Talk:Paranthropus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Primates Paranthropus 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)