Talk:Caveman/Archive 1

Suggested Addition to page
There is now an academic book called THE CAVEMAN MYSTIQUE: POP-DARWINISM AND THE DEBATES OVER SEX, VIOLENCE, AND SCIENCE by Martha McCaughey (2008, Routledge). This book addresses the popular circulation of the "caveman" story today. There is a wiki page on this scholar, and that page mentions the book. Shouldn't this be a link under the category of, say, NONFICTION BOOKS ABOUT THE CAVEMAN ? ~ Moj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojomartini (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How many words in the English language are there a level of disagreement on whether they are masculine or generic?? 66.245.5.89 19:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to bring that up at all. They should mostly talk about how not all "cavemen" lived in caves instead... Besides, as a comment it's completely useless and tells us nothing. OF friggen course there's going to be females with them, do you think that people will start thinking they reproduced asexually or were hermaphrodites?


 * There is no disagreement from an etymological standpoint. Caveman refers to mankind in a cave, not the male half of our species. In old english, for example, man was gender nuetral. I don't know the exact history of caveman, but I  think it's more common use mirrors the etymology of women.

Request for protection
In response to repeated edits to this page that deleted large sections of the article and the frequently recurring months-long problems with random personal attacks being inserted into the article, a request for protection was put in place tonight. Requests_for_page_protection MrZaius  talk  04:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC) hey

Kudos for putting this in a pop culture frame referring to the science. I wasn't quite expecting that when I typed it in, but it fits well while still providing an avenue for getting to learn about actual cavemen. At some point, I'll propose some language more solidly guiding a link there. ~Robert

Requesting unprotection so that you can be bold and edit the page yourself. It's been three months - hopefully the vandals have moved on. MrZaius talk  10:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding anaglyph image
From the [revision history] "discussion":


 * 2008-02-08T23:16:49 Styrofoam1994 added "computer generated" in description of image.
 * 2008-02-08T23:20:02 Gwernol: Do you have any evidence this is computer generated? The image description doesn't say one way or the other and this could be hand painted
 * 2008-02-09T16:00:57 AdrianLozano: Actually, it's computer *modified*. See Wikipedia_talk:No_3D_illustrations.
 * 2008-02-09T16:03:36 Gwernol: Sorry, but unless you have some evidence to show that this particular illustration is computer modified, your description is surely original research

In theory, you could create a medium-quality color anaglyph without computer assistance, but it really that's not practical. But I have no problem with conceding that point. How about just removing the "computer-generated" part? I suppose that the "anaglyph" part isn't in question and could be reinstated? – Adrian Lozano (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If no-one objects, I'll do just that in a while then. – Adrian Lozano (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Adrian, that seems reasonable. Gwernol 15:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Many prehistoric humans did in fact live in caves
Ever hear of Les Eyzies, or Mt. Carmel? The article as it stands gives the misleading impression the very idea of 'cavemen' is a myth. Dlabtot (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding More
Please add more to this article, its mainly about the media's disambaguation on cavemen. please suggest what they really were and how they lived and how they evolved etc. History Lessons (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your criticism. Do you have any sources in mind that could be used to improve the article? Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While it would be nice to have a paragraph or two that examines cave-dwelling paleolithic man in more detail, please don't allow it to dominate the article. The notion of a "Caveman" is much more important as a part of popular myth and popular culture than it is as a legitimate grouping of early man (from what I've been able to gather) - Is the word used at all by anthropologists and archaeologists, outside of attempts to catch a reader's interest with references to popular culture? MrZaius  talk  02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it is ever used in scientific language. It's important as a archeotype or sterotype in culture, only.  We do need to say a little about the image vs. reality, but it's really about the history of a literary and pop cultural character, and perhaps as an "Jungian archeotype", if you will, something that reflects how people in general think about things.  Chrisrus (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

a cave man is hairy

Question:
Let me just ask you this: Are you saying that neanderthals were not sub-human? Chrisrus (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Which synonym to use: archetype or stereotype?
Should this be called a "stereotype" or an "archetype"?

If we call it a "sterotype", are we implying that it's basically a false vision? Do we want to do that? If we call it an "archetype", would we be more conforming to the "non-point-of-view" so important to encyclopedias, as to whether life for real "cavemen" was, in fact, "nasty, brutish, and short" or or more "nobel savage"? Which is more accurate? Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't synonyms but they both apply and they are both accurate. No, "stereotype" doesn't imply false. Dlabtot (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "sterotype" may not always apply "false" in all contexts, but it often does and may in the mind of the reader as "false" is clearly implied in common usages such as "Don't sterotype people." Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

refuting the sterotype
One of the problems with taking an approach involving clarifying any untruths of the sterotype lies in the fact that the concept of the caveman conflates the concepts of the early modern humans with that of the neanderthals. There are things you can say about how primitive men lived that are also true of neanderthals, but there are also things you can't. Neanderthals, for example, were super-human in some ways and sub-human in others. Early modern humans can be assumed to be just like you and me in many ways. Neanderthals are looking more and more alien these days, but we really can't say too much for sure. So you can't say "cavemen weren't really more X than we are", because it isn't clear which species "cavemen" refers to. Chrisrus (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro
A caveman or troglodyte is a popular stock character based upon popular concepts of the way in which early prehistoric humans may have looked and behaved. The archetype of "cavemen" originates with the discovery of Neanderthal remains. The term caveman, sometimes used colloquially to refer to Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon people (Homo sapiens of the Paleolithic era), originates out of assumptions about the association between early humans and caves, most clearly demonstrated in cave painting.

Yes, the word "caveman" or "troglodyte" is popular stock character based on popular concepts of prehistoric life. But it isn't clear if the character is a fully human Cro-Magnon, or a neanderthal, which wasn't quite human, or at least the fully human nature of neanderthals isn't agreed upon by experts. So the "early prehistoric humans" phrase should be changed to reflect this.

But I've pointed this out earlier, above. Now, please focus with me on the next two sentences. The first say it originates with the discovery of Neanderthals, and the second say it originates from the discovery of Cro-Magnon cave paintings. So which is it?

Next, the text that follows this intro dates the concept back to the middle ages, to the "wildman" idea. So the body dates back further than the into says.

Therefore, I'd like to redo it with words to the effect of

"A caveman or troglodyte is a popular stock character based on popular concepts that conflate how stone age humans and homonids might have looked and behaved. The concept sometimes is used colloqually to refer to more Neanderthal-like characters, and at other times seems to refer to early modern humans (Cro-Mangon).  They association with caves reflects the fact that much of the evidence of stone age people has been discoverd in caves, most clearly demonstrated in cave painting, which lead common folk to believe that they lived there all the time." Or something like that.

Please help with your thoughts, or feel free to edit the intro with my words or yours. Chrisrus (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets find what reliable sources say and base our intro/content/article on that. Active Banana (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your wording is an improvement. Dlabtot (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting Confused Users
It has been pointed out that many users may arrive at this article not to find out about this referrent but rather to learn about early modern humans and other hominids, but instead find themselves a bit frustrated and lost. How can they best be helped? How about a hatnote or a "see also" section? Any ideas? Chrisrus (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Butty" animal hides?
I can't figure out what "butty" means in this context. Is there some meaning to "butty" that I'm not aware of?

Archangle0 (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been vandalism that was not properly identified and removed when it happened. Thank you for pointing it out! - it has been removed. Active Banana (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears that the original content was "shaggy animal hides" before the vandalism.  I'll return it to the original content. Archangle0 (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And what about the dinosaurs?
Odd omission in this article: cavemen are often portrayed living with or hunting dinosaurs -- despite the fact the latter species died out millions of years before the emergence of the human species. (You want sources? What about the cartoons "Alley Oop" & "The Flintstones"?) When did this scientific error first become embedded in popular culture? In the 1950s? Earlier? -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to cite this obvious fact, but it might fall under the WP:SKYISBLUE as it is not likely to be challenged. Do you have a good idea about exactly how to encorporate this into the article in a smooth way?  If so, please be WP:BOLD and take care of this omission.  I think there is a need as some people, unfortunately, may still need to be told that @65 million years separate humans from dinosaurs, despite the fact that movies and such show them living together.  We can find a citation for it afterwards if anyone challenges it.  This is of course my opinion.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've been meaning to ask at the Help desk when this pop culture idea of cavemen & dinosaurs first started & how. With all of the projects I have on my plate, I'm not going to get around to researching this myself any time soon -- although I might just act on your suggestion & add a paragraph. (And in response to your second point, Chrisrus, I have this image of a low-information person wondering if cavemen & dinosaurs came before -- or after -- the Biblical flood. And I wouldn't be surprised if there is a web page out there where someone shares his earnest thoughts on this serious subject.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it'd be an improvement to the article. Something like "...often shown in the company of dinosaurs, even though the last dinosaur died at least sixty million years before the evolution of the first homonid..." or somesuch.  Let's check the number and err on the safe side.  If someone challenges we can just point out the dinosaurs in the flintstones, B.C., and on and on until they stop being unreasonable and allow it as obviously established fact.  I predict no one will challenge, anyway.  Only statements not likely to be reasonably challenged need citations anyway.  Go ahead and do it, it's not taking on a big project.  Chrisrus (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alley Oop Dlabtot (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I added a paragraph after the lead admitting to the fact, so I guess the issue should be resolved. However, I find it embarrassing that dinosaurs are mentioned in this article -- as the first sentence in the section "Depictions of the Paleolithic in the media" -- & the three of us missed that passage. (As well as everyonewho read the thread & apparently never thought to verify my assertion. You lurkers missed an easy shot to put us Wikipedians in our place. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all cavemen are mean aggresive, some of them are kind and gentle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.204.79 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor incorrect fact about primates
While obviously, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons never lived alongside non-avian dinosaurs, this article states that true primates had not evolved during the Mesozoic era. There is strong evidence that primates had evolved by about 90 million years ago, even if their fossils did not appear until the early Eocene. ~ Lord Marcellus  16:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Main subject
How can this article be about a stock character, when the main subject obviously refers to a scientific concept? Caveman should be a dab page, and this pone should be moved to "caveman (stock character)" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. There is insufficient support for a change of title; discussion about how to improve this and related articles can continue below. Cúchullain t/ c 17:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Caveman → Caveman (stock character) – No proof the subject is primarily a "stock character" rather than a scientific concept. Caveman should be the new title of Caveman (disambiguation). FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide your reason or rationale behind this move request? A quick view of pageviews (not necessarily the only measurement) shows Caveman alone is vastly more utilized than any of the DAB pages. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The rationale is given above. The "stock character" is hardly the main subject this title should cover. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with on this. Simply asserting something "should" be something else is hardly providing reason or rationale. --В²C ☎ 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I presume (and Tiggerjay confirms) that, barring evidence to the contrary (which the nom did not provde), that this article is the primary topic for this title. I see no evidence to the contrary, and therefore no reason to support. --В²C ☎ 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's take some dictionary definitions then: None of them imply the main subject is a "stock character", or fictional at all. FunkMonk (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which Wikipedia article from the DAB do you feel better fits the definitions provided above? It appears this article is the best fit among all of them, and would be the primary topic that people are looking for. Certainly making the DAB page the primary page is making things less clear. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Even a redirect to Cave dweller or some such would be more fitting. The point is that the current subject is not the main one by any stretch. Neither you or others have demonstrated that the fictional depiction is the main subject, on the other hand. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, assuming implied restructuring of articles. Self-evidently, the concept must be primary to the artistic reflection of the concept.  The PrimaryTopic is the concept that seems to be described at Cave_dweller.  I suppose it is an undeveloped subject because it is a bit of a belief concept drawing from multiple disparate sources, and less a scientific concept.
 * The proposed name doesn't excite me greatly. "Stock character" doesn't feel right, although on examination it seems perfectly correct.  The bulk of this article is Caveman.  It could be renamed to Caveman stereotypes in culture or similar.
 * I note the real science can be navigated from Template:Human history and prehistory. The closest actual article I find is Prehistory, which is completed focus on human prehistory and which I would have expected to find as Prehistoric humans.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Born2cycle but I think User:SmokeyJoe is onto something. The problem seems to be with how the current caveman article covers the topic.  The intro gives no explanation of or links to the material at cave dweller that deals with actual prehistoric cavemen.  But just dumping readers at a DAB page doesn't help either with confusing disambiguators like "stock character".  Instead, caveman stereotypes in culture could be created as a split from the caveman article and caveman could be something of a CONCAPTDAB with both scientific and cultural aspects covered.  —  AjaxSmack   19:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - put it well, and there is need for improvement and simply moving forward with this move would be an insignificant improvement. I agree that  has a good point, but simply moving forward with this move isn't it. Opposing until a more complete answer is found. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, it doesn't have to redirect to a dab page, it can redirect to cave dweller. The point is that when people search for caveman, they don't look for what this article is currently about. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caveman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720054133/http://kissofthebeast.com/film_program/20_november/mans_genesis to http://kissofthebeast.com/film_program/20_november/mans_genesis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger with Neanderthals in popular culture page
Both this article and Neanderthals in popular culture cover much of the same material if any future Wikipedians are interested. DHHornfeldt (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See my response here.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Chimpanzee huts?
Article sez:
 * Until the last glacial period, the great majority of hominins did not live in caves, being nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes living in a variety of temporary structures, such as tents and wooden huts (e.g., at Ohalo).

Now if you follow the link to hominini, it says it means humans and chimpanzees. A reader might be tempted to infer that chimpanzees built temporary structures, such as tents and wooden huts. I don't think that was intended. (I suppose it's possible that the chimps were much less populous than genus Homo but I sort of doubt it, and anyway it would still be confusing text.)

Can someone who has the sources available (or other sources) please fix this? --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it to "humans", which I'm pretty sure is what was intended. If someone has the refs, feel free to elaborate. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Caveman → Caveperson – Primitive female humans are an equally common appearance alongside men in this trope - it is not specifically masculine. It would also follow MOS:GENDER. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose, this is about the common name of a stock character and not a group of people. An n-gram that covers the terms. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Caveman" is a term usually used as an insult, so of course it will pop up extremely often, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we should not confuse it with the appearance of the caveman trope in media. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the n-grams? There is no such thing as 'caveperson' as a literary trope or stock character. It does not exist, or doesn't exist nearly enough to substitute it for a common name and long-term (2004) Wikipedia page title. The trope or character commonly known as a caveman does not seem like an insult at all if referring to early man, who lived in temperature regulated caves when they had it good (the characters based upon these individuals in literary and acting use are commonly called 'cavemen', even the great painters). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Women should be equally represented in these terminology. Shwcz (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment can someone show some usage of "caveperson" instead of handwaving, because I don't think it meets WP:COMMONNAME. An alternate would be caveman and cavewoman or somesuch, since "cavewoman" is actually used. Ofcourse there is troglodyte and neanderthal used to refer to this stock character. (which would need a parenthetical disambiguator) -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I read MOS:GENDER, it's not about article titles, rather it's a choice of words in articles. So the COMMONNAME should take priority. Neocorelight (Talk) 05:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "caveman" is the established term. J I P  &#124; Talk 09:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very clear common name. Almost nobody uses "caveperson". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree that WP:COMMONNAME takes priority over MOS:GENDER with respect to article titles. — Matuko (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common name and arguments above. --Dmol (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Levi the caveman
Some trolls keep removing an important part of history Tedbonaz (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Vocalizations
What's the origin of "Ooga-Booga-Tooga"? It's clearly conventional, but who started it? 89.64.69.108 (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)