Talk:Cro-Magnon

Chronology And Geography Of Neanderthal Admixture
"AMH are estimated to have marginally interbred with Neanderthals during about 65 to 47 ka, most likely in West Asia soon after leaving Africa.[12][13] Ancestral West Eurasians began to move into Europe beginning about 45 ka. Neanderthals became extinct shortly after this time, presumably being outcompeted or actively killed by the advancing EEMH. Admixture with Neanderthals appears to cease almost entirely after 45 ka, in spite of several millennia of continued co-existence of AMH and Neanderthals in Europe.[14]"

There is another alternative - that admixture with Neanderthals happened within Africa, and that it were the most admixed with Neanderthals who left first, and ended up moving farthest. Meanwhile, AMH's within Africa would be more and more AMH and less Neanderthal - however you'd still find small traces of Neanderthal dna. This would help explain the observed "Admixture with Neanderthals appears to cease almost entirely after 45 ka, in spite of several millennia of continued co-existence of AMH and Neanderthals in Europe.[14]". Maybe they never or rarely admixed with Neanderthals outside of Africa, beyond their first contacts within Africa. As a result, higher percentages of Neanderthal dna in the remotest places like Scandinavia, Australia and the Americas, would imply an early arrival of the people in question. High Neanderthal admixture would mean they arrived there first, before anyone else did. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, that has not been proposed by any reliable source (and is certainly not a notable scholarly opinion). (For one thing, there is currently no evidence that Neandrthals were ever in Africa, including North Africa.) Unless there is a reliable source that explicitly suggests that scenario you mention, there is no basis to add it to an article, because it would be "original research" (WP:OR) which is against/not allowed by Wikipedia policies. Skllagyook (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in European early modern humans
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of European early modern humans's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Higham2006": From Peștera Muierilor:  From Cro-Magnon:  

Reference named "pnas": From Cro-Magnon:  From List of human evolution fossils:  

Reference named "preddog": From Cro-Magnon:  From Moravia: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on European early modern humans. 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/20060707133653/http://www.mnh.si.edu:80/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html to http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on European early modern humans. 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/20160303181504/http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Time%20out%20of%20Africa.pdf to http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Time%20out%20of%20Africa.pdf

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) 11:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European early modern humans. 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/20120425050528/http://anaconda.ub.rug.nl/misc/ESI4CvD/Gronigen.PNAS.pdf to http://anaconda.ub.rug.nl/misc/ESI4CvD/Gronigen.PNAS.pdf

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) 05:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this article be merged with Cro-Magnon

 * - Absolutely against. Cro-Magnon Man is an outdated and imprecise name, which should only be used for the original finds from Cro-Magnon. The difference should be made clearer though. --Joostik (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Two articles of the same topic should be merged. Cro-magnon is not an oudated name, still very much in use as evidenced by Google Scholar hit which gives so many scholarly references including publications in 2018; "European early modern humans" is (grammatically sounds rather odd anyway) rarely used. This makes the reference The Oxford Companion to Archaeology by Fagan (1996), which states "The name [Cro-Magnon] is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English," itself outdated and factually wrong. Chhandama (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement "European early modern humans is rarely used", is completely wrong. A simple Google search returns 2.1 million hits while Cro Magnon only returns 1.4 million hits. A Google scholar search of European early modern humans returns 909.000 hits while Cro Magnon returns only 21,700 hits.2601:405:4300:DB28:5D3D:5970:4FBE:B652 (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you used your Google searches. But my Google search for "European early modern humans" returns 21,600 results; while "cro-magnon" has 16,50,000 (76 times!). And my Google Scholar gives 317 and 18,400 (58 times) results respectively. The statistics support the statement that EADH is much more rarely used than CM, and that usage of CM is still relevant as it is. Chhandama (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Cro-Magnon" getting more results than "EEMH" is hardly surprising. It is conceivable that "Cro-Magnon Man" can get an entry separate from EEMH, but such an article will still need to be written, as the existing "Cro-Magnon" page was just an obvious WP:CFORK of this page. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * because EEMH is the current scholarly term, in use since the 1990s or so.
 * "Cro-Magnon" refers not just to EEMH, it is and was variously used to refer to: the Cro-Magnon site, the individual Cro-Magnon fossils (Cro-Magnon 1 to Cro-Magnon 5), anatomically modern humans in general, and European anatomically modern humans. This ambiguous usage is precisely why the term is now deprecated.

Re-erecting Cro-Magnon?
If no-none mind, I would like to erect a Cro-Magnon page distinct from this one, describing the Cro-Magnons as a particular subset of EEMHs. I think it would be worthwhile to discuss exactly what goes in such an article first though. Obviously, the Cro-Magnon rock shelter is relevant, and so is various similar finds like [Mladeč caves]] and other Aurignacian and Gravettian sites. I am planning to exclude earlier finds like Peștera cu Oase (who appear to have had a neanderthal great-great grandfather), and later (Magdalenian) finds.

I'm not sure whether Cro-Magnon or Cro-Magnon man would be best suted for such an article. I'm leaning towards the latter, leaving Cro-Magnon a disambiguation page. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This article describes Cro-Magnon as a synonym of EEMH – is that not the case? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the EEMH is a wider sample than the Cro-Magnons. EEMH includes finds like the early Peștera cu Oase-finds and Grimaldi man and Chancelade man, all of which were quite distinct from the Cro-Magnon 1-5 and related finds (Mladeč, Předmostí and others).


 * Complicating the picture, the term Cro-Magnon itself has gone through quite a bit of transformation through history. Until WWII, it was used for the original Cro-Magnon and related finds. In the late 70s and 80s, it was used a a very broad category, essentially covering EEMH and sometimes anatomically modern human world wide, while it at the same time was used specifically for the people of the distinct Middle Stone Age culture in Europe. This too should be covered, but it isn't natural to cover this under the EEMH-article (indieed, the bits that were covering this were edited out as irrelevant).


 * Besides, as stated over, Cro-Magnon is the most widely used term, I fully expect there should be an article on them, rather than just a redirect. Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, it should be made clear that usage differs between authors. Some do indeed use "Cro Magnons" as a synonym of "EEMH". If there are other conventions, the prospective aricle should make very explicit whose terminology is being used, and what other terminology exists, closely interlinking the material presented with what is on this page, avoiding scope overlap and contradictions. To begin with, it might be better to discuss terminological differences here, but if necessary, a separate page can be branched out using WP:SS.
 * My impression from what I have seen of the relevant literature is that, indeed, "Cro-Magnon" is "most widely used" historically, i.e. in literature before 2000, but this may be merely a change of preferred terminology over time. As long as it is merely about this, no separate page is warranted. EEMH is preferred 21st-century terminology, but I fully expect a palaeoanthropologist who was socialized in the 20th century to feel that this is a neologism and that the "familiar" term is Cro-Magnons. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'm not that old, but Cro-Magnon was once (not too long ago) such a commonly-heard term, I figured it would have its own article, or at least a clear explanation as to why it doesn't have a page of its own.  71.226.227.121 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:SYNONYM, as explained right there in the lead section. I don't see how the explanation can get an clearer than it is. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

How would that be any different from this page? Booger-mike (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Scope
Does anyone know when European early modern humans become European modern humans? At what time period does this article stop? Does it end at the Mesolithic or at the end of the Stone Age? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Erik Trinkaus appears to define European early modern humans (EEMHs) as the early modern humans of Early Upper Paleolithic Europe, from around 44,000 BP to 33,000 BP. He does not appear to consider the Gravettians and other Middle Upper Paleolithic populations post-33,000 BP as EEMHs.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Europe20000ya.png

Terminology
Who was it who proposed "Homo sapiens cro-magnonensis"? Booger-mike (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean there were tons of names proposed for all these random European specimens. "H. s. cro-magnonensis" was first used by William King Gregory in 1921 p. 180, and he also proposed "H. s. Brünn-Predmost" and "H. s. Galley Hill" <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, shouldn't it be on the page? And if it is, I can't fine it. Booger-mike (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No it's not. As I said, there're tons of names, and I don't know of anyone who's made an exhaustive list of them, so it'd be impossible to have one here, and I've arbitrarily drawn the line at 6. You can add them if you'd like (I've given you the source and everything) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Booger-mike (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not quite a GAN peer review
I have never done a GAN peer review before and have had just one article achieve GA. So I don't feel competent to do a formal peer review as yet but I thought perhaps the nominator might appreciate some feedback given how long this article has been in the pending queue.

First and foremost, to my eye the article meets each of the GA criteria.

I noticed a few items that caused me concern and that a more established reviewer might not accept:

Chronology

 * any words like "probably" or "likely" must be supported by citation (I have already tagged one), as it is not for Wikipedia to speculate.
 * The one you tagged, the ref is at the end of the next sentence. We don't need at least one ref at the end of every sentence <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * more care needs to be taken with colours. I am not colour blind but I am unable to distinguish the colours used in Image:Europe20000ya.png (LGM refugia).
 * pink and brown? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now, it is dark pink and not-so-dark pink. It wasn't until I read the accompanying text and knew what to look for that I could see it. WP:think of the reader, the distinction needs to be more evident. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "After 40,000 years ago with the onset of Heinrich event 4, the Aurignacian proper evolved perhaps in South-Central Europe, " I really wanted to see at least a footnote to tell me what made the Heinrich event particularly significant. If it is significant, it needs explaining; if it is not, then leave it out.
 * Heinrich event 4 is a really cold period, that's about it <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I inferred that this would be the effect of the iceberg drift, but its a non-sequitur. If you even said " After 40,000 years ago, around the time of the climate change associated with the Heinrich 4 event, the Aurignacian proper evolved [emerged? Aurignacian technology evolved?] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In an article like this, extra care needs to be taken with words like 'evolved', which have a specific technical meaning. As it stands, it implies speciation, which I doubt is intended.
 * it's only used in reference to technology <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then the text should say so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the Chronology section already says these are all industries/cultures (like "the Gravettian culture" or "'Aurignacoid' or 'Epi-Aurignacian' tools are identified as late as..." <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "it is unclear when the Aurignacian went extinct" - this definitely implies a distinct species. If 'culture' is intended, then it needs to be explicit.
 * the word extinct existed before the concept of species <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That was then, this is now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it's widely understood that cultures and languages can go extinct (as it's the most popularly known consequence of imperialism and globalization in general, such as the uncountable now-extinct Native American tribes) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Hypotheses for Gravettian genesis include evolution": is this really intended to say that they (or the Aurignacians) were not H Sapiens? because that is certainly its implication.
 * how is that implied? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The E word. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it's also widely understood that cultures and languages can evolve (as cultural appropriation/diffusion is another popularly known consequence of imperialism and globalization, such as with Spanglish or Christmas) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Alps were also covered in glaciers, and most of Europe was polar desert," Polar desert? really? or just high steppe?
 * source said polar desert <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Solutrean peoples inhabited the permafrost zone, whereas Epi-Gravettian peoples appear to have stuck to less harsh, seasonally frozen areas." Citation needed, especially given that it is followed by "Relatively few sites are known through this time".
 * citation is already given at the end of the next sentence <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Starting during the Older Dryas roughly 14,000 years ago, Final Magdalenian traditions appear,": should this link to  Basque prehistory? Certainly "Final Magdalenian" begs for definition.
 * I figured it was pretty self explanatory, the last peoples who produced Magdalenian lithics <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I missed that Magdalenian is linked in the lead. It is a big article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Europe was completely re-peopled during the Holocene climatic optimum from 9 to 5 thousand years ago." definitely needs a citation!
 * at the end of the next sentence <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it is a style thing. In an academic paper, one citation at the end of the paragraph would be considered entirely adequate – especially if using the style Dunkleosteus (1977) inline. In Wikipedia, however, my inclination would be to overcite, especially when the more substantive assertions are being made. Your call. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Everything after "Near Eastern Neolithic farmers ..." in the last paragraph of the section called "Chronology" is about the Neolithic, and is therefore outside the scope of the article. Although some context regarding later periods is certainly helpful, this section is trying to cover too much for it to be useful.  Suggest deleting most of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirca palustris (talk • contribs) 21:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Demographics

 * "The archaeological record indicates that the overwhelming majority of Palaeolithic people (both Neanderthals and modern humans) died before reaching the age of 40, with few elderly individuals recorded." Citation?
 * at the end of the next sentence <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Biology

 * "In early Upper Palaeolithic Western Europe, 20 men and 10 women were estimated" etc. Are all these estimates supported by ref 27? If so, I would repeat the citation, others might not.
 * if I put a ref at the end of the every sentence it would be impossible to read <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Physical attributes

 * "It was generally assumed that EEMH," I would preface this with "Prior to modern DNA analysis, ..."
 * done <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "The earliest EEMH display features that are reminiscent of those seen in Neanderthals, as well as features observed in modern day African, European, and aboriginal Australian populations." The quoted sentence in the citation does not support the second half of this statement.  The quotation is comparing Neanderthals to Africans and other modern human populations, not EEMH to modern human populations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirca palustris (talk • contribs) 21:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Genetics
"Initial genomic studies on the earliest EEMH in 2014," which?
 * I don't know what you want here. Should I also specify which 2016 study I'm referring to? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is essentially the same style issue as already discussed: how often to cite. When I see text like "Initial studies ..." without citation, I infer WP:WEASEL. In this specific case, if there could be any doubt as to which study, then cite. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Culture

 * "the terms "Middle Palaeolithic" and "Upper Palaeolithic" were created"..."the transition was dubbed"... etc. All well known but nevertheless needs citations.
 * at the end of the paragraph <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "It has typically been assumed that EEMH closely studied " Assumed by whom?
 * the source said it as a blanket statement, as in, by people who study this kind of thing, it is generally assumed <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The WP:WEASEL problem again. So again, I would cite. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "There is much evidence" Where? [I realised after writing this comment that the sentence is intended to introduce the evidence in the succeeding sentences. Maybe it is a bit too long? Probably this comment can be ignored.]
 * That's specifically in reference to game drive systems, and I'm not going to list out every example because there are a lot of them <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Portable art: some of the pieces in the clothing section would show a greater variety of theme. Of course they can't be displayed twice but maybe it would be appropriate to add a note to that effect?
 * I don't understand <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that, I was responding to a line of pieces in the obese Venus style, with no gracile example like the Venus of Brassempouy or the Vogelherd Cave animals. But of course that first section is about the Venus figurines. So, short of adding a section lead (to what is already a very long article), my comment must die. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * More generally, I would have used the image column at the RHS more.
 * what're RHS and image column? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right Hand Side (which is where most image thumbnails go). On reflection, it wouldn't work. Strike two. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "about 60 batons have been hypothesised" If the source is the same as the end of the paragraph, no harm to repeat it IMO.
 * might as well stay consistent. I can't have a reference at the end of every sentence because that'd be hard to read <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "In terms of colour psychology, popular hypotheses" Citation? Delete as wp:trivia, synth?
 * these are the 2 hypotheses: either the color red was symbolic or red ochre was multi-purposeful. The color symbolism is dealt with by color psychology <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pop psychology worries me. It seems out of place in what is a clearly scientific article. Your call. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Simple loom technology: "have also been interpreted"... " may have been"
 * I thought it was too much repetition of "may have been" <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's the WP:WEASEL problem again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Language
" humans, and the present-day variation of the FOXP2 gene" Rewrite " humans as the present-day variation of the FOXP2 gene"?
 * done <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 14:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I hope that regular editors will find these comments useful. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Early European modern humans/GA1

Issues
Reading through the article, i noticed that none of the sources used contain the terms Early European modern humans/European Early modern humans/EEMH in their titles. In fact, as far as i can tell, barely any of the sources mention "EEMHs" at all. It seems to me that "EEMHs" is more of a generic term for the peoples of Upper Paleolithic Europe, rather than an actual concept in itself. The term "EEMH" does not appear to have been subjected to much notable coverage. Erik Trinkaus has written an article about it, but contrary to this Wikipedia article, he does not count the Gravettians and later cultures as consisting of EEMHs. Despite the concerns mentioned above, this Wikipedia article is certainly interesting, well written and clearly based on reliable sources. It think it has potential to qualify for GA status. We should however try to do something about the synthesis issues. While term the "EEMH" is rarely mentioned in the listed sources, several of the sources mention the term "Upper Paleolithic Europe". Perhaps moving the title to Upper Paleolithic Europe would help with reducing synthesis? This would of course necessitate a few tweaks, but i don't think it would require that much work. Krakkos (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what Trinkaus was saying, he said "The primary sample of analysis consists of the EEMHs, those before 33 ka B.P. and therefore predating the Gravettian," so he wasn't excluding pre-Gravettian modern humans from the label EEMH, it's just his study was only investigating pre-Gravettian EEMH. EEMH is basically synonymous with Upper Paleolithic Europeans <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So how about modifying the opening phrase so that it reads: "Early European modern humans (EEMH), Cro-Magnons or Upper Paleolithic Europeans were the first early modern humans (Homo sapiens) to settle in Europe, ..." (even if it means creating a redirect article at Upper Paleolithic Europeans). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It'd be better if we just did "EEMH produced Palaeolithic cultures" → "EEMH produced Upper Palaeolithic cultures" <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Trinkaus (2007) examined both pre-Gravettian and Gravettian samples. It appears that he only labels the pre-Gravettian (pre-33,000 BP) samples as "EEMH". Putting Trinkaus aside, the fact remains that almost none (if any) of the sources used in this Wikipedia article use the term "Early European modern humans"/"EEMH". It seems like this article has been largely synthesized from sources which do not discuss "EEMHs". In essence, this article is about the early modern humans of Upper Paleolithic Europe. The term "Upper Paleolithic Europe" appears to have far greater notability than "Early European modern humans"/"EEMH". I think changing the title to "Upper Paleolithic Europe" could help with reducing synthesis. The term "Early European modern humans" suggests that these were a single population of humans, but genetic research has shown that this is not the case. The term "Upper Paleolithic Europe" is less suggestive, and thus more appropriate in my opinion. Krakkos (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If we move to Upper Palaeolithic Europe, should we use the abbrevation Upper Palaeolithic Europeans UPEs just to save on space? That's not an "official" abbreviation I don't think (maybe vaguely familiar, but unsure?) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;">  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 06:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cro-Magnon (which redirects here) is was what people called EEMH until recently, so I imagine most of the sources use that. As this article is about the palaeoanthropology of the population rather than the period as a whole, I don't see how a move to Upper Palaeolithic Europe would make sense. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Upper Paleolithic describes the culture, as opposed to Pleistocene which is a geological time period. Cro-Magnon, EEMH, and Upper Paleolithic Europe are one and the same <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 19:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. Upper Palaeolithic is a period (archaeology has a parallel time scale to geology). Cro-Magnons/EEMH were a human population. The (archaeological) cultures would be Aurignacian, Gravettian, etc. Articles on these distinct concepts have different scopes; most obviously in this case, if we had an article on Upper Palaeolithic Europe, it would also cover the surviving Neanderthal populations, which are of course distinct from EEMH. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Neanderthals were Middle Paleolithic. The Upper Paleolithic was only produced by modern humans <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's some debate, but there were probably at least some relict populations that survived into the Initial Upper Palaeolithic, see Châtelperronian and . I really appreciate your work on palaeoanthropology articles, but I think it would be helpful to remember that these later periods overlap with prehistoric archaeology and that brings another set of concepts in addition to those from palaeontology and geology. I don't think collapsing articles on populations, periods and cultures does justice to the sources or our readers. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Upper Paleolithic is essentially used to define any lithic culture which produced a lot of microliths or bladelets, it's not a time interval or in any way related to geology. It's a purely cultural term. The attribution of the Châtelperronian is much debated, and its association with Neanderthals is pretty weak. I don't know of any other arguments for any other human species practicing Upper Paleolithic traditions <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking past each other. All archaeological periods are defined by material culture, because archaeology is the study of material culture: the Upper Pal by blade technology; the Epipal/Mesolithic by microliths; the Neolithic by agriculture; the Chalcolithic by copper; and so on. It is a time interval and my point is precisely that it has nothing to do with geology, because archaeologists use a different time scale to geologists. Similarly, culture has a specific meaning in archaeology (a taxonomic unit rather than a purely chronological one) and the Upper Pal isn't one. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I don't understand what you mean by "this article is about the palaeoanthropology of the population rather than the period as a whole" <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We have three separate but overlapping concepts: an archaeological period (the Upper Palaeolithic), the human populations that were alive then (EEMH and possibly Neanderthals), and the cultural industries they produced (Aurignacian, Gravettian, etc). We should maintains separate articles on each and the arguments above for merging or moving this article seem to be conflating them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I'm not saying to merge Aurignacian, Gravettian, etc. into this article, just rename to Upper Paleolithic Europe, since it talks about the people who produced Upper Paleolithic cultures on the European continent <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But it's about the people, not the period. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What else should be included for it to be called Upper Palaeolithic Europe? The people define the period, like Classical antiquity <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I move this article to Upper Palaeolithic Europe or do you still contest? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that makes sense, for the reasons I've stated above, and there's clearly not a consensus here to do so. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what your reason are. What else should be included for it to be called Upper Palaeolithic Europe? <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a different topic... if you wanted to create it, I'd say it should also include information on the chronology, climate, cultures, key sites, that kind of thing. But we'd still need an article on EEMH – a notable concept in palaeoanthropology in its own right. In any case I'm not sure there is any point to going round and reiterating our respective positions again. If you're really set on moving this article, why not start an RM and get some third opinions? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede reduction
I removed from the LEDE, the last few sentences that addressed Feminism, Goddess movements, communism vs capitalism, and other theory outside of this article's scope; and that also contained editorializing stated as fact. The same edit addressed the huge SA LINKFARM by my having removed the redundant entries and integrating what I could of the remaining entries into the article, per MoS. This entire edit was reverted. I have changed it back, per WEIGHT, SCOPE; LEDE; and probably FRINGE. There is probably an article where this information fits somewhere, but I do not believe it is here. Also the sub-section where this information was taken from should be drastically trimmed for the same reason. GenQuest "scribble" 19:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but if you take a class on Paleolithic Europe (or even if you just do some light reading on it or youtube or whatever), you will inevitably reach sex cult/porn when you hit the Venus figurines, so I find it's very necessary to address that in its own section, even though we can all clearly agree it's kinda weird. I've reduced its part in the lead to a single sentence with 2 wikilinks <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with you, since also notable theories (scientific or not) that were spun around EEMH belong to the scope of the article. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Much better. Thanks.  GenQuest  "scribble" 08:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 section. 

Early European modern humans → Upper Palaeolithic Europe – "Early European modern humans" was a title created to talk about early modern humans in Europe, which in itself is a poorly defined term (like how early is "early"?) The article has since mushroomed out to encompass all Upper Paleolithic cultures in Europe, from the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic to the beginning of the Mesolithic. Therefore, Upper Palaeolithic Europe would be a much more apt and descriptive title for the article content. User:Joe Roe has already contested this above because "it should also include information on the chronology, climate, cultures, key sites, that kind of thing" but I want to point out there is literally already a section called Chronology which includes climate and introduces the major cultures, and key sites are brought up where relevant (like Cueva de Altamira in Art) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 19:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 18:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)  —Relisted.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 06:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. Most editors expressing an opinion believe that the proposed name is a good match for the topic already covered in the article and that the proposed title better fits the requirement to precisely denote the topic as well as be recognizable to readers. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * See relist note below.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 06:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To reiterate what I've said above (not accurately summarised in Dunkleosteus' selective quote): EEMH were a population of ancient humans better known by their older name Cro-Magnons. Renaming the article to the name of the archaeological period in which those humans lived is fundamentally changing the topic and leave us without one on this highly notable concept in palaeoanthropology. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cro-Magnon is an outdated term extended to all European Upper Paleolithic modern humans <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes... and? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You said we need an article on Cro-Magnons. I'm telling you Cro-Magnons is an outdated term for Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Therefore, from what you said, Upper Palaeolithic Europe is a perfectly valid title. Upper Palaeolithic is also used in most of the sources anyways, as opposed to Early European modern human which is used in like 1 think, and Cro-Magnon which is in a few older sources (or sources explaining why it's not used anymore) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 07:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that Cro-Magnons is an outdated synonym. That's what I just said. And yes a synonym for Upper Paleolithic Europeans – do you really not see the non sequitur between that statement and Upper Palaeolithic Europe is a perfectly valid title? People are not periods; periods are not people. That's why we have separate articles on Neanderthals and Middle Palaeolithic, Western Hunter-Gatherer and Mesolithic, Roman people and classical antiquity, etc.
 * If you're finding a lot of sources on the Upper Palaeolithic period, that's because you're not searching for the topic of this article any more. As I've said, I have nothing against creating Upper Palaeolithic Europe if that's what you want to write about. But there are hundreds of sources, including entire books, on "Cro-Magnons" and plenty on the modern preferred term EEMH. We need an article on it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of an earlier RM where there was difficulty merging reindeer and caribou even though they're the same exact species, but both terms are used rather frequently. Notability doesn't include synonyms. Middle Paleolithic and Mousterian are different articles because there are other cultures underneath the umbrella of Middle Paleolithic way over in Africa. The same logic can be applied to Roman people vs Classical Antiquity, there were more civilizations than just Rome in Classical Antiquity. Your examples are akin to merging Aurignacian, Gravettian, etc. into this article, which is not what I'm proposing <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. As can be seen from the article body and the references, the overall topic of this article is the Upper Paleolithic cultures of Europe. The WP:COMMONNAME for that topic is Upper Paleolithic Europe. Early European modern humans (EEMH) is a vague and rarely used term which in specialist literature mainly refers strictly to the earliest early modern humans of Upper Paleolithic Europe. Moving this article to the title Upper Paleolithic Europe would of course necessitate some article tweaks. The article was written to GA status by the nom, and he is therefore well qualified to make such tweaks. Krakkos (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Large parts of the article are not about cultures at all, but specifically about the palaeoanthropological population (#Classification, #Demographics, #Biology), which would be undue in an article about the period. Much of the confusion here seems to stem from the use of the more up-to-date EEMH title over the more common Cro-Magnon – would it help to move it to Cro-Magnons?
 * And while I respect the work Dunkleosteus77 has put into bringing this article up to GA, entirely changing the article topic is not a "tweak". The article was already in quite good shape before he touched it and in fact, comparing that version to the current one, the "mushrooming" of the article with sections on e.g. art and material culture, which is now being used to argue for a change of scope, was all stuff he added. Based on the conversation above, it seems like Dunkleosteus77 did not fully understand the difference between populations, cultures, and periods in palaeoanthropology/prehistoric archaeology when he started the expansion, and ended up inflating the article with material on related but distinct topics that duplicates Upper Palaeolithic, Upper Paleolithic art, Paleolithic religion, etc. That the contents and list of references now reflects his initial misunderstanding is a poor reason to allow an existing article on a notable topic to be usurped. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I started https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_European_modern_humans&oldid=968571748 there was still a section which was dedicated to art, housing, clothing ("Behavior and culture") as well as a huge list of arbitrarily mentioned sites which talk about all of those as well. I did nothing to change the scope <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 17:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, same logic as Krakkos's. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with Joe Roe that the proposed title is unacceptable for being a title referring to a geologic or anthropologic time period while the article is about a human population and the change implies a change of scope which has not occurred. "Upper Palaeolithic Europeans" would be a better title for that argument, but I also oppose that title. As far as I can tell most publications still refer to this group as Cro-Magnons; WP:COMMONNAME suggests we should move it back to that title. Among the few publications that do mention that the term is outdated, they indicate that "Early European modern humans" is the current scientifically-accepted name for this group, to distinguish (or subcategorize) from all populations of early (or anatomically) modern humans worldwide. I haven't seen any that use "Upper Palaeolithic Europeans"; though some do refer to the populations of EEMH with reference to the Upper Palaeolithic time period, the leap to "Upper Palaeolitic Europeans" seems to be one that was made by Wikipedia editors. Note that I'm very far from an expert in this topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know which publications you're referring to. There are no sources in this article which prefer to call them Cro-Magnons, and almost none say early modern. Almost all mention Upper Paleolithic <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose move as proposed, for reasons given by Joe Roe & now others. My own proposal would be to move to Early modern humans in Europe which I think is better, but other titles would be acceptable - I slightly prefer avoiding "Cro-Magnons". Is "anatomically modern humans" now out of fashion?  The potential confusion with the surely better-known Early Modern Period is an issue.  ( Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Johnbod; if the article is about humans, then it needs to say so. "Upper Palaeolithic Europe" could reasonably be about the paleogeography, paleoecology, and suchlike topics of that period and location. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * that's like saying Classical Antiquity has to have an in-depth discussion about the geography and climate of Ancient Greece. Also, the Chronology section is literally just paleogeography and paleoecology so those are also well within the apparent scope of the article <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, Classical Antiquity is evidently a period in human history, which frankly UPE isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * These are human periods, that's why we also have Paleolithic Europe and Neolithic Europe <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 21:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Joe Roe and Ivanvector: moving to "Upper Paleolithic Europe" changes this article's scope to something broader than the notable group of human populations it is intended to cover. I also oppose moving (back) to "cro-Magnons" as this term is outdated. The accurate scientific name is "Early European modern humans" and the article should have this title. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To append my initial vote and make my position clear, I also oppose the title "Upper Paleolithic Europeans," given that Neanderthals would also fall into such a descriptor (see Jts1882's succinct argument), but think such a separate article – covering interactions between early European modern humans and Neanderthals – would be a good addition to the project. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the arguments already made above. That's one confusing gap between current (and intended) article scope, and article title. It works as a redirect from a closely related topic, but not as the primary article name. Don't baffle the reader unnecessarily. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Upper Palaeolithic Europeans may be an appropriate title, but Upper Palaeolithic Europe is not, as is evidenced by the bolded words in the opening line. Rlendog (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for Upper Palaeolithic Europe: Frankly, I feel like most of the "Oppose" votes above have missed the point entirely. As Dunkleosteus77 has pointed out, "Upper Palaeolithic Europe" and its varieties have gained at least some level of acceptance among experts when they talk about the people in question, whereas "Cro-Magnons" has begun to fall out of use among academics. At the same time, "early European modern humans" is far too broad and ill-defined. We should follow the experts, and not use whatever we fancy for whatever reason. Case in point, Roman Emperor Julian was long known as "Julian the Apostate" and this byname is still commonly used today. However, historians increasingly rejected "the Apostate" title, instead preferring just "Julian"; this shift was eventually also reflected in the Wikipedia title. Applodion (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this is just incoherent, . The old name was Cro-Magnon. The new name is "European early modern humans (EEMH)", the former title of the article. Upper Palaeolithic Europe is not something that is "gaining acceptance" because it is is a completely different concept – an archaeological period, not an a hominid population — and one which has been used for specialists for over 150 years. Myself and now many others have explained this repeatedly so I don't understand where you could be getting this idea from. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point: You claim that "Upper Palaeolithic Europe" is an "archaeological period", yet the sources do not concur. While there is no commonly accepted term, authors do use "Upper Palaeolithic Europe" as historians would use "Classical Athens" - as area, culture, territory, its people, etc. See for example "Modeling Learning Strategies and the Expansion of the Social Network in the Beginning of Upper Palaeolithic Europe: Analysis by Agent-Based Simulation", where they do not use the term for an "archaeological period". As for "European early modern humans", that term is just very vague. Applodion (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Classical Athens" is a particularly poor example to use here, given the etymological complexity of polis/poleis. Since "Classical Athens" refers to a polis from the Classical period, this label would include citizenry in its definition.
 * Setting this aside, I encourage anyone evaluating this discussion to read the abstract of the book chapter listing Applodion's linked to, since the abstract makes it clear: "Upper Paleolithic" is being used as a label for a period of time, "Europe" is being used for a label for a place, and there is no indication that "Upper Paleolithic Europe" is used as a label for a period of time, place, and people. The people instead receive a different label: "anatomically modern humans". I don't see how this source supports the claim that archaeologists use "Upper Paleolithic Europe" in the same way historians use a label for a polis.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "Classical Athens" is a poor example, as it covers the same problems we encounter here. For instance, "Classical Athens" is not the same as the Polis of Athens, as a) the polis did exist outside the Classsical era as well, and b) the polis covered a much larger area and population than the city. My point was that "Classical Athens" is a broad concept; it can certainly be used to mean the polis. However, it can also refer to the city alone, and several other meanings, depending on the definition and scope of analysis. I also disagree in regards to the sample text. The authors do use it as a time frame, but they also argue that the Upper Palaeolithic is differentiated by the appearance of "modern behavioral traits". The archeological elements are instead assigned to archaeological traditions like the Aurignacian. In another chapter of the book in which the article is published, the authors talk about "Upper Palaeolithic modern humans in the Japanese Archipelago", while also using "Upper Palaeolithic" for the typical tools used by said humans. It is a question of definition. Applodion (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your confusion over Classical Athens as a polis aside (historians use the label for people because it can be used as one; this isn't the case for the terminology we're discussing here), even your explanation here describes "Upper Paleolithic" as only a time period and never describes "Upper Paleolithic Europe" as being used how this move request intends. If you'd like to introduce other sources from this same book in support of this move request, please do so we can evaluate them. But as for the one source you've provided, it in no way supports this move request, nor does it show "Upper Paleolithic" as anything other than a label for a time period and "Upper Paleolithic Europe" as anything other than a label for a time and place. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is complete nonsense. The source you linked says nothing of the sort. 'Sources' in general say nothing of the sort. "Upper Palaeolithic" is one of the primary divisions of Old World prehistoric chronology – something we teach undergrads in literally the first class of their first year. Look at any textbook (pg. 42), any paper, any other encyclopaedia, and you will see it described as such. I am probably guilty of making too many bare assertions in this discussion (though I would note that you and I are the only people to have linked any sources at all), but that's because, as a Palaeolithic archaeologist myself, it's utterly baffling to be faced with people disputing such basic concepts. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not least for the simple reason that a people are not a continent. As Rlendog, Upper Palaeolithic Europeans might be an appropriate title for an article, although I'm not convinced by the case made for this article. Neanderthals are Upper Palaeolithic Europeans and the opening paragraph makes it clear that they are excluded from the human group being discussed. The title has to match the content of the article. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neanderthals are Middle Paleolithic unless you believe in the Châtelperronian. I can include a small mention of it in Chronology <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, this is a big source of the issue here. In no way, shape, or form is it true that "Neanderthals are Middle Paleolithic". They existed during both the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods of time, but the humans known as Neanderthals have never been known by the phrase "Middle Paleolithic". Periods of time are not groups and groups are not periods of time. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is the problem, you're viewing these as defined eras with a clear start and end date which encompasses the entire world. You can't say the Upper Paleolithic period of time started precisely 50,000 BC, and everything after that is considered Upper Paleolithic. Like you can't say the Oldowan is a period which ended 1.7 million years ago with the invention of the Acheulean because these two complexes coexisted for hundreds of thousands of years. Neanderthal only produced the Mousterian culture, which is Middle Paleolithic. Upper Paleolithic cultures are only attributed to modern humans (debatably except the Châtelperronian). You're confusing Paleolithic with a geological period Pleistocene. It's not defined as a time interval, but rather a toolkit and associated behaviors <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 18:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the problem, but it's not others who are confused, . The Upper Palaeolithic is a time period. Nobody is confusing it with the Pleistocene; the archaeological and geological time scales are two entirely different things. I explained this months ago and it's really frustrating you have chosen to ignore it and repeat the same point again and again. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the clarity or opaqueness of the period's definition has no bearing on a discussion about groups of people. Because the period you're talking about - no matter its beginning and end - is distinct from the groups of people this article is about. I don't know how to make it any clearer than when I said "Periods of time are not groups and groups are not periods of time", but repeatedly when I and others explain this distinction it is completely ignored. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Neanderthals are Middle Paleolithic. Not exclusively. The article starts by saying Upper Palaeolithic Europeans interacted and interbred with the indigenous Neanderthals. They couldn't have interacted in the Upper Palaeolithic if they were not also a people of the Upper Palaeolithic. So Upper Palaeolithic Europeans includes neanderthals and is an unsuitable title for this article. The proposed (and prematurely acted upon) change is obviously unsuitable as it refers to a time period and not the people, as nearly everyone here is saying. — <span style="font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Upper Paleolithic modern humans interbred with Middle Paleolithic Neanderthals. Neanderthals produced Mousterian lithics which is a Middle Paleolithic industry. This is what I'm trying to tell you, it's not as simple as "Upper Paleolithic period starts and ends at x and y BC" <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Relist note: the article title was moved back and this request was again listed at WP:RM on 28 May 2021, so it has been relisted to go another 7 days and try to garner consensus one way or another.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 06:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect discussion It seems like at least most of the opposes would favor a move to Upper Palaeolithic Europeans; how about we discuss that instead? Certainly we must admit that the phrase "early European modern human" does not show up in any of the sources (including before I started expanding the article), and that this must be addressed somehow <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 11:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Only one Oppose !vote out of eight specifically states they'd support Upper Paleolithic Europeans; Only four Oppose !votes (five, if we're being generous about an early 'Cro-Magnon is synonym for Upper Paleolithic Europeans' bit) even note the possibility of this alternative title and three (including myself) specifically reject it. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a false compromise for an entirely made-up term. And with statements like the phrase "early European modern human" does not show up in any of the sources I am really starting to doubt your good faith,, because a) I've already linked to multiple sources that use it and b) you yourself added a citation to the Trinkaus paper which coined the term and uses it in its title. Repeating myself again, but: the reason it is not in many sources is because until that time the common name was Cro-Magnon. I have no real objection to moving it to that title, but would prefer sticking with the modern terminology, per 's reasoning above. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pintura Trois Freres.jpg

GA review missing
Where can I find the GA review? Talk:Early European modern humans/GA1 redirects here. Lennart97 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Oldest R1b
The villabruna Y-hg is now (ISOGG2020) named "R1b1(xR1b1b,xR1b1a1,xR1b1a2)".HJHolm (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Bonze Age
On several points in the articla it is said that light skin did not become prevalent until the Bronze Age. But the sources cited seem to not give evidence for this claim: "We also demonstrate that light skin pigmentation in Europeans was already present at high frequency in the Bronze Age" doi:10.1038/nature14507 "the selective sweeps for the European-specific alleles at TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 started much later, within the last 11,000–19,000 years" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525146/ If there's no further evidence for this hypothesis I'd rather remove it. Heilongjian (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Have removed two passages that give the false impression that until the bronze age Europeans were mostly dark skinned as that is not supported by the citations Heilongjian (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Attributes
"Compared to present-day Europeans, EEMH have broader faces, more prominent brow ridges, bigger teeth, shorter upper jaws, more horizontally oriented cheekbones, and more rectangular eye sockets. The latter three are more frequent in certain present-day East Asian populations."

Unless I have mistakenly been drinking moonshine and went blind, I don't know where it says this.

What I'm seeing on pages 204-205 says this:

Not seeing anything about certain East Asian populations here, just a certain East Eurasian population (Australian Aboriginals). Nothing about eye sockets either. - Hunan201p (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Ritual speculation
I have tagged as dubious some rather wild speculation in the lead. Unless these assertions can be supported by RSs, they will have to be deleted. If the RS is just speculating too, then the speculation must be attributed. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Tattoos/scarification etc: unless skin has survived, this is just projection.
 * Shamanism: quite possibly but where is the evidence?
 * Clothing colours as status symbols: has the clothing survived? Even it if has, is there any evidence of status significance?
 * references are in the body of the article, not the lead, as is standard. I see a few references have been added randomly throughout the lead, but they're not considered necessary since the lead is a summary of the (fully sourced) article. The references you're looking for would be where they're discussed in the Culture section Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The only references about scarification are with respect to decorated phalluses. The lead extends this to general decoration. Maybe that seems fair enough, but it goes beyond what is in the article, so I have restored those tags for now. Agree that the lead does not need citation if the information is in the main. It is not necessary to mark a lead that follows LEADCITE, although it may be a good idea. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would strongly advise a prominent LEADCITE notice. Though not formally required, most articles do use citations in the lead so it seems wise for the exceptions to identify themselves. (I have written LEADCITE articles, so I speak from [bitter] experience.)
 * As LEADCITE requires a certain forbearance from readers, I would avoid reporting speculation in the lead. This article has more than enough facts to summarise here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with JMF's concern that the claims, as presented in the lead, could be read as probable fact. I'd remove them from the lead altogether as the simplest solution; given there is so much we do know, why introduce speculation. Also see a similar issue re tattoos recently on the Picts article talk. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To say, this is not to take from User:Dunkleosteus77's skilled authorship of the article (84.5% of current text). Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree too. Let's leave out the speculation. Also happy to mark the LEADCITE lead, but it currently actually has acquired a couple of citations so it needs looking at. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of speculation. There's also some dubious information about the evidence of circumcision from carved phalluses. How would you know?  Catfish  Jim <small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish  08:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Contradictory dates in the opening paragraph
As a casual reader, the first paragraph in this article is very confusing.

The very first sentence states that "Early European modern humans (EEMH) ... were the first early modern humans (Homo sapiens) to settle in Europe, ... continuously occupying the continent possibly from as early as 56,800 years ago".

However, the third sentence states that "from 37,000 years ago a second wave succeeded in forming a single founder population, from which all EEMH descended and which contributes ancestry to present-day Europeans".

The date given in the first sentence is thus directly contradicted that given in the third sentence. I'm not an expert in this subject so I can't begin to correct it, but it is in need of some correction. 37.228.238.41 (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Not seeing the problem here. It says ...from as early as 56,800 years ago. and ...left no genetic legacy.... So it is may be as early as that but all population genetic legacy only leads back 37,000 years. What should we call the early European modern humans that preceded the second migration? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem lies with ...from which all EEMH descended. I have added "subsequent", which should clear up the confusion. –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This doesn't quite clear up the confusion.
 * The first sentence states that EEMH arrived into Europe c. 57000 years ago. The second sentence states that the first wave of EEMH dates from c. 44000 to 40000 years ago.
 * The second sentence also states that this wave (from 44 to 40 kya) "left no genetic legacy". This is confusing: a lack of genetic legacy implies that this population died out, yet the first sentence states that the original population (from 57 kya) occupied the continent "continuously", implying that this population didn't die out.
 * So which is it? Has there been a population continuously in the continent since 57 kya or was there intermittent settling until 37 kya, after which settlements became permanent? 2A02:8084:2565:4780:904D:2020:4D2C:9F9A (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like that 44-40 ka date was added by someone who wanted to link Initial Upper Paleolithic (that article actually has a different time interval). I'll remove the time range Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2023
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: In this discussion all editors agree that the current title is not appropriate. However, there is disagreement over which title is the most appropriate; some editors argue for "European early modern humans", while others argue for "Cro-Magnon".

In this discussion each option had roughly equal support, but consensus is not determined by counting !votes but by assessing the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

Here, editors in support of "Cro-Magnon" presented the strongest evidence; while both sides presented ngrams in support of their position, editors in support of "European early modern humans" forgot to search for "Cro-Magnon" (as opposed to just "Cro Magnon"), which resulted in them significantly underestimating the usage of the title. This was further supported by the Google Scholar counts provided by Chhandama; while they didn't provide links which limited the ability to verify those numbers they were not contradicted by any editors.

As such, there is a rough consensus to move the article as proposed.

For the purpose of any appeal, if this was a true "no consensus" result I would have moved the article to "European early modern humans", as it is the option that is closest to the current title, being primarily a stylistic variation.

Taking off my closer hat to clarify a misunderstanding in this discussion about Ngrams. What Google Ngrams does is break books up into sequences of between one and five words, and store their cumulative frequency per year. This means that all it knows is the stored sequence; it cannot know anything else about that contents of the book, or even what book the sequence came from. As such, there is no way to search for books that include "Cro" but don't include "Magnon".

What searching for (African - American) does is subtract the yearly frequency of "African" from the yearly frequency of "American"; this is why the result is negative. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Early European modern humans → Cro-Magnon – Per WP:COMMONNAME. From what I can tell, the current article title ("Early European modern humans") is just a made-up term by Wikipedia. It doesn't even show up on the Google Ngrams. It would be much better to use a term that is actually used in reliable sources for this article's title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412  T 18:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the abbreviation EEMH, "European early modern humans" is found in sources like this, more so than "early European modern humans" (which may explain why it seems like a Wikipedia invention). This article was moved from European early modern humans to the current title almost exactly 3 years ago (30 Oct 2020) by with the reason avoid confusion with Early Modern (e.g. Shakespeare's) period, also match lead section. Personally I disagree with this move, early modern human (EMH) is an established phrase and "European EMH" makes more sense grammatically than "early European modern human". I don't believe that confusion with the early modern period is as likely as asserted in the 2020 move (at least to people familiar with prehistoric humans). In summary, if this proposed move fails, we should seriously consider returning the article to its original title. BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: I tend to agree with the proposed move, though I would strongly suggest "Cro-Magnon" over "Cro-Magnons". I am not a fan of article titles in the plural, e.g. the unseemly Greeks instead of the more appropriate Greek (people). Eric talk 22:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Google Ngrams do seem to indicate that the singular form is more common, and as our general rule per WP:SINGULAR is to render article titles in the singular form, I have updated this nomination to the singular form as you have suggested. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I even have a degree in anthropology, but would not have been certain that "early European modern humans" here was meant to be confined to "Cro-Magnons". My fall-back position would be to move it to European early modern humans, per BegbertBiggs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support . As discussed at some length in the last RM, the lack of google hits for "Early European modern human" is misleading, because the phrase used in scientific literature is "[European] early modern human". I think EMH is the more common name in recent specialist sources, but it looks like Cro-Magnon still has more popular recognition, and clearly the current title is causing unnecessary confusion. If there isn't consensus for Cro-Magnon (singular), then I agree with SMc that returning to European early modern human is the second best option. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The discussion below and especially this Ngram has persuaded me that a move to European early modern human is better. It seems to have been the common name for quite some time, and matches the parent article at early modern human. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would prefer the modern designation European early modern human (EEMH). "Cro-Magnon" is a fairly tainted and misunderstood term (it just means "Cavemen" to most people). पाटलिपुत्र  (Pataliputra)  (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you see where that redirect (which you set up in 2019) actually went until I changed it just now? Crazy bots - talk about Artificial Lack of Intelligence. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the term as tainted. And even if "most people" equate Cro-Magnon to "caveman" (maybe 40 years ago but I'll wager the term is now not in most people's vocabulary), I think an encyclopedia would do better to dispel any such misconceptions rather than to cater to them. Eric talk 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this proposal, but support a move. If used, the well-established EMH term should be kept together, so European early modern human is better than the current title. I'm inclined to prefer that, which will probably increasingly become the norm. It also makes the pile-up crash of adjectives slightly less confusing and ugly, imo. Second choice "Cro-Magnon". But, contrary to what the nom claims it is easy to find RS using the current title (in the singular mostly). Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to European early modern human per above. I've never heard of this "Cro-Magnons" concept, and while it might be known to experts in the field, Wikipedia naming should be based on WP:RECOGNIZEability. As a descriptive noun it doesn't have to conform exactly to established ngram terms, but should describe the topic succinctly and accurately, which it does. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? It's a common insult in Europe to call someone a Cromagnon and the people using it are anything but experts. Killuminator (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? I don't think it appears in the Dominic Cummings Dictionary of Insulting Terms, and that's pretty comprehensive. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But note List of Captain Haddock's Curses § C. Ham II (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to European early modern humans per above. In Google Scholar, this order prevails over the one in the current title. "Cro-Magnon" clearly has fallen out of use in specialist literature ever since more (and older) anatomically modern humans have been excavated all over the world. It may still linger in popular literature, but its recognizability is based on the misconception that the Cro-Magnon indivdual is the oldest known European early modern human. We shouldn't perpetuate it. –Austronesier (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could live with that as a second choice, but "do what the most recent specialist literture prefers" is not a Wikipedia article titles criterion of any kind. It would certainly be better than the mangled phrase "early European modern humans", but it fails WP:COMMONNAME, even when confined to modern (like last 20 years or so) source material, by a very, very wide margin .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the correct search is, "Cro-Magnon" gives hits for books containing "Cro" but not "Magnon". But in any case, you're right, "Cro-Magnon" has a much higher text frequency than the more "technical" titles. But note that some of the books specifically talk about the Cro-Magnon site or the individual excavated there, while others of them use the term in a representative manner for early modern humans. Another stumbling block for a move to the popular term "Cro-Magnon" is that many of the latter sources do not restrict the term to European early modern humans, but apply it to early modern humans in general (sometimes with a restriction to out-of-Africa specimen). This corresponds with my reception of the term when I started to read popular books about the topic in the 80s. –Austronesier (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Or this might be fairer, because Cro-Magnon used to refer to all EMH, not just those from Europe. That suggests early modern human displaced Cro-Magnon as the most common term in the mid-nineties. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be provable with this tool, because "Cro Magnon" search term doesn't match "Cro-Magnon" in the source material (by far the most common spelling), but, if Austronesier were correct, "Cro-Magnon" as a search term would be mis-parsed as "Cro minus Magnon" in the data, which would just be wrong data handling. However, that "minus" parsing is not actually the case.This looks completely correct to me, with "Cro-Magnon" dwarfing the arguable misspelling "Cro Magnon", in turn being more common than the disused technical phrases. When Google Ngrams says "Replaced Cro-Magnon with [Cro - Magnon] to match how we processed the books", that does not indicate "Cro minus Magnon". The docs here say that square brackets force  treatment of an operator character as an operator and force treament as a regular string character, and also says explicitly that "well-meaning will search for the phrase well-meaning; if you want to subtract meaning from well, use (well - meaning)", with round brackets. What happens with a string like Cro-Magnon is that the system breaks it into three strings, "Cro", "-", and "Magnon", puts a search-syntactically required but user-unfriendly space between them, and wraps the expression in square brackets to prevent "-" being treated as a math operator.  It's easy to prove this is how it works by trying to use [Cro-Magnon] as a search string. It throws an error until you replace this with [Cro - Magnon] or Cro-Magnon which give results identical to each other (if you use both at once, you get a single line ). PS: The prescribed syntax for operator actions appears to be malfunctional, at least for non-numeric values. Using strings that are all real stand-alone words in English, the ability to get a result like "African minus American" doesn't work right, and often produces negative numbers . This failure seems to happen most of the time that such a construction is paired with any other search term at all. I can sometimes get it to produce a positive, but one which does not align with the first part of the search string minus the cases that contain the second part of the search string when you separate those seraches. That is to say, the "(Foo - Bar)" syntax produces completely untrustable results, even when used by itself and compared to other searches using the same strings, and even when it doesn't produce negatives in the first place. But the results for "[Foo - Bar]" are consistently identical to those for "Foo-Bar", and when used with strings of roughly understood usage frequency, they align with the predicted results (e.g. "African American" is a more common string than hyphenated "African-American", and "African" by itself is obviously more common than either, and the ngram shows these results correctly ).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per @SMcCandlish. Easily recognizable term even if for the wrong reasons. Killuminator (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Chiswick Chap was right about the confusing connotations of "early modern" in European early modern humans, which many here are suggesting; see where that first link redirects. Cro-Magnon avoids that ambiguity, and while there is another ambiguity with the place name, this would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term (as with Neanderthal and Neanderthal (valley)). Ham II (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? Can you give an example of a context in which someone would write "early modern humans", referring to the early modern period? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to Early European modern humans European early modern humans per पाटलिपुत्र, Johnbod and Austronesier. Krakkos (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Krakkos (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Krakkos, that's the current title - we are supporting European early modern humans. A slip-up? Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a slip-up, Johnbod. Thank your for the correction. Hope everything is well with you. Krakkos (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment As I mention above, I support a move to Cro-Magnon, and I'd like to float a further observation here. I think the intro sentence itself, as it currently reads, makes a case for this: Early European modern humans (EEMH), or Cro-Magnons, were the first early modern humans (Homo sapiens) to settle in Europe... This long statement of the obvious, in my view, straightaway provokes the question of why we have a separate article for EEMH (I'm not saying we shouldn't). But first, we already have the article Early modern human; second, the term "Cro-Magnon" has long been established as the shorthand for European EMH; and third, the WP entries in every European language use some form of "Cro-Magnon" as their title for this topic. I see the single-word title "Cro-Magnon", with an article defining the term as one used to designate late-Pleistocene Homo sapiens in Europe, as preferable to the comparatively ungainly, four-word construction "European early modern human". Eric talk 16:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to European early modern humans per above, move to Cro-Magnon as a secondary option. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Apart from other comments, we must consider Eric's points seriously for once. I argued in 2018 that we need the "Cro-Magnon" and still stand by it. I am quite baffled by comments like "'Cro-Magnon' is a fairly tainted and misunderstood term", "the well-established EMH term", and ""Cro-Magnon" clearly has fallen out of use in specialist literature". They are just not true; early European modern humans (eEhm) and European early modern humans (Eehm) are not the most popular terms or replacing Cro-Magnon in literature. Google Scholar hit since 2000 for Cro-Magnon is 14600, eEmh 53, Eehm 347, or just plain "early modern humans" 8940; or in the last decade only, Cro-Magnon is 7810. Fallen out of use? No. Cro-Magnon is a fitting name for the same reason we have Neanderthals (not "archaic European humans" or "German archaic humans"; they are not exclusive to Europe) or Denisovans (not "archaic Siberian humans"). Chhandama (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The term "Cro-Magnon" is still common, and I agree that "European early modern humans", while probably a more accurate title to the sources, also sounds like it's discussing the Early modern period which is not accurate.  I'd be willing to shrug and say "oh well" if the sources were strongly behind a potentially confusing term, but with usage split, better to use the clearer term IMO.  SnowFire (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Follow-through
The article needs some work to follow through on that move. The only mention of Cro-Magnon is in the title. Add a section on terminology? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

58,000 year old aboriginal DNA contradicts the article
it is thought that aborigines and papuens diverged from other humans 58,000 years ago... This article's text 37,000 years as being the end of the first wave of humans. Crew Magnum is a relic early science which is not used in english anthropology any more. that should be mentioned Lifeinthetrees (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)