Talk:NG 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Earth sciences Portal NG 6 is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

putting it together with other h erecti seems obscure both for geographical location and age. The classification as erectus is suspect in that light, and one may doubt the interpretation of the age.

I expect it to be either substantially older (in wich case it relates to the erectus period) or some sideslip, eg. you might hypothise an offspring between sapiens and flores. Like with most finds from indonesia (meganthropus, dubois finds) it seems to suffer a bit from the standard under apreciation for asian finds. (A completely different (though according to this article supposedly older) find , mungo man that is classified (and therefore probably doubtlessly that) sapiens has taken years to find apreciation for it's real age (now set around 60ka). So although my first impression is research should be done (esp. to the age and yield of the site) merging it with erectus imnvho would be the most rasist (biased) thing to do. There is a trend at the moment not only to subdivide early hominids along almost individual lines, but also to merge evrything that is really old (this one apparently isn't) and not in africa , to erectus.

However regarding italian and spanish recent finds (of no impressing quality btw compared earlier african hominids, but sufficient quantity to signify a populace), where the mixture of traits raises new suggestive questions about ancestorship and evolutionairy divergence of humankind, one must surely assume that any interpretation of fossils as erectus younger then 300ka is largely a result of the biased western viewpoints upon 'racial development'.

iow the interspecies relationships thus implied must (considering the time segment that is like 5 times bigger then the neanderthal period),be moot. Or and that is what i expect, the recent dna-research is a farce and moot. (wich is what i actually think because it is is so invariably much harder to check or control then any morphological and rational deductions. (geological ones eg. or the fact many species interbreed way longer (bears) between way more varied species. or maintain a species - integrity over a much longer period , wich btw human isn't either bad in or over with.)

Whenever there is controversy about a specimen it should be noted. If you have some sources feel free to note it on the page. Just be sure to follow No original research. Nowimnthing 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge tags

I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species

1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.

2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.

3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.

4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ng6f.jpg

Image:Ng6f.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) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)