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CN/200909/t20090923_43433.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I saw Dunkleosteus77's request for peer review, so I popped in and I think this is pretty good. I cleaned it up a bit.
(This is by no means a formal peer review, just a note)
I find it a little bit hard to read with such long paragraphs, but I didn't know where to split them/ if it was necessary. 
Asparagusus (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popping in