Talk:Hominid

Incorrect definition

I object to saying that the 2nd definition (human ancestors) is incorrect. If it is incorrect, then so is most usage. Are you saying that all these are incorrect? The Merriam-Webster dictionary [1] American Heritage [2] and these scientific pages. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] RSchlafly 14:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a scientific term. It should be used as such. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

Sure. We should all use precise definitions. I edited it to include the common usage. RSchlafly 15:23, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, but common =/= actual. As Conservative and others tell us, concensus does not make something right. I hope the current version is acceptable. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

No, it is not acceptable. On what basis do you say the latter usage is "incorrect"? Someone has proposed a new definition of "hominid" a few years ago. Maybe it will catch on, and maybe it won't. In the meantime, people need to know how to interpret the word "hominid" when they read it. RSchlafly 15:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I've edited to explain the difference between the taxonomic term and the colloquial term, as well as including the correct term for those species that are transitional between hominidae and homo sapiens sapiens. JohnSmith 15:45, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. --Wikinterpreter^{Liaise with the cabal?}

Cave man

What wrong with "cave man"? It is a colloquial definition. Yes, it is not terribly precise, but neither is the term hominid as it is usually used. I say to put "cave man" back. RSchlafly 13:40, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Cave man may be colloquial, but it is not used in any kind of serious discussion among academics concerned with studying pre-historic humans. Cave man is a very loose term that is often used for inaccurate descriptions. I just don't consider it very professional or encyclopedic.Prof0705 13:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)