Talk:Paranthropus/Archive Feb 25, 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image:Boisei.jpg

Image: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)

Image: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)

Image: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