Talk:Homo rudolfensis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Primates Homo rudolfensis is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Copyright?

The first two paragraphs of this entry are identical with the first two paragraphs on Homo rudolfensis on this another site: something to do with the Smithsonian, perhaps. [1].

Does this constitute a breach of copyright? I don't know the author, perhaps they are one and the same.

Philip Lawton

p.d.lawton@dur.ac.uk

Yes, the first two paragraphs are nearly literal copies of other sources. The only thing that stops me from placing a copivio notice on the article is that it's not clear who owns the copyright (if any) on the original. Here is another source that has the same paragraphs:
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/er1470.htm
Google gives about 90 hits for pages with nearly identical wording
Gene s 08:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soft Tissue issues...

The article mentions a sophisticated sweating system, hair length, and noticeable whites of the eyes as characteristics not present in Homo rudolfensis. While it is perhaps unlikely that H. Rudolfensis would have exhibited these characteristics, is it not impossible to make such a determination given that the only existing evidence from this time consists of skeletal remains, as well as stone tools and a few footprints?

Charles Burgess

cb834214@albany.edu

There really is no scientific evidence to suggest any of this. In fact, we don't have the means to determine this at this point in time. Seems fabricated to me.Drur93 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Skull 1470

I think that both of these articles will always be rather small and, since one is talking about a specific find regarding the other, should be merged together here. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I belevie that this [Skull 1470] article is warranted. I think there is more to say about KNM–ER 1470 that will not (and probably shouldnt) fit in Homo rudolfensis - Por exemplo - how, when and by whom it was discovered; and considering that wikipedia has no size limits, there should be space for this scientifically important particularity. I hold no strong convictions on this issue, but considering that this is a subject that (I believe) is neglected on wikipedia, shouldnt we make some wriggle-space for extra article? --Ezeu 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC) minor edit by UtherSRG (talk)
Certainly wiki has no size limits, but that doesn't mean we can't put two things side-by-side and see if they should be combined or not and use potential growth as an issue. Look at Meganthropus and the recent expansion its gone through. This article would easily be a section in Homo rudolfensis. I'd rather have one nice-sized article that covers several aspects (findings, evolution, interpretation, etc.) than several small articles that I'd have to use to piece together the larger picture. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, if the "nice-sized article" covers the subject, and the issues in the "small article" are not neglected (which often is the case) — cool. Unforunately "nice-sized articles" usually ignore the nitty-gritty, leaving the seemingly unimportant details to stubs. I'd rather have several good stubs than none. --Ezeu 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited out the whites of the eyes, sophisticated sweating system, and naked apperance comments, as they are speculative, and there is no evidence to support them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rafe Kelley (talk • contribs) .

There was no need. The statement was already tagged as unsourced. Meanwhile, we continue to search for a citation for the information. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The role of Skull 1470 in evolution-creation controversy

This skull has been haunting me for a while. Its name keeps popping up on creationst websites. Many of them claim scientists deliberately changed the dates from the originally estimated age of 3 million years simply to make it fit the evolution theory better. The fact that it was discovered under "impossibly" old vulcanic ashes is also brought up often. One instance of such incident can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp (scroll down to the segment titled "Bad dates", paragraph 3)

I have been wondering what is the scientific response to these creationist accusations. In what way are the later estimations more accurate than the 3 million years, and how are the "old" ashes explained?

And most importantly, should there be a segment in this article regarding this controversy, similar to the Nylon-eating bacteria? Or does this debate perhaps belong in the Creation-evolution controversy article?

- Henry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.214.9.63 (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC).{{subst:image source|Image:1470f.jpg)) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:1470f.jpg

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1470f.jpg

Image:1470f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)