Talk:Paranthropus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Images

File:Boisei.jpg

File:Skulpara.jpg

"all Paranthropus images have a flat head." Sure, Uther. We believe you.

I recently added this image only to have it reverted, with the edit comment "stop adding images to articles". I think this must have been due to poor judgement. I will of course entertain opinions to the contrary, but lacking that, I will be returning the image shortly. Jack 13:10, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(I cropped the table to just the image in question.)

I wasn't aware you were in the habit of adding images, Jack. That was a strange thing for someone to say.Lizard King 00:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• 1) The image of Paranthropus does look like reconstructions of the extinct hominid, of which images are copyrighted. I already checked into the matter, and if I had found otherwise all entries for extinct hominids would now sport photos of reconstructions.
• 2) When UtherSRG says otherwise he is simply lying, Jack. Don't ever give him the benefit of the doubt at this point.
• 3) I was asked to render the image by Wikipedia users. I did not elect to create the image, but for being prompted by other users. Despite this obvious fact (which I am certain UtherSRG was well aware of), he elected to delete the image from the entry to spite the users who requested it and the artist who created it. Anything short of that would not be an accurate or incisive account of this matter.
• 4) Although, up until this point I did not think it was particularly important, most of the images UtherSRG has put up in place of my own have come from copyrighted material. I do not believe UtherSRG was ignorant of this fact.

So at this point I am going to politely ask UtherSRG, In regard to his future decisiions concerning the content of the site, to take into consideration the welfare of Wikipedia and its users, and more relevantly to UtherSRG, the full consequences of his actions, including those not immediately forthcoming.Lizard King 00:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Compare the image to the ones found using Google and you can see that this image has significantly more created data (shape and relative size of body parts) than matches the established works based upon the fossil records. - UtherSRG 14:08, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This image is not copywritten. Its is also the only Paranthropus image available for this article to my knowledge. Even had you another, I see no reason not to include both. The only argument against including this image which I understand you to be presenting is your general objection to all artwork created by LK, which is in my opinion entirely unreasonable and persecutory. Jack 15:16, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, my issue with LK is not the only factor. Again, compare this image to the existing images in the Google search above. It does not look like any of the images of Paranthropus. It does a disservice to the encyclopedia by not accurately describing Paranthropus. - UtherSRG 15:27, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First the other image is not available on public domain, to my knowledge. Secondly I see nothing about this image that is less considerate of the (rather minimal) informations available on Paranthropus. The fact it is dissimilar from other equally loose interpretations of ancient bone fragments is not particularly disturbing to me. Rather than rejecting this image as a "disservice", why can you not accept it for the humble service it seeks to provide to our neglected reading public? The wikipedia is not about the personalities of our editors, but rather the qualities of our articles. Occasionally we must surrender a battle of pride in return for the reward of progress. Jack 15:36, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The image is not representative of the images in the Google search. Did you even look at them to compare? Or even this search? I'll try to say it again another way: newly created images should have some reasonable similarity to the existing (but unusable from a GFDL standpoint) images. If it is not, there is no reason to include the image, and in fact it does harm by (at the least) giving a wrong impression of what the object in question looks like. Worse, it can discredit the remainder of the valuable information in the article. - UtherSRG 15:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I do not agree with it. I do not see any need for any similarity between artists conceptions outside of conforming to the hard evidence. Do you have any hard evidence showing how LK's image differs substantially from what little scientific documentation regarding Paranthropus is available? I see no such proof. Rather, I see you focusing on the (IMO) irrellevent subtle differences betwixt LK's image and those fashioned by artists posessing differing interpretations of said evidence. The differences between any quality representations can be as wide as the hard evidence is vague. When dealing with remains such as those of Paranthropus, valid depictions of physical features neccesarilly have such an opportunity for wide variance. Jack 16:17, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

File:Skulpara.jpg

"all Paranthropus images have a flat head." Sure, Uther. We believe you.

If you want specific details: The head is pointed when all Paranthropus images have a flat head.

The hands are exceptionally long compared to the rest of the body features. I agree that different artists will come to different conclusions given the small amount of data available. For instance, this image shows three different interpretations. I can easily look at the image and point out the features taken directly from the skull fossils found. I can find no such features on the image you want to put in the article. - UtherSRG 16:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The image you selected is a VERY old one that was based on incomplete skulls , unlike the one on the top of the page, which is of a skull at the Smithsonian.Lizard King 21:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Half of the recreations on the page search you showed actually have pointed heads!! How could you miss that? The only images that did not were based on incomplete fossils or were of a profile where the hominid was looking up or to the side in such a way that angle obufuscated the cranium.Lizard King 21:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Uther, at one point I really wanted to believe that this was just a misunderstanding but after looking at this you have lost all credibility.Lizard King 21:16, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• 1) Paranthropus has a crested (pointed) head, not a rounded one. The crest was used to anchor massive jaws for masticating roots and bark. The most complete skulls of Paranthropus show this and reconstructions also do. I was Australopticus that had a rounded head. Uther knows this Jack, don't give him the benefit of the doubt.
• 2) From what is know of Paranthropus it has been surmised that its hands and other features would have been decidely Chimpanzee like, with the exception of its Pelvis. Again, Uther knows this.
• 3) Skull fossils do correlate with the drawing, but only the applicable fossils of the correct hominid. Don't let him mislead you, Jack.

Now we are getting somewhere! IMO any objections/suggestions must be based on the skulls and other bones, rather than alternate drawings. As far as the specific objections, I assumed the pointiness was ment meerely to be hair rather than a (what would be an innacurate) pointy skull. The elongated hands I don't know enough about. I am not an expert in this area by any stretch. I do however love learning, and feel a visual image is a potent assistant in that quest on this page. Jack 17:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we aren't getting anywhere. I have learned from talking to Uther that when he does rarely present a fact it is obfuscated in verbose language and inconsistant details. When he presents a fact, point blank, he is usually lying but doesn't think anyone will spend the time and energy to prove it. The point is, never take any fact that UtherSRG presents at face value. If you give him credibility that quickly shifts the argument in his favor Lizard King 01:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know about that crest head thing. I don't really know much about apes at all, but I do like to learn. Seeing pictures helps us learn, and tthats why I support LK's drawings. I still have not heard any good reason why they shouldn't be here (and else where) assuming there isn't anything better availiable, and a problem with size, formatting. Jack 06:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Assume the best

Wikipedia:Wikiquette Jack 06:13, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Lizard King, I'm not going to argue with you. I know you are wrong, and yelling at me is a surefire way to prove that you don't know what you are talking about. - UtherSRG 21:09, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

File:Boisei2.jpg

"all Paranthropus images have a flat head." Sure, Uther. We believe you.

LOL Lizard King 21:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

sigh The image of the reconstruction proves my point. It has a flat head. The muscle connects to the ridge of the skull, making a flat head. - UtherSRG 21:39, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

sigh The image clearly has a pointed head. You are funny. Lizard King 21:45, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Uther, I think you should actually do some reading of that page. "Avoid reverting and deleting." "Work towards agreement." "Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise." I almost never see you following these. From what I've seen you go out of your way to do just the opposite. a lot of time. I personally like to assume the best about people but when someone demonstrates they do thing a certain way practically every instance you deal with them, I quit assuming anything about them and work from an understanding of evidence. ScifiterX 4:44 PM EST 02.03.04

The musles are ANCHORED to the ridge by tendons. Just like gorillas. Have you ever seen a gorilla head? I will admit the accentuation of the crest might be overdone a bit on my illustration, but basically that is what Paranthropus looked like. At this point the fossil record we have has some very complete Paranthropus boisei skulls. Not only that but some other species of Paranthropus had a MORE accentuated crest than boisei!!!! Lizard King 22:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As far as the the images being posted the earlier Paranthropus skulls have a very distinct point. The later species of Paranthropus, like boise and robustus and which include some of the ones you posted Uther, appear to demonstrate a less pronounced but still quite prominent domed point. ScifiterX 5:26 PM EST 02.03.04

Why does this article sound demeaning to Paranthropus? It does seem too. How can anyone know enough about them to say they were too stupid to learn fire. Its possible of course, but the way its put.. We're talking 200,000 years ago with a thousand years being a trivial matter to us? Who knows what they did in such time frames? sunja 11:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Why the objection to the image?

I don't remember there being any valid reason for its removal last time, other than aggression towards Lizard king. Is there some other convincing reason, so long as a better image is not available? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compare it to any other image used to describe P. boisei. Compare it to any image used to describe an extinct species here on Wikipedia. It does hold up to those standards. - UtherSRG 22:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have an image of such right here. I agree the image in my kids book is better, but big deal. The article has no image, and this one isn't all that bad. I guess I'll just wait another six months... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No consensus on Paranthropus genus

There is no consensus in the scientific community that the species A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus belong in the genus Paranthropus. They are commonly referred to as A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus in current peer reviewed articles and books. To provide a neutral viewpoint, both models of classification systems should be described in detail. For these reasons I have added a disputed tag. Please do not remove until article is updated to be NPOV. 154.20.161.143 08:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added several links that show Paranthropus is considered a distinct genus by mainstream scientists. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to provide a NPOV. Although your own opinion on Paranthropus is obvious, personal opinions do not belong on wikipedia articles. I am not suggesting that this article should be changed to say that the three species belong in the Australopithecus genus, because then the article would continue to provide a biased point of view. What I am suggesting is that BOTH models of classification systems are mentioned and described in detail. For these reasons, I have added a POV tag. Please do not remove the tag until both classification systems are given the equal attention which they deserve. Also, this article does not list it's sources and so I have added, for the third time now, an unreferenced article tag. I do not understand why you removed that tag, as you did not add any references to the article. Please do not remove the tag again until this article has been rewritten in a NPOV using references or until the original references are added to the existing article. Thank you. --154.20.161.143 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added several pointeres to source material that has been used to craft this article, hence, I remove the unsourced tag. Equal time is not neutral, if the differeng views are of differeing weights or of differing quality. I, and the other editors of this article, have crafted the view that seems to be the more accepted or the view whose acceptance seems to be growing in acceptance. To put both taxonomies as equal would be un-neutral. I'm again reverting your tags. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the article so that it includes the POV tag and the unreferenced tag.

Re: unreferenced tag

Adding a few external links is not considered citing the source material (as an administrator, you are already aware of this). At present, this article does not cite the sources used to create it. Until sources have been referenced, do not remove the unreferenced tag. You cannot argue the validity of the unreferenced tag as this article clearly does not mention any references. This is not an arguable point. Once references have been cited, then the tag can be removed.

Re: POV tag

Although I accept your point that equal time is not neutral in all cases, in this case I am saying that it is. Currently, both taxonomies are equally used in peer reviewed journals and books. The article currently lacks any source information, much less information from peer reviewed sources. The links to external sites are not links to peer reviewed journals and books. Four links to external, non-peer reviewed information, does not represent a holistic view of the subject or the view of the "scientific community". The view of the "scientific community" can be found in peer reviewed articles and books. If you can prove, through citing peer-reviewed material, that the consensus in the scientific community is that there are three genera of Australopiths and not one genus, then of course the POV tag can be removed. I can assure you, though, that there is no consensus on this subject matter. Those in the scientific community, regardless of which taxonomic scheme they prefer, will tell you that there is no consensus on the matter and that which taxonomic system one uses relies on how the individual interprets the specific fossil remains. I am including references to back up my point, please check these references before considering reverting the POV tag (also please be aware that if you remove the tag again you will be in violation of 3RR - which applies to all Wikipedians).

References: Conroy (2005), White et al. (1994, 1995), Whitehead et al. (2005)

--154.20.161.143 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A quote from The Smithsonian Institute, which is listed as a reference on the Paranthropus page, which says exactly what I have said before on the talk page:

"In recent years, many researchers have sought to emphasize the uniqueness of the heavy-chewing adaptations seen in at least three separate species of ealry human. Many favor the separation of these species into a robust genus of early human, for which the name Paranthropus was the first used, and therfore has seniority over all other names. It is this classification that we favor here, but it should be noted that there is, as yet, no consensus among paleoanthropologists on this issue." -http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rob.htm

I am not going to try adding this information to the page because I don't want to get into another revert war with UtherSRG. I don't feel like getting blocked again for trying to improve this page. I would appreciate it if someone else added this information to the page seeing as the sources cited agree that there is NO consensus in the scientific community on the issue.--Bubbleteagirl 05:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that information included in the article, and I never have been. Regardless of that, we still have to pick some taxonomy to present in the taxobox, which is consistent with the other articles on the subject. PLEASE YES add that information, but leave the presented taxonomy as it is. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have no problem with this article being written in a NPOV, then why did you remove the POV tag and say "I've added several links that show Paranthropus is considered a distinct genus by mainstream scientists." The several links that were added to the site show that mainstream scientists are all very polite, regardless of their own personal opinion, stating the fact there is no consensus in the scientific community on the issue. Not only that, they state their reasons for choosing to use the taxonomic system that includes the genus Paranthropus. I can find just as many articles and books that use the one genera taxonomic system which, as the links on the Paranthropus page do, also give a nod to the other side and explain why they use the taxonomic system they do. I guess it doesn't matter why this had to turn into such a huge issue that ended in a revert war... I'm just happy that this page finally is written in a NPOV. Seeing as I wasn't the one to choose which taxonomic system is used, maybe who ever did could explain why the chosen system is used on Wikipedia. I added that this is the taxonomic system used on Wikipedia, but it would be nice if someone else could add the information as to why. If no one knows and it was a completely random choice, then the usual answer is: "it was the original name given to the genus".--Bubbleteagirl 07:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finally adding the needed text to the article and note that the amount was considerably smaller than all of your ranting and complaining on the talk pages. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My ranting? My complaining? Wow. I just added a POV tag and backed it up with reasons on the talk page. Sometimes all it takes is the word "not" to completely change the meaning of a statement. "It is the consensus," means something entirely different from "It is not the consensus." You were the one that removed the POV tag over and over and over again and refused to discuss why. It's a shame that you were so rude and turned it into such a huge issue considering that the information was so easily corrected in the end.--Bubbleteagirl 00:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the added disclaimer. It took me while to get the organization down here since what I learned in the 90s was that all these were under the australopithicus genus. But I think the current organization works out well and most who study early hominids will understand the fluidity in some categorizations as new information is always being discovered. All we can really do is stay abreast of scientific consensus and when there is no clear consensus pick the organization that works best in this format. Nowimnthing 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that special?

The article says, "specialized in an herbivorous diet that required a stronger jaw and molars". I've seen a piece in the New York Times (21 Nov 2006?) suggesting no specialization existed. Trekphiler 05:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)