This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homo floresiensis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Homo floresiensis is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 24, 2004.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
"Hobbit banned as title of lecture on prehistoric 'hobbit'". The Guardian. 30 October 2012. "I am very disappointed that we're forbidden by the representatives of the Tolkien Estate to use the word 'Hobbit' in the title of our proposed free public event … especially since the word 'Hobbit' is apparently listed in the Oxford English Dictionary (and hence apparently part of our English-speaking vocabulary), the word 'Hobbit' (in the Tolkien context) is frequently used with apparent impunity in the written press and reference to 'Hobbit' in the fossil context is frequently referred to in the scientific literature (and is even mentioned in Wikipedia on Homo floresiensis). I realise I'm in unfamiliar word proprietry territory (as an earth scientist) … so I've gone for the easiest option and simply changed our event title." said Alloway.
There are a few things I wish to note here. First, I believe the word Scandal is not only sensationalism but also an opinion and is therefore subjective and is not neutral. I would like to suggest renaming it Specimen damage after all that is what the section is really about. Secondly, I have updated citations and added one to a sentence where the {{who}} tag was invoked. I also added an answer for the tag, but I'm not sure how to use the part of other "anthropologists", since the word in the article was simply "Anthropologists" in addition to the one professor, of course. Should this simply be , et al in relationship to the professor, or something similar? In any case, I hid the {{who}} tag and directed them here. I would like feedback on this.
Well, "scandal" suggests something improper took place. But there certainly was a row between the team that discovered the remains and Jacob. People who actually uncover fossils often forget they do not necessarily own them. It all depends on the legal system. In this case the team was definitely not amused when they were confronted with the simple fact they had to obey the Indonesian state. They reacted by expressing wild accusations, distortions and exaggerations to the press. In popular science books they portrayed Jacob as the villain of the story. This was reflected by an earlier version of our article. I made the text more neutral last May. "Scandal" might be replaced by "conflict".--MWAK (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
In 2006, American biologist Robert Martin and colleagues also concluded that the skull was probably microcephalic, arguing that the brain is far too small to be a separate dwarf species; he said that, if it were, the 400-cubic-centimeter brain would indicate a creature only one foot (30 cm) in height, one third the length of the discovered skeleton.
I wonder if this was misunderstood somehow from the original source. It seems self-contradictory ... he's saying that it's impossible for the brain to be so small because it's impossible for it to be so large. I think we can all agree that childbirth would be impossible if your baby's brain was a quarter of the adult human height (assuming similar growth patterns from birth to adulthood as with us and with other primates). Therefore we can set a minimum size on the stature of the mother that makes Martin's argument irrelevant. Why he failed to consider this, I dont know. But it seems to be a worthless distraction from the information in this section of the page. —Soap— 11:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the laziness of my brain – where do you see "impossible for it to be so large"? —Tamfang (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously a mistake by the journalist. Homo habillis had a brain size of 600 cubic cc. and a reduction of one third would not have such a dramatic effect. I will delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible coexistence of H. floresiensis with AMHs[edit]
While we do not know, and may never know, the exact timing for when the settlement of Insular Southeast Asia (specifically Wallacea) by anatomically modern humans started, considering that Australia was certainly starting to be settled by c. 50,000 BP and could well have been first entered as early as c. 65,000 BP (even earlier dates have been proposed, but they are more controversial and widely considered dubious), very likely before 60,000 BP anyway (ultimately, it's more likely because of drowned evidence that an earlier date is correct rather than the latest possible date), and given that Flores was far closer to Sundaland (even neighbouring it, and easily reached over only a small maritime gap), and even en route (at least if the earliest arrivers used the Timor route rather than the Moluccas route, which is more likely if the earlier rather than later date is correct, compare Prehistory of Australia § Arrival), a fortiori it is quite likely that anatomically modern humans were present on Flores as early as 60,000 BP (or even earlier), and therefore co-existed with late H. floresiensis just prior to its extinction, after all, and may well even have encountered the species. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
_Mattes_2022-10-30.jpg){kind=link}
_Mattes_2022-10-30.jpg){kind=link}
The redirect Lai ho'a has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 4 § Lai ho'a until a consensus is reached. Onel5969 TT me 15:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)