Talk:Early modern human/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 10 August 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Early modern human. And Homo sapiens will become a redirect to Human.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Homo sapiens → Early modern human Homo sapiens → Human; the contents of this article → Early modern human – The contents of this article (and the general consensus of how this article should look like) deals with H. sapiens specifically from evolution until the beginning of recorded history, with a special focus on the last major migration out of Africa, dispersal patterns, and the origins of "behavioral modernity". By specifically excluding history and anything past agriculture (for example, it's already been discussed that things like astronauts or women's suffrage will never be discussed on this article), this article only focuses on early modern humans as opposed to Homo sapiens as a whole, and therefore the article title should be changed to reflect the narrower scope. Note, this is not a discussion on if an article entitled Homo sapiens should exist or not. Whether human should be moved to the heading Homo sapiens is a different discussion entirely.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support and redirect Homo sapien to Human. We don't need to have separate articles on Homo sapien and Human. Homo sapien should redirect to Human, and this article should be moved and refocused on Early modern humans. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Isn't it a problem with the content rather than the title then? Homo sapiens does in no way exclusively refer to early modern humans, so it will only cause confusion. Better to just redirect it to human. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that we should not have separate articles for H. sapiens and humans; I think splitting the content of this article into a separate Early modern human article (and maybe removing the taxobox here) and then redirecting Homo sapiens to Human would be the best solution. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I am unsure. It seems that "Human" refers (or can refer) to all species within the genus homo (to the genus generally), while "Homo sapiens" (often colloquially equivalent to "human") is one species thereof. To me, it seems to make sense to have two separate articles. "Human" covers "humans" in the broad sense of Homo (with its longer history and various constituent species) and "Homo sapiens" focuses on the species H. sapiens and its (mostly early) history and origin specifically/in more detail. Skllagyook (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook:That's not the way our article on Human uses the term, nor is it the common meaning of "human". Our Human article is specifically about modern humans. Per our Human article: "In common usage, the word "human" generally refers to the only extant species of the genus Homo—anatomically and behaviorally modern Homo sapiens." Rreagan007 (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Another thing is, Homo sapiens may include other subspecies than those that are considered "early modern humans", so it might actually be misleading to equate the two. Seeing how mixed up the Homo sapiens family tree is, I wouldn't be surprised if neanderthals etc. are going to be put back into Homo sapiens down the line. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is about what the title should be for the contents of this page. Whether we should do human→Homo sapiens or Homo→human are completely separate discussions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My point is, if human is reserved for us, modern humans, Homo sapiens could be used for the species which does not only include us. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We should follow whatever the most common usage in English is for "Homo sapien". I believe that is as a synonym for modern humans. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is a scientific term for a taxon, not an English word, it doesn't have a "common" meaning. It is used to refer to modern humans today because, well, there aren't any other types of humans around. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Its most common usage when English speakers are using it is what I'm talking about. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Since it appears we're having this discussion anyways, "Homo sapiens" in itself is quite poorly defined and arguably more vague than "human". As Funkmonk pointed out earlier, depending on who you ask, "H. sapiens" can also include H. (s.?) neanderthalensis, H. (s.?) heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis, and H. s. idaltu. Discussion on such taxonomic nuances takes place on human taxonomy#Homo sapiens subspecies. Also, it's quite common that a common name of an extant creature also extends to extinct relatives. Lion talks almost exclusively about P. leo and not P. spelaea, P. atrox, or P. fossilis, yet it wouldn't be right to move "Lion" to a disambiguation page, nor would it be sensical to add more information on fossil species. It's best to abide by WP:COMMONNAME and do Homo sapiens → human rather than vice versa.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:36, 19 August 2020 (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.

LGM

LGM = ? Please explain. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Last Glacial Maximum linked earlier. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)