text:
User talk:Petrograd~enwiki

Invalid user, discovered the truth:

No longer active. Please delete. (Petrograd 18:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC))

 * Aw, boo. Don't go 'way mad!  Oh, well.  Him, he gone. :( / :p  deeceevoice 08:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I for one would appreciate if the account was deleted so I could make a new Petrograd account =P // Petrograd on Swedish Wikipedia. 16:15 5 October 2006 (GMT)

Image Tagging Image:Ralph_McQuarrie.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ralph_McQuarrie.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.

Image Tagging Image:Mask tut.lg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mask tut.lg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BRossow 01:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:The_Racist_Agenda.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:The_Racist_Agenda.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 14:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Miller-batmobile.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Miller-batmobile.gif. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 10:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Cleopatra Statuette.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cleopatra Statuette.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 10:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Spinner_syd_mead_in_suit.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Spinner_syd_mead_in_suit.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Tutankhamun Mask Burton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tutankhamun Mask Burton.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Weyland Yutani LV 426.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Weyland Yutani LV 426.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ALIEN3 FURY161PATCH.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ALIEN3 FURY161PATCH.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Petrograd. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Petrograd~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Petrograd~enwiki


text:
Talk:Fly Guy

Super Mario Bros. 2
In which level of Super Mario Bros. 2 is the Shy Guy with a propeller cap located? I've played through that game and I don't remember seeing a Shy Guy with a propeller cap. Tax Beast 20:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The only one that I am aware of is in Super Mario World 2:Yoshi's Island 216.52.232.2 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Fly Guy


text:
User talk:Bjovas

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Samw 20:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion nomination of PSWinCom

A tag has been placed on PSWinCom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  SITH   (talk)   18:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bjovas


text:
UGS

UGS may stand for:

 * UGS Corp., specializing in Product Lifecycle Management software
 * Unconventional Gas Solutions, manufacturer of Membrane based gas generation and treatment systems
 * Unattended ground sensor, used by U.S. Army to detect presence of persons or vehicles
 * Union de la gauche socialiste, Union of Socialist Left, a defunct French left-wing party
 * Urmston Grammar, in Greater Manchester, England
 * Utah Genealogical Society
 * Utah Geological Survey, in Salt Lake City, Utah
 * Utah Golden Spikers, an American soccer club in Salt Lake City, Utah
 * Uttam Galva Steels, steel manufacturer in India
 * Underground gas storage, see natural gas storage

title: UGS


text:
Talk:Hominini

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2020 and 12 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carol241. Peer reviewers: GrahamRossmore, TLHami26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aeirlys00.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Questions
What's the group that homo and australopithecines are in that pan isn't in?--68.92.122.110 22:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Subtribe Himinina. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In anthropological literature, Chimps are not included in Hominini, which includes only the genera Homo, Australopithecus and Paranthropus. (Sort of, your lumper/splitter mileage may vary.) Thomas Greiner explains here:  http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Apr2003/1050350684.Ev.r.html

 * That's outdated, by about 2-3 years now. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is "Himinina"?
UtherSRG, don't you mean subtribe Hominina? My question is, if members of Hominini (humans and chimps) are called hominins, what are members of Hominina (humans only) called? Humans? Homins? Homininans? Obviously, we can't call them hominins anymore, so what DO we call them? Help!
 * Now I had to think of Houyhnhnms!! --FlammingoHey 12:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this will help. The latest info I was able to find on human/ape taxonomy indicates that the tribe Hominini comprises two subtribes, Australopithecina (the australopithecines, obviously) and Hominina (basically living and extinct humans--that is, anything of the genus Homo). So unless I'm mistaken, which is entirely possible, this means that the term "hominin" still refers collectively to the australopithecines and members of Homo.

 * Yes, I meant "Hominina" and not "Himinina". The information presented in the articles is more up to date than what you are reading in your textbook. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Uther, the textbook I was referring to is the latest one I could find, the ninth edition of Humankind Emerging, published in August 2005. I know that there is some lag time between the writing and publishing of such books, but I still find it hard to believe that the nomenclature has so radically changed again just in the last year or two. Also, I'm not sure which articles you are referring to that are more up-to-date than this book. Can you direct me to a couple of the most recent scholarly articles on the subject? (If you can, you will save me some research drudgery that I'm perfectly capable of withstanding but that it would be nice to avoid. Also, others might be glad of the references.) Thanks. --kaineas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.210.36.226 (talk • contribs).

 * Did you read Hominini? Here's one that pushes everything down one level, with all of the apes in Hominidae: http://www.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=66255 - UtherSRG (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive the following childish outburst: AUGH! Okay, now that that's out of my system, yes, I have seen the Wiki entry on Hominini. It puts Pan into a different subtribe from all of the humans and australopithecines and the like. In the little "Genera" box, it clearly states that the human branch is Hominina and that this subtribe does not include chimps. Unfortunately, I needed a more (how shall I put it?) reputable source to go on, so that's why I asked for other sources. You then gave me the link for the Taxonomicon, which is great, and I thank you. BUT. When I click through the different links on the Taxonomicon and get the breakdown on subtribe Hominina, it lists Pan right there along WITH Homo and Australopithecus and Orrorin and all of those dudes. Take a look--compare Wiki's Hominina with the Taxonomicon's. They're different. So, which one is right? Now I don't feel that I can trust the Taxonomicon either. This is what comes of having a suspicious nature, I suppose. --kaineas

Alignment and Clarification Required
Flammingo, members of the subtribe Hominina are technically called hominans, but as the clade contains only the genus Homo, they are also humans. The taxonomy from superfamily down regrettably comprises several similar sounding terms that not surprisingly have promoted confusion: Superfamily Hominoidea (hominoids, all apes); family Hominidae (hominids, great apes); subfamily Homininae (hominines, African great apes); tribe Hominini (hominins, chimps and all bipedal hominoids [Homo, Australopithecus, etc]); and finally subtribe Hominina (hominans, genus Homo only).

Uther, there remains some disagreement as to the placement of Pan within Hominini, or within its own subtribe Panini (no sandwich puns please!), which may be partly due to lag in rewrite and reassignment, but also may reflect a mild xenophobic reticence to place chimps in our tribe. (I suspect there would be far less reticence had the phylogenetic organizers introduced the clade "infrafamily" at the chimp/human level and tribe at the human level, and not introduced subtribe at all, or, to be completely consistent with the monophylogenic cladistics, introduce subtribe[s] to separate distal non-Homo genera [Paranthropus] from proximal genera [Australopithecus]). Regardless of the terms selected or the organization, the Hominini article contains a glaring contradiction between the first two sentences regarding the definition of hominini and hominin, and the placement status of chimps. I fully concur with the trichotomic resolving approach, but we should, one, be consistent in our definition within and across articles, and, two, ensure that the reader is aware of the somewhat unresolved state of taxonomy. RES2 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Article is incorrect
Uther, the only support you've offered for the idea that Hominini should include humans and chimps and all descendants of their common ancestor, is the Taxonomicon. But the Taxonomicon actually indicates that Hominini should include humans and gorillas and all descendants of their common ancestor. (http://www.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=109372). Meanwhile, we have an article published today in Science that states: "Bipedalism is a key human adaptation and a defining feature of the hominin clade." (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;319/5870/1662). A review of that article in the same issue says "The new study confirms that Orrorin walked upright - a defining characteristic of being a hominin, the primate group that includes humans and our ancestors but not other apes." (Ann Gibbons. 2008. Millenium ancestor gets its walking papers. Science 319:1599-1601. March 21). So either this wiki article is wrong and the Taxonomicon is right, or (as I expect) this wiki article is wrong and the Science articles are right, but either way this wiki article is wrong. (Cirbryn (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi, Cirbryn. This is exactly what I was getting at--I would sooner trust the Taxonomicon and a very recent textbook than a Wiki entry that offers no substantiation. Are you planning to edit the article so that it's correct? kaineas 04:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaineas (talk • contribs)

Status of the genus Pan
The web page http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3744 says that, based on the comparisons of chimpanzee DNA with human DNA shows that humans and chimpanzees share 98 percent of their DNA. This may suggest that Hominina and Panina should be abandoned. In this case, Pan and Homo should be considered descendants of Sahelanthropus and Orrorin.

The web page http://www.physorg.com/news9211.html shows that humans and chimps diverged from their common ancesotor about 7 million years ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

replies to all of the above
Textbooks never use the latest good information. It takes years for the best thoughts on these kinds of subjects to get into textbooks. Sometimes decades. Textbooks are *not* a good source of information. That said, I don't have full access to the Science Mag paper, so I can't tell if it lays out any cladistics regarding the various species it studies. If someone with access could report on that, that would be great. The New Scientist article is 5 years old. There have been several papers re-estimating the split time since then. The PhysOrg article is reporting on one of them.

There does not seem to be a clear taxonomy for the tribe Hominini. Perhaps the subtribes should be abandoned, perhaps they shouldn't. I admit to not being very pedantic when I first created the articles, so I don't know what it is that made me believe that that was the right thing to do. I think the best is to take a guess and keep our articles consistent along that singular guess, but to describe the other possibilities where appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

chimps
There are two species in the genus Pan. One is the Common Chimpanzee, the other is the Bonobo. Together, they are the chimpanzees. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, I think that's based on old ideas with respect to bonobo and a failure in common usage to distinguish between them and common chimpanzees; Pan is the more precise term. I'm pretty sure common usage has evolved; I'll look for some cites.  I don't really care about all that but did you have any problem with my rewrite of the lead regarding the two genera in this tribe.  The reference to two genera, Homo (incorrectly piped to "humans") and Pan and "their extinct ancestors" is incorrect.  The tribe includes all of those two genera, only three species of which are extant and many of the extinct ones aren't' ancestors of the ones that are around today.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the extinct species, unfortunately. I stand by what I said about the two species of chimpanzees. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

New Edits
I've made two new edits to this article. The first is a quick mention that there are two species in the genus Pan. The second is an actual change to the definition given by the article, and I really hope it's received well. I took Doug's suggestion above, and worked it into the article again. I used the term "extinct lineages" instead of "extinct descendants", as I think that is more easily understood to mean splitting and dying species.

Misha Vargas (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

 * It has been pointed out to me that I may have inappropriately excluded from Hominini all animals living within the space between the last common ancestor of humans and chimps, and the splitting event of the subfamily Homininae into the two branches leading to chimps/humans and gorillas. That's a pretty major error.

 * Misha Vargas (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Unusual" process of speciation?
I'm adding a bit more about what makes it unusual--if it is and not just more closely studied than, say, goat lineages. I'd rather simply say what happened and note that the researchers think it's unusual. Monado (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong family tree
File:Hominini.PNG is not correct. Hominini is internationally only used for Homo and his precursors, but not for Homo and Pan. The precursors of Pan should be named as Panini. --De.Gerbil (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are partially correct, and partially not. For the most part, we follow MSW3 (2005) for terminology. MSW3 notes: "The genera are placed in two subfamilies by Groves (2001c): Ponginae (Pongo alone), and Homininae (Gorilla, Homo, Pan). McKenna and Bell (1997) included Hylobatidae in addition, as a subfamily, and within the Homininae recognized two living tribes, Pongini and Hominini; Goodman et al. (1998) recognized gibbons only as a tribe (Hylobatini), with the other three genera as a separate tribe (Hominini), divided into subtribes Pongina and Hominina; they included Pan in Homo, and Watson et al. (2001) included both Pan and Gorilla in Homo." Following this, the terminology in the image (and all of the hominid articles) follows. I have seen what you mention (today, in fact, at Border's in a book published in 2004, a year before MSW3), with Panini being composed solely of Pan, but that structure then places Panini & Hominini in Homininae, and Gorilla in Gorillinae. Homininae + Gorillinae = Hominidae, and Hominidae + Pongidae = Hominoidea, and Hominoidea + Hylobatoidea = (something I can't remember). It's the same structure, but with each taxon given a ranking 1 higher. (-oidea = super family, -idae = family, -inae = subfamily, -ini = tribe, -ina = subtribe) Since we follow MSW3, Hominini conatains Hominina and Panina, with Homo and its close ancestors in Hominina and Pan and its close ancestors in Panina. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that this nomenclature is up-to-date; this Nature review article, for instance,, p. 347, distinguishes "Tribe Panini (panins) / Genus Pan" vs. "Tribe Hominini (hominins) / Genus Australopithecus, Genus Kenyapithecus, Genus Homo". Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison are leading paleoanthropologists. --De.Gerbil (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Are the terms "hominini" and "hominins" variants of each other?
Both terms are used in this article. I'm guessing that they're just variant spellings but if so than it should be made clear. Thanks. W.F.Galway (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As best I can sort it out it goes like this: first off, we're all a bunch of simian primates. Easy words. But then it gets complicated and really similar:
 * hominoids are the super-family Hominoidea
 * hominids are the family Hominidea Hominidae
 * hominines are the sub-family Homininae
 * hominins are the tribe Hominini

I definitely share your confusion here. The dropping of the 'i' at the end is for common reference so we can talk about it more simply using 2 syllables. One way to remember these is that as we move down the list, it switches from Ds to Ns and long vowels to short vowels. "oid" is a long 'o' sound, 'id' is a short 'i', 'ine' is a long 'i', 'in' is a short 'i'.

One thing they all share in common is homin which is a deleted disambiguation page. I'm going to restore it to illustrate this issue. Y12J (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of noun vs adjective (and adjectival noun). "Hominoid" is an adjective (and adjectival noun), while "Hominoidea" is a noun, etc. "Members of Hominidae are hominids." (adjectival noun usage) "The orangutans are hominid primates." (adjective usage) the clades (families, etc) are all group nouns - terms that are always singular ("the family Hominidae") - which have one or more members (more typically more than one). The adjectives (or adjectival nouns, really) are the members of the clades, and can be plural or singular. "Gorillas are hominids." "The Bornean oranguatan is not a hominine." Your shorthand almost always works: -oidea is almost always an animal superfamily, -idae is almost always an animal family, -inae is almst always an animal subfamily, -ini is almost always a tribe, and -ina is almost always a subtribe. Things sometimes get confusing as taxonomy changes: subfamily Ponginae use to be the family Pongidae, and its members are still sometimes referred to as pongids instead of pongines. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Source for "Blood Transfusions between Homonini Species"
I haven't been able to track down a proper citation for the (probable) fact, but apparently Jane Goodall says it in a DVD: "Jane Goodall: Return to Gombe". Not a good enough source to cite as authoritative, but she got the idea from somewhere. I suspect someone with access to bio or medical journals should be able find something pretty easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.25.128 (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Further on definition
1. MSW3 only formally recognises families and genus, and discusses sub-families and tribes as terms which have no generally accepted classification. I think it should be made clear at the start of the article that hominini is a term which is used by researchers but is defined in different ways.

2. Uther above says that the article follows the MSW3 definition of hominini, but the quote he gives makes clear that this is only one 1997 view by McKenna & Bell. It also cites Goodman et al in 1998 as including gorillas in hominini. Reference 1 in the Wiki article also by Goodman from 1990 gives the same definition. These sources are all dated, and I do not see why one 1997 definition is regarded as authoritative, especially as Uther dismisses later alternative definitions as out of date. I cannot find any later sources which define hominini as homo + pan, although I do not have access to some of the sources cited.

3. The most recent sources I can find define hominini as the homo line. Chris Stringer & Peter Andrews in the 2005 The Complete World of Human Evolution p. 16 has tribes Panini and Hominini and genuses Pan and Homo. Dean Falk's 2011 The Fossil Wars uses it in the same sense. Merriam-Webster at and About.com Archaeology at  have the same definition. This is the dominant modern usage so far as I can see - as editors above have also argued.

4. References 2, 6 and 7 are useless as the urls are missing. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but here are some sources saying that "hominin" refers just to humans, australopithecines, etc. -- not chimpanzees, etc. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1126544/hominin http://australianmuseum.net.au/Hominid-and-hominin-whats-the-difference http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2011/11/whats-in-a-name-hominid-versus-hominin/ Scales (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation/merging
I think it would be a good idea to create a new article titled "Hominoid taxonomies", similar to, and to merge this article there. Alternatively, to create "Hominoid taxonomies (disambiguation)".

The problem is that there are so many potentially-confusing terms in this area:
 * There's the clades Hominoidea ("apes" suborder or superfamily), Hominidae ("great apes" family) and Homininae (subfamily including gorillas not orangutans).
 * Hominini is ambiguous (either meaning everything more human than chimps, or else meaning humans and chimps but not gorillas, probably depending on when you ask. Also note we are inconsistent about whether everything more chimpanzee than human should be called the Panini tribe or Panina subtribe).
 * Hominina (subfamily) apparently coined because Homo needed more synonyms?
 * The adjectival nouns: Hominoids (may or may not include gibbons), hominids (either all great apes or else excluding even chimps), hominins (usually hominini sometimes homininae), and hominans/hominas (homos).
 * Humanoids (which was applied to fossils in the past, but now usually robots and sci-fi aliens), homins (which may include giants and bigfoot), humans (whatever that term means, let alone humane/humanity/people, and then there's even races, and the controversy whether human population genetics can be separated from racism and eugenics).

Honestly, I'm not making these up.

With a bunch of separate stubs, it's difficult to keep them mutually consistent let alone to explain the ambiguity and avoid unwittingly confusing readers. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
A diagram in Primate shows "Hominini" as the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. That's obviously inconsistent with the present article, which says that Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Homo, and other members of the human clade after the split from the tribe Panini (chimpanzees). It would seem that we either should reconcile the articles, or add some sort of explanation in this article as to the different meanings of the term. John M Baker (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 * The first sentence of the article seems to be inconsistent with the rest of the article and the provided chart. It states that Hominini is the line of humans after the split with chimps (Panini), though the rest of the article and the chart talks about Hominini as after the split with gorillas, but encompassing both chimps (Panini) and humans (Hominina?). Can someone clarify? - Boneyard90 (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 * And if Hominini does exclude Chimpanzees, then what's the term for the group that includes Humans and Chimpanzees, but not Gorillas? I suspect that Hominini includes Chimpanzees (despite what this page currently says).  Here's one possibility:
 * Humans, and Homo Erectus, and Australopithecus, and Chimpanzees, and Gorillas, not Orangutans: Subfamily Homininae
 * Humans, and Homo Erectus, and Australopithecus, and Chimpanzees, not Gorillas: Tribe Hominini
 * Humans, and Homo Erectus, and Australopithecus, not Chimpanzees: Subtribe Hominina
 * Humans, and Homo Erectus, not Australopithecus: Genus Homo
 * Humans, not Homo Erectus: Species Homo Sapien

 * That's my theory, but I can't find a source for it. Can anyone else confirm it?  And if that's wrong, can someone else provide a consistent, corrected version, in the same format? - 173.171.162.145 (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * That's my understanding of it. However the articles are massively inconsistent. Is it worth having an RFC to see what the general understanding is (and hunting for most up to date sources) and making the articles consistent hilighting any ongoing disputes within the academic field? SPACKlick (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC that may affect this page
There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 * The body of this article has recently been amended to say that Hominini includes Chimpanzees. And I think that's right.  But someone still needs to update the Genera section of the information box on the right.  And I suggest we add an article for the subtribe Hominina. - 173.171.162.145 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The Human Clade
The human clade links here but is only a part of this referent. It is the most important referent that has no article on Wikipedia of its own. Therefore, a new article about it should be split from this article. Chrisrus (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) recognize five genera within Hominina: Ardipithecus, Australopithecus (including Paranthropus), Homo (including Kenyanthropus), Praeanthropus (including Orrorin), and Sahelanthropus.

I believe hominina could be the clade to which you refer although paranthropus and australopithecus generally are considered to include individuals likely to be on the panina side of the divide as they were extant at the time. SPACKlick (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Human says: "Modern humans (Homo sapiens primarily ssp. Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of the hominin clade, a branch of great apes characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity and increased tool use, and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies." Chrisrus (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of "Hominini" throughout Wikipedia is a mess indeed: this article says it includes chimpanzees, in other places it says it doesn't. --JorisvS (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There were inconsistencies. There is a user who has undertaken the project of trying to make wikipedia consistent on this matter. If you go to the above linked discussion at tree of life there is more discussion there. The use is not consistent between biologist and anthropologists. SPACKlick (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the "....branch of great apes characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity and increased tool use, and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies"? Chrisrus (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Usage on Wikipedia should be consistent, else it will only generate confusion. A possibility to be consistent without choosing one or the other is to explain differences clearly here and make sure that for every use it is clear which of the two is meant. In any case, the current mess is no good. --JorisvS (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because the "....branch of great apes characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity and increased tool use, and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies" doesn't have a taxon doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. It doesn't matter what the taxon is or if there is no taxon for it.  There is not taxon for fish, but it still has an article.  Chrisrus (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The taxa of it is likely hominina. Whether or not it is, if you feel the article ought to exist, create one, called the human clade. Job done SPACKlick (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I added a cladogram according to Wood and Richmond, with Gorilli split out seperately. Names are shifted with respect to the other pictures in the article. It appears there is no name for the sister clade of the Gorilli. I think the cladogram is correct. There will need to be some cleaning up.Jmv2009 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Layout: Cladogram and Adjacent Infobox
Despite recent formatting work by Chiswick Chap on the modern cladogram (thank you), at some browser widths the article still displays a lot of white space to the left of the infobox and above the cladogram. Can anything be done (to the layout?) to avoid this? Thanks. --Frans Fowler (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

RE "deleted white space"
Deleted white space in the lede by relocating the graphic (cladogram). Hate to be a scold, .. but it’s really “not ok” to install white space on a page when usually it can be avoided, esp in the lede column; it foists distraction and mystery on the reader, and discredits Wiki- workmanship (or, page-composership? :-). Re the lede column, graphics often create a problem there, which needn’t be, as they, graphics, logically should be introduced in the main-body narrative. Re the relocated cladogram: its presentation and narrative need work---which I am doing now. Also, the paleo-dates need sources, for which I will rely others to provide. Regards all, Jbeans (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Modified Hominoidae cladogram
Modified Hominoidae cladogram, explaining its consituent clades with emphases on tribe Hominini and subtribes Hominina and Australopithecina. Provided sourced dates for two clades and will continue to look for more. Provided set-up narrative ("Recent molecular analyses ..."), for others to document refined paleo-dates---with sources, please.

(NB> Used italics on the taxon labels in the top of the section narrative---not because I thought rules required them; put them there to assist the reader in interpreting the cladogram).

There is problematic narrative at the top the lede-column, beginning with "Members of the human clade ..."; plus the use of the term "homininans". I'll be working there next. Regards,Jbeans (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hominin or Homininan?
Restored terminology, to previous correct> "hominins"---from "homininans"---(see History 20:21, 23 Dec 2016). The referent "hominins" was exchanged but its original source citation was left in place on the new referent---as though: what a source cite actually says doesn't matter re the reliability/ reputation of Wikipedia narrative. PLEASE! (NB> title of the cite: Cameron, D. W. (2003). "Early hominin speciation at the Plio/Pleistocene transition." ...). Regards,Jbeans (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

More inconsistencies
Issue 1: This article for Hominini seems to say Chimps are included in Hominini but not Hominins. But the article for Hominidae says a Hominin is just the term for a member of the tribe Hominini, in which case it wouldn't make sense to include Chimps in one term but not the other. This article for Hominini admits that its usage of "hominin" does not conform to conventional rules for labeling taxa and affixing taxon-name endings to its members. So I suspect the article for Hominidae is right, and the confusion in this article for Hominini is a result of relying on sources that have become outdated in a rapidly updating field. Although I'm not an expert, so I'll leave it to someone else to fix whichever article is wrong.

Issue 2: This article for Hominini also says that Hominina excludes Australopithecina. But the articles for Hominidae and Australopithecine say Hominina includes Australopithecina (although on the Australopithecine article it misspells it as Homonina). There again I suspect the article for Hominidae is right, and this article's mistake about Hominina is a result of confusion over issue 1. But there again, I'll leave it to someone else to fix whichever article is wrong. - 173.171.160.127 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I took a crack at it. I tried to reduce confusing, vague, pedantic, or excessively nuanced language. Also tried to reduce Original Research, POV language, and modified outdated descriptions of views on taxonomy and relationships among species. It still needs some work. - Boneyard90 (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

-

Gray (1824)
This is a mess. If "Hominini (Gray 1824)" is used, then the definition by Gray needs to be adhered to, which includes Pan. If there is a new proposal excluding Pan, then a different authority from Gray needs to be cited.

I believe the problem is that the term by design should include "humans, and the closest taxon of non-humans", which in Gray's time was human and chimps, but which in our time would be humans and australopithecine "proto-humans". But if there is serious support behind this change, then there needs to be an explicit citation of an authority proposing the change, it isn't enough to just cite books about "Why Evolution is True" hand-wavingly explaining that "scientists now tend to" use the term in a different sense.

Arguing from the Principle of Priority, one could also take the position that any attempt to exclude Pan from Hominini is simply wrong. The introduction of a "common name" hominins which excludes Pan is not technically "wrong" (because it is a common name and can mean anything you want it to mean on any given day), but it seems misleading to say the least, and we should try to find someone who explicitly argues for using this (instead of just reporting that this usage has been seen in the wild). --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, Panini was introduced 1977. Clearly, Panini, Gorillini and Hominini are supposed to be tribes on equal taxonomic footing, hence an actual proposal to kick Pan out of Hominini may have been made in 1977? --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Does somebody have an exact reference for Gray (1824)? Jmv2009 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not extinct
is deleting the classification of simian species such as Australopithecus and Propliopithecoidea as extinct on the ground that modern species may be descended from them. However they no longer exist even if they have descendants. For example the dates for Australopithecus are shown as 4.5–1.977 Ma. Do other editors have views on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They are extinct of course. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That's like saying that mammals don't exist anymore. On what grounds are they extinct? Extinct means they don't have descendants. cladistics Jmv2009 (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

See Catarrhini + refs:

Propliopithecoidea nor Catarrhini appear to be extinct:

Jmv2009 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Mammals are a class which includes extinct and living species. Extinct means having no living representative. Your definition would mean that virtually every Wikipedia article about species which no longer exist would need re-writing. Even the Catarrhini article, which you cite, states that australopithecines are extinct. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 * If a genus has no living members then that genus is extinct. If a species has no living members then that species is extinct. If a tribe has no living members then that tribe is extinct. And the same goes for all other taxa. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

This is frequently encountered when using the taxonomy system, which does not allow for new insights, or is very inflexible therein. E.g. it's hard to account for the realization that certain groups emerged IN other groups. Don't think in taxonomic ranks as they can easily get inconsistent. Think in clades. Jmv2009 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Only articles which have other groups emerged in them would need rewriting. With a single species this is rarely the case, as without additional information they are considered a sidebranch. When multiple similar are lumped together, later it is often realized they are actually a paraphyletic stem group, meaning they are not extinct after all, and the newly incorporated group has to get added, cladistically. I think frankly most problems occur in the human evolution, where people are excessively squeamish about these matters. Please point me out places where there is a similar problem outside of the human evolution.Jmv2009 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Aurochs (presented as extinct); Bison antiquus (presented as extinct); Cave bear (presented as extinct but analogous to Neanderthal and Denisovan vs humans, with low-single-digit-percent introgression into modern bears). I could go on. . . .  So it is not just human squeamishness, it is just one representation of the disagreement over the degree to which cladistics should override taxonomy that is also seen in the debate over whether birds are dinosaurs (which if taken to its unavoidable conclusion would likewise make them both fish, and us too). Agricolae (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If Australopithecus is not extinct because we may be descended from them then we are Australopithecus. Can you point to reliable sources which take that view or which state that Australopithecus is not extinct? Otherwise your edits should be reverted. Wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources, not arguments put forward by editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

state that Australophithecus (without homo) is not a natural group, is paraphyletic (which is saying the same thing). Keeping non natural groups/paraphyletic groups is always discussed as at least somewhat problematic. "... the paraphyly of Australopithecus gives the mistaken implication that these taxa are more closely related to each other than they are to other taxa." The way the article is currently, it gives no such misleading impressions. Typically paraphyletic groups are a relic from previous erroneous assessments about proper mutual affiliation. In this case as well: Previously homo and Australopithecus were thought to be sisters. Now it appears homo emerged in Australopitecus, so something has to change. Cladistically, you always have to include the descendents, i.e. including homo. It is now pretty well established that homo somehow emerged within Australopithecus. Almost all articles from the last decades agree with it. (Of course wikipedia doesn't have dinosaurs listed as extinct) You shouldn't find a paper with a cladogram as in, and simultaneously claiming the Australophithecus are extinct. You will probably find a claim that they are paraphyletic. In the Australophithecus article, the statements are made very carefully, about under which framework (cladistics) homo is included. Jmv2009 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Discusses the mess that is Australopithecus, as well as the squeamishness with respect to the human lineage.Jmv2009 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Whatever happens, at least the traditionally excluded groups should be mentioned in any discussion of paraphyletic groups. Jmv2009 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As noted earlier, a taxon or population is usually considered extinct even if it has living descendants, as long as the features that define it do not exist anymore (or do not exist in their original configuration/combination). This goes for the aurochs and wild horse, as well as extinct human/hominid populations. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 * You seem to be taking it for granted that taxonomy is fundamentally cladistic in nature.  It is fundamentally descriptive classification.  There is descriptive value in an unnatural group classification of bony fishes that doesn't include giraffes.  Anyhow, you are arguing for the way things 'should' be viewed, for a given value of 'should'.  Wikipedia isn't about that.  If Homo is to be a separate genus from Australopithecus, then clearly these species-level divisions are not by nature cladistic natural groupings and any argument predicated on that assumption immediately falls flat.  As has been suggested, find a group of sources that demonstrate a scientific consensus saying Australopithecines are extant today, and we will have something to talk about.  Otherwise, the consensus is that there are no living members of the genus: it is extinct.  Agricolae (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 * What are we even talking about here? Is there a problem with the following cladogram? This is more or less directly from.

This cladogram is not controversial. A similar one can be found in. The main problem here, obviously, is that "Australopithicus" either does not exist anymore, or is not extinct. From the article "This taxonomy is still less than ideal, because the paraphyly of Australopithecus gives the mistaken implication that these taxa are more closely related to each other than they are to other taxa. To retain traditional taxa like Australopithecus with their conventional definitions, this is the best that can be done". The article clearly does not state that Australopithecus is extinct. I have not found articles which have such a cladogram stating "Australopithecus" is extinct. Or is the only problem occurring when "Australopithecus" is being used as label of the second clade in the cladogram (corresponding to the blue start of the figure 5 in ) "improperly" (but cladistically correct) suggesting that homo is part of "Australopithecus". But the problem here appears more that evidently a genus appears in another genus, which violates the rules of traditional taxonomy. Furthermore, genus may inadvertantly be considered a special level in taxonomy, as the taxonomic genus is included in the name? This is due to an error in historical assessment {Mann and Weiss (1996), dividing homonini in Homo, Australopithicines, and Panina), which they obviously would not have done if they had realized Homo had emerged in Australopithicines}.Jmv2009 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You can lay out all the cladograms you want. It doesn't change anything.  The fact that Homo emerged from Australopithecus does not necessitate that we be Australopithecus sapiens. There are no living members of Australopithecus. Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As four editors disagree with Jmv2009's redefinition of extinct I will revert the edits. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 * That we be Australopithecus sapiens is gross mischaracterisation of my position! Where did I say that? Anyway, I changed Australopithecus. Please review.Jmv2009 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it though? That is the only way there would be living Australopithecus, the only way they wouldn't be extinct.  Agricolae (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So it appears you are at least in part arguing that a group should be considered extinct because this group was assigned the genus level, which impacts the names of the members. That's royally screwed up. How can that possibly work when e.g both genera, parent and daughter? In any case, "all genus concepts used in palaeoanthropology agree that genera should be monophyletic."
 * However, the governing body of taxonomy, the ICZN Code, does not mandate genera are monophyletic. Regardless, no members of the genus Australopithecus are currently extant, and even if we are their descendants we have gone through a process of anagenesis which means we would no longer be able to interbreed and produce viable offspring therefore they are not extant. Anyways, all fossils we have are from dead taxa, so we cannot be sure we even directly descended from any of them. Being evolved from something does not mean we *are* that something, or the UCA (universal common ancestor) would technically still be alive. Time to stop flogging a (literally) dead horse. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally, that is actually what it means: A clade includes all descendants. A better wording, in my opinion, is "emerged within", which is what you also find in the literature. UCA is not a clade name. For instance, you are a mammal, just as much as any mammal is. Jmv2009 (talk) Furthermore, interbreeding is not the issue, that's only possible at the species level. 17:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on. You are saying that Homo falls within the clade of Australopithecus and you are likewise promoting the position that genera should be monophyletic, but at the same time you call it a "gross mischaracterization" of your position to suggest that you think humans should be Australopithecus sapiens.  Looks like you aren't clear on the consequences of your own positions?  Or are you saying that all australopithecines should be in Homo?  Either way, you won't find many allies. Agricolae (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I actually argue it is less than completely honest to bias an issue because you don't like the consequences. Don't worry, everybody is doing it. 2) Imagine the problem of assigning the rank of e.g. Paranthropus + homo clade. Also "genus"? 3) We still don't need to go so far as explicitly declaring Australopithecus extinct, none of the papers with such a cladogram does. Its like saying that dinosaurs are extinct. That assessment DID change when birds were found to have emerged within them, you know. Jmv2009 (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I have no idea what you are saying here, but I am not worried about it because it likely isn't productive anyhow. 2) When you start an argument with 'imagine' it has no place on Wikipedia, where the imagination of editors really has no role in editorial decisions.  3) The body of scientific writing on Australopithecus extends beyond those that present cladograms.  And no, it is not the same as the dinosaur argument. Anyhow, talking about cladograms gets this nowhere.  What has been lacking from the start are references to Australopithecus still being extant. Without that, you are just wasting everyone's time with your personal opinions, however logically sound you think they may be. Agricolae (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Well, finally, here is literature claiming such paraphyletic and polyphyletic 'non-groups' are 'not literally extinct.'. All of this makes the 'taxa' or groups 'Australopithecus (..) and the subfamily Australopithecinae utterly paraphyletic. The 'genus' is almost polyphyletic as Kenyantropus is excluded. The is means nonsensical 'non-groups' of which one cannot speak precisely of neither phylogenetic relationships, their characteristic traits, nor literal extinction (see Bonde 19754, 1977, 1981; Patterson, 1980). It appears extremely unfortunate ... . - this creates 'non-groups; paraphyletic.

 * Of course it is the same as the dinosaur argument: Step 1) A new group is found not realizing that an extant group is part of it, and is named. It is considered extinct. Step 2) It is realized that the other group extant group is part of it. The new group is not to be considered 'literaly extinct' anymore.

 * mentions the attempts to resolve paraphyly by Strait (1997) by reassigning the several branches to different monophyletic genera. Jmv2009 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 * The source you cite seems to be arguing against the validity of an Australopithecus that unites A. afarensis, A. anamensis, A. sediba and A. africanus, and more generally finding fault with the criteria used to define the genus. It takes some real mental gymnastics (or cherry-picking of short phrases) to cite someone who thinks Australopithecus is completely invalid as evidence for your claim that Australopithecus is extant.

 * And of course it is not the same as the bird-dinosaur situation - see how just putting the words 'of course' in front of a brazen statement of personal opinion doesn't really make it unimpeachable? If birds are dinosaur simply on the basis of phylogeny, then we are all bony fish, which is patently ridiculous.  Agricolae (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 * 1) Firstly, the source is clearly arguing against the use of paraphyletic/non-group taxons (such as Austrolopithecus, Non-avian dinosours), saying you can not talk precisely about their literal extinction; no cherry picking. Please note that in cladistics, there is no gap between paraphyly and "completely invalid", as you appear to be implying. The reason is also given: The means nonsensical 'non-groups' of which one cannot speak precisely of neither phylogenetic relationships, their characteristic traits, nor literal extinction.
 * Secondly, he is proposing one of the ways to "resolve" the invalidity/paraphyly (invalidity). There are three ways to resolve the invalidity/non-group/paraphyly: 1) Stop using the taxon as it is considered invalid. 2) Add the last common ancestor and descendants. (in this case: add homo) 3) Remove some branches. (i.e. in this case, if the above cladogram is accurate, remove most branches) Thirdly, what level any taxon is, is generally recognized as largely arbitrary anyway: Independent working groups will come up with different results. In any case, the statement of the source (and given references given by him) that of such paraphyletic/polyphyletic/non-group/invalid taxons you can not talk precisely about their literal extinction.

 * Here is arguing that we are fish/bony fish, cladistically:  Jmv2009 (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 * So, the three choices to fix the problem are to abolish Australopithecus, which doesn't exactly make it extant, OR we become Australopithecus sapiens, which above you regard as a gross mischaracterization of your position, OR you completely change thee meaning Australopithecus (or, I guess, fish) to match the desired clade, which completely begs the question. Not a real winner there among the options.  This bores me.  I'm done.  Agricolae (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Actually, a potentially viable alternative to 'your proposals' is to have homo included, but that Australopithecus is not considered a genus anymore, but a higher level taxon. The authority already alluded to this by the use of quotation marks when quoting the taxonomic level as 'genus'. This may involve the establishment of other genuses and the associated species name changes, e.g. 'Preanthropus afarensis', Kenyanthropus. See e.g., footnote a), which does not appear to take a stand on whether to maintain Australopithecus. I don't think we are going to be Australopithecus as a genus, but possibly as a clade (i.e. supergenus). Despite  and , discussing the possibility of Australopithecus sapiens.

As for extinction of these paraphyletic clades, how to falsify literal extinction as a scientific question? By showing there is an extant group coming out of the group. So when you accept these are paraphyletic w.r.t homo, you simultaneously falsify extinction. What other method is there?

Another ref concerning paraphyly and extinction

Not true extinct due to hybridization

Here is another figure showing Australopithecus as not extinct (chapter 20) Jmv2009 (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Jmv2009 (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Lineage section
I have reverted the addition of a lineage section. The main reason is that an article on Hominini, which includes pan, is not the place for the lineage of homo. Also it is not a lineage but an incomplete and unreferenced list of species. Some of the text is referenced, but the 2010 citation showing the split at 5 million years is out of date. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments
This article is already really in-depth but your additions to it are great from what I can see. I think breaking up the "Evolutionary history" section into two paragraphs or three smaller paragraphs would be helpful to the reader. There is a lot of information in a large paragraph there that I find harder to sift through. Great job though — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamRossmore (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio
Evidence of copyvio: https://www.google.com/search?q=linguistic+capabilities+existed+and+that+therefore+language+may+have+been+present+at+least+in+Neanderthals&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead simplification
I just made a relatively bold refactor of the lead more in line with the style of Simple Wikipedia.

I was actually trying to deal with a much thornier problem concerning australopithecine, as expressed in the source cited below:

Furthermore, the traditional term "australopithecine," which grouped Australopithecus and Paranthropus in the subfamily Australopithecinae, becomes invalid under this revised taxonomy; in the context of Linnaean taxonomy, one cannot nestle a higher-ranked subfamily (Australopithecine) within a lower-ranked tribe (Hominini) (see Figure 1).

Trying to sort this out I landed on this page, and it confused me a bit further, so I decided to simply the presentation, based on a solid source already in hand.

The Hominini form a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae ("hominines"). Hominini includes the extant genera Homo (humans) and Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos), and in standard usage excludes the genus Gorilla (gorillas).

The term was originally introduced by Camille Arambourg (1948). Arambourg combined the categories of Hominina and Simiina due to Gray (1825) into his new subtribe.

Traditionally, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans were grouped together as pongids, until genetic phylogeny determined that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas were more closely related to each other than to the orangutan. The former pongids were reassigned to the subfamily Hominidae ("great apes"), which already included humans, but the details of this reassignment remain contested; within Hominini, not every source excludes gorillas, and not every source includes chimpanzees.

I pushed the scholarly citations about specific inclusions and exclusions down to the terminology section.

Basically I know nothing about this field at all, and the only skill I bring to bear is my long history as an armchair pedant who favours direct exposition.

Because I know nothing, I tried to crib from nature.com as literally as possible, but I know how hard it is to wade into this kind of professional turf and not get some crucial detail alarmingly incorrect.

As a non-specialist, the historical reference to the defunct pongids helps me quite a bit, because it provides a scope for the subsequent disagreements.

I do not take ownership in my contributions, and I'm generally off to the next thing anyway, so feel free to edit at will. — MaxEnt 22:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

article is a mess
Whoever edited the article has made a mess of it. Chimpanzees are not hominini. 2.25.214.113 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article cites Arambourg, 1948, but appears to be out of date. John D. Hawks defines hominini in 2018 to exclude other living primates at . Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also rarely (if at all) see Hominini defined to include Pan. See however e.g..

 * Arambourg (1948) does not even appear to include pan. Jmv2009 (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Homininan misspelled
Homininan is misspelled twice as "homininian". The correct spelling can be seen in external references #7 and #9 as well as the Wikipedia page for Hominidae. Thuja (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hominini


text:
Gorillini

Gorillini is a taxonomic tribe containing three genera: Gorilla and the extinct Chororapithecus and (possibly) Nakalipithecus.

title: Gorillini


text:
Ablett

Ablett is a surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Alfred Ablett (1830–1897), English recipient of the Victoria Cross
 * Leslie Ablett (1904–1952), British water polo player
 * Carl Ablett (born 1985), English rugby league player
 * Gary Ablett Sr. (born 1961), Australian footballer
 * Gary Ablett (1965–2012), English footballer
 * Gary Ablett Jr. (born 1984), Australian footballer
 * Geoff Ablett (born 1955), Australian footballer
 * Kevin Ablett (born 1958), Australian footballer
 * Len Ablett (1916–2006), Australian footballer
 * Luke Ablett (born 1982), Australian footballer
 * Nathan Ablett (born 1985), Australian footballer
 * Ablett family, family of Australian rules footballers
 * Noah Ablett (1883–1935), Welsh trade unionist and political theorist

title: Ablett


text:
French Market

The French Market (Marché français) is a market and series of commercial buildings spanning six blocks in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana. Founded as a Native American trading post predating European colonization, the market is the oldest of its kind in the United States. It began where Café du Monde currently stands and has been rebuilt and renovated a number of times.

The market is included on the Louisiana African American Heritage Trail.

Amenities and events
Individual vendors purveyed many different fresh foods, including raw seafood, through the mid-20th century.

The cafés and bars offer New Orleans crawfish and other seafood, Cajun food, Creole cooking, desserts, fruits, vegetables, and more. The French Market is also known for hosting some annual events including the French Quarter Festival and the French Market Creole Tomato Festival.

The flea market is especially busy on weekends. Free musical events are often given in the French Market. The New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park office and visitor center is in the French Market.

History
Part of the space has been dedicated as a market since 1791 in the colonial period, but the oldest extant structures date to about 1813.

Renovations and rebuilding
Major renovations were done by the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s.

Rebuilding and renovations have continued into the 21st century. Much of the area formerly housing arcades of roofed but wall-less merchant stands now houses shops and restaurants separated by doors and walls, catering to the tourism industry.

Name
The original market, called "the Meat Shops" or "Meat Market," was the only place within the French Quarter that could sell meat. Only after meat was being sold elsewhere did the name change to the "French Market."

Location
The French Market stretches just inland from the Mississippi River in the section of the French Quarter downriver from Jackson Square, from the Café du Monde at the upriver end, to the flea market stalls across from the New Orleans Mint building.

title: French Market


text: File:Temptations-live-at-thecopa.JPG

title: File:Temptations-live-at-thecopa.JPG


text: User talk:88.107.183.64

title: User talk:88.107.183.64


text:
Filigree & Shadow

Filigree & Shadow is the second album released by 4AD collective This Mortal Coil, an umbrella title for a loose grouping of guest musicians and vocalists brought together by label boss Ivo Watts-Russell. The supergroup consists primarily of artists attached to the 4AD label, of which Watts-Russell was the co-founder and (at the time) the owner and director. The album was released in September 1986, and entered the UK Independent Music chart on 11 October 1986 and peaked at #2, spending 16 weeks on the chart in total.

Of the 25 tracks, 13 are instrumental, including the title track. This was the first double-LP released on 4AD, and introduced the "DAD" (for double album) prefix into the label's catalogue. Watts-Russell took careful consideration in shaping the album's four sides so they flowed together as individual wholes. This is lost somewhat on compact disc, as the entire album fits on one CD.

A remastered and repackaged CD edition of Filigree & Shadow was issued with the complete This Mortal Coil recordings in a self-titled box set, released in late November 2011. The CD was released individually shortly thereafter.

Personnel

 * Musicians

 * Dominic Appleton (Breathless) – vocals
 * Deirdre Rutkowski – vocals
 * Louise Rutkowski – vocals
 * Simon Raymonde (Cocteau Twins) – guitar, bass, keyboards
 * Richard Thomas (Dif Juz) – saxophone
 * David Curtis (Dif Juz) – guitar
 * Jon Turner – keyboards
 * Alison Limerick – vocals
 * Jean (recorded as Jeanette on Survival Records) – vocals
 * Peter Ulrich (Dead Can Dance) – percussion
 * Keith Mitchell – guitar
 * Nigel K. Hine – guitar
 * Anne Turner – background vocals
 * Les McKeown – background vocals
 * Martin McCarrick – background vocals
 * Hubertus "Richenel" Baars – vocals
 * Chris Pye – guitar
 * Caroline Seaman (Heavenly Bodies, ex-members of Dead Can Dance) – vocals
 * Alan Curtis (Dif Juz) – guitar
 * Mark Cox (The Wolfgang Press) – keyboards
 * Andrew Gray (The Wolfgang Press) – guitar
 * Steven Young (Colourbox) – drum programming
 * Tony Waera – didgeridoo
 * Gini Ball – violin, viola
 * John Fryer – programming
 * Ivo Watts-Russell – music, keyboards

 * Visual
 * Concept and art direction by Ivo Watts-Russell and Nigel Grierson
 * Photography by Nigel Grierson
 * Design by Vaughan Oliver at v23
 * Design assistance by Erwin Esen
 * Cover model: Pallas Citroën

title: Filigree & Shadow


text:
User talk:Rethought

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Shimgray 21:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sau logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sau logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Sau logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Sau logo.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Four and twenty blackbirds.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Four and twenty blackbirds.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  01:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rethought


text: User:Markussep/templates

title: User:Markussep/templates


text:
Prismane

Prismane or  'Ladenburg benzene' is a polycyclic hydrocarbon with the formula C6H6. It is an isomer of benzene, specifically a valence isomer. Prismane is far less stable than benzene. The carbon (and hydrogen) atoms of the prismane molecule are arranged in the shape of a six-atom triangular prism—this compound is the parent and simplest member of the prismanes class of molecules. Albert Ladenburg proposed this structure for the compound now known as benzene. The compound was not synthesized until 1973.

History
In the mid 19th century, investigators proposed several possible structures for benzene which were consistent with its empirical formula, C6H6, which had been determined by combustion analysis. The first, which was proposed by Kekulé in 1865, later proved to be closest to the true structure of benzene. This structure inspired several others to draw structures that were consistent with benzene's empirical formula; for example, Ladenburg proposed prismane, Dewar proposed Dewar benzene, and Koerner and Claus proposed Claus' benzene. Some of these structures would be synthesized in the following years. Prismane, like the other proposed structures for benzene, is still often cited in the literature, because it is part of the historical struggle toward understanding the mesomeric structures and resonance of benzene. Some computational chemists still research the differences between the possible isomers of C6H6.

Properties
Prismane is a colourless liquid at room temperature. The deviation of the carbon-carbon bond angle from 109° to 60° in a triangle leads to a high ring strain, reminiscent of that of cyclopropane but greater. The compound is explosive, which is unusual for a hydrocarbon. Due to this ring strain, the bonds have a low bond energy and break at a low activation energy, which makes synthesis of the molecule difficult; Woodward and Hoffmann noted that prismane's thermal rearrangement to benzene is symmetry-forbidden, comparing it to "an angry tiger unable to break out of a paper cage." On account of its strain energy and the aromatic stabilization of benzene, the molecule is estimated to be 90 kcal/mole less stable than benzene, but the activation of this highly exothermic transformation is a surprisingly high 33 kcal/mol, making it persistent at room temperature.

The substituted derivative hexamethylprismane (in which all six hydrogens are substituted by methyl groups) has a higher stability, and was synthesized by rearrangement reactions in 1966.

Synthesis

The synthesis starts from benzvalene (1) and 4-phenyltriazolidone (2), which is a strong dienophile. The reaction is a stepwise Diels-Alder like reaction, forming a carbocation as intermediate. The adduct (3) is then hydrolyzed under basic conditions and afterwards transformed into a copper(II) chloride derivative with acidic copper(II) chloride. Neutralized with a strong base, the azo compound (5) could be crystallized with 65% yield. The last step is a photolysis of the azo compound. This photolysis leads to a biradical which forms prismane (6) and nitrogen with a yield of less than 10%. The compound was isolated by preparative gas chromatography.

title: Prismane


text:
Talk:Prismane

Chemical shifts
Is there a reason why they are denoted with rho instead of delta in the article? --Rifleman 82 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No. This is a typo which coulr happen any time. (sorry could)--Stone 08:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prismane


text:
Sneaky Pete Kleinow

Peter E. "Sneaky Pete" Kleinow (August 20, 1934 – January 6, 2007) was an American country-rock musician and animator. He was a member of the band the Flying Burrito Brothers, and worked extensively as a session musician, playing pedal steel guitar for Joan Baez, Jackson Browne, The Byrds, Leonard Cohen, Joe Cocker, Rita Coolidge, Eagles, The Everly Brothers, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, John Lennon, The Steve Miller Band, Joni Mitchell, The Rolling Stones, Stevie Wonder, Spencer Davis, Little Richard, Linda Ronstadt, Jimmie Spheeris and many others. He is a member of the Steel Guitar Hall of Fame.

Kleinow is also noteworthy for having composed the Gumby theme song as well as being an animator on the 1960s iteration of the show.

Biography
Kleinow was born and raised in South Bend, Indiana; inspired by Jerry Byrd, he took up the pedal steel guitar in high school. Following graduation, he was employed for over a decade as a maintenance worker at the Michigan Department of Transportation. In 1963, he relocated to Los Angeles, where he began a career as a visual effects artist and stop motion animator in the film and television industry. After uncredited work on The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm (1962), The Outer Limits (1963–1965), and 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964), Kleinow became closely associated with the long-running children's series Gumby and Davey and Goliath while moonlighting in the city's country-oriented nightclubs as a member of Smokey Rogers & the Western Caravan (from which his distinctive nickname originated) and the Detours (often deputizing for bandleader Red Rhodes, then frequently employed as a session musician).

Through this scene he became acquainted with Chris Hillman and Gram Parsons of the Byrds in 1968, helping the group to replicate their newly country-infused sound onstage with banjoist Doug Dillard on several local club dates. Guitarist Roger McGuinn later alleged that Hillman and Parsons intended to replace Dillard with Kleinow and did not countenance Kleinow's inclusion alongside Dillard in an upcoming European tour, a decision that hastened Hillman and Parsons' departure from the band. After signing to A&M Records and briefly considering Lloyd Green (who, as per Hillman, "would have never left a lucrative career as a session man to go out with us"), Parsons and Hillman invited Kleinow to join their new project: the Flying Burrito Brothers. For Kleinow, the opportunity was the culmination of his desire to "finally make a living with music," and he would work for much of the next decade as a professional musician. Never paragons of commercial success (the band's first album, The Gilded Palace of Sin, peaked at #164 on the Billboard album chart), the Flying Burrito Brothers would go on to influence generations of popular musicians.

One of the first pedal steel players to work in a rock context, Kleinow favored the outmoded Fender 400, a cable-operated eight-string model. According to bandmate Bernie Leadon, "Sneaky uniquely played an eight-string Fender cable pull steel tuned to B6 instead of the more common C6. He played a usually more jazz or swing tuning in a style that most other players use an E9 tuning for. His rationale was [that] B is the 'five chord,' or dominant chord, to the key of E. This resulted in absolutely-to-Pete steel licks. And no one else thinks like him anyway." In addition to favoring atypical tunings, Kleinow liberally incorporated such electronic accoutrements as the fuzzbox, the Leslie speaker and the Echoplex into his style. His unorthodox style of playing would immediately influence a number of second-generation country rock pedal steel players, including Jerry Garcia, Buddy Cage of the New Riders of the Purple Sage and his eventual replacement in the Burrito Brothers, session musician Al Perkins. Favoring a relatively abstemious and reclusive lifestyle in comparison to some of his bandmates (nevertheless, according to bassist Chris Ethridge, he "loved to drink wine" and frequently exhibited science fiction films at the "Burrito Manor" shared by Parsons and Hillman in Reseda throughout 1968); intolerant of the group's infamously erratic live performances; and increasingly disenchanted by his exclusion from the creative process—including the diminution of his parts in released mixes and the summary rejection of his songwriting efforts—Kleinow eventually left the Flying Burrito Brothers in 1971. Despite this setback, the imprimatur of the band allowed Kleinow to enjoy a lucrative career as a session musician throughout this period. He appeared on albums by Joe Cocker (Joe Cocker!, 1969), Delaney, Bonnie and Friends (To Bonnie from Delaney, 1970), Joni Mitchell (Blue, 1971), Billy Joel (Cold Spring Harbor, 1971), Little Feat (Sailin' Shoes, 1972), Little Richard (The Second Coming, 1972), Sandy Denny (Sandy, 1972), Frank Zappa (Waka/Jawaka, 1972), the Bee Gees (Life in a Tin Can, 1973), Yoko Ono (Feeling the Space, 1973), John Lennon (Mind Games, 1973), John Cale (Paris 1919, 1973), Linda Ronstadt (Heart Like A Wheel, 1974), Harry Nilsson (Pussy Cats, 1974), Stevie Wonder (Fulfillingness' First Finale, 1974 and Songs in the Key of Life, 1976), Fleetwood Mac (Heroes Are Hard to Find, 1974), and Leonard Cohen (Death of a Ladies' Man, 1977).

In 1974, Kleinow was briefly part of a new band, Cold Steel, before co-founding the reconstituted Flying Burrito Brothers with original bassist Chris Ethridge later that year. He remained with the band (which also recorded and performed as Sierra) until 1981 before rejoining again from 1984 to 1997. The later iterations of the band enjoyed several minor country hits on Curb Records. His first solo album, Sneaky Pete, was released in 1978 and The Legend and the Legacy followed in 1994.

Following a second stint on Davey and Goliath in 1972, he returned to visual effects in earnest as an animator on Sid and Marty Krofft's Land of the Lost (1974–1976) and created the dinosaurs for the comic film Caveman (1981). He was a co-recipient of the 1983 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Special Visual Effects for his work on the highly successful ABC miniseries The Winds of War. Although often uncredited, Kleinow contributed stop motion and other visual effects to a number of films and miniseries over the next three decades, including Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (1980), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), The Right Stuff (1983), Gremlins (1984), The Terminator (1984), Terminator 2 (1991), Starship Troopers (1997), and Holes (2003) while continuing to work sporadically as a professional musician.

In 2000, Kleinow formed a group called Burrito Deluxe (also the name of a 1970 Flying Burrito Brothers album) with Garth Hudson, former organist of The Band, Carlton Moody of the Moody Brothers on lead vocals and guitars, bassist Jeff "Stick" Davis of Amazing Rhythm Aces and drummer Rick Lonow, a latter-day drummer for Poco since 1989 and session player. The group recorded three albums, Georgia Peach, The Whole Enchilada and 2007's Disciples of the Truth, which feature his last studio recordings. Kleinow's last performance was at a 2005 Gram Parsons tribute "Gram Fest" concert in Joshua Tree, California, the town in which Gram Parsons had died.

Personal life and death
Kleinow was married to Ernestine Kleinow for 54 years until his death. They had three sons and two daughters together.

Kleinow died on January 6, 2007, at a convalescent home near the skilled nursing facility in Petaluma, California. Suffering from Alzheimer's disease, he had been living at the facility since 2006.

Three months before his death, local singer songwriter Jan White and bassist Pat Campbell gave Kleinow a final private concert, performing several Gram Parsons songs for him, set in the nursing facility's garden. Kleinow was brought to tears and expressed his joy and gratitude for the special moment.

Discography
For albums by the Flying Burrito Brothers see their discography.

Other appearances
Kleinow appears on numerous rock and country-rock albums, including:
 * Joe Cocker! - Joe Cocker (1969)
 * Through the Morning, Through the Night - Dillard & Clark (1969)
 * (Untitled) - The Byrds (1970)
 * Suite Steel: The Pedal Steel Guitar Album - Buddy Emmons, Jay Dee Maness, Red Rhodes, Rusty Young - Elektra Records (1970)
 * New York City (You're a Woman) - Al Kooper (1971)
 * Helen Reddy - Helen Reddy (1971)
 * Cold Spring Harbor - Billy Joel (1971)
 * Linda Ronstadt - Linda Ronstadt (1972)
 * Blue - Joni Mitchell (1971)
 * Byrdmaniax - The Byrds (1971)
 * Jackson Browne - Jackson Browne (1972)
 * Sandy - Sandy Denny (1972)
 * Waka/Jawaka - Frank Zappa (1972)
 * The Lady's Not for Sale - Rita Coolidge (1972)
 * Suite for Late Summer - Dion DiMucci (1972)
 * Jennifer - Jennifer Warnes (1972)
 * The Second Coming - Little Richard (1972)
 * No Ordinary Child - Jane Getz (1972)
 * Casey Kelly - Casey Kelly (1972)
 * For Everyman - Jackson Browne (1973)
 * Feeling the Space - Yoko Ono (1973)
 * Mind Games - John Lennon (1973)
 * Don't Cry Now - Linda Ronstadt (1973)
 * The Original Tap Dancing Kid - Jimmie Spheeris (1973)
 * Perfect Angel - Minnie Riperton (1974)
 * Pussy Cats - Harry Nilsson (1974)
 * Heart Like a Wheel - Linda Ronstadt (1974)
 * Heroes Are Hard to Find - Fleetwood Mac (1974)
 * Kinky Friedman - Kinky Friedman (1974)
 * Playing Possum - Carly Simon (1975)
 * Ringo's Rotogravure - Ringo Starr (1976)
 * White on White - Brian Cadd (1976)
 * Death of a Ladies' Man - Leonard Cohen (1977)
 * Making a Good Thing Better - Olivia Newton-John (1977)
 * Pacific Steel Co. - Steel guitar compilation album, 2 tunes (1978)
 * Down on the Farm - Little Feat (1979)
 * Town and Country (album)  - The Rave-Ups (1985)
 * I'm Your Man - Leonard Cohen (1988)
 * Don't Explain - Robert Palmer (1990)
 * Beth Nielsen Chapman - Beth Nielsen Chapman (1990)

title: Sneaky Pete Kleinow


text:
Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 28

Part of the history for this page is at Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 28/American lawyers. --cesarb 21:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Exchange bias

Exchange bias or exchange anisotropy occurs in bilayers (or multilayers) of magnetic materials where the hard magnetization behavior of an antiferromagnetic thin film causes a shift in the soft magnetization curve of a ferromagnetic film. The exchange bias phenomenon is of tremendous utility in magnetic recording, where it is used to pin the state of the readback heads of hard disk drives at exactly their point of maximum sensitivity; hence the term "bias."

Fundamental science

The essential physics underlying the phenomenon is the exchange interaction between the antiferromagnet and ferromagnet at their interface. Since antiferromagnets have a small or no net magnetization, their spin orientation is only weakly influenced by an externally applied magnetic field. A soft ferromagnetic film which is strongly exchange-coupled to the antiferromagnet will have its interfacial spins pinned. Reversal of the ferromagnet's moment will have an added energetic cost corresponding to the energy necessary to create a Néel domain wall within the antiferromagnetic film. The added energy term implies a shift in the switching field of the ferromagnet. Thus the magnetization curve of an exchange-biased ferromagnetic film looks like that of the normal ferromagnet except that is shifted away from the H=0 axis by an amount Hb.

In most well-studied ferromagnet/antiferromagnet bilayers, the Curie temperature of the ferromagnet is larger than the Néel temperature TN of the antiferromagnet. This inequality means that the direction of the exchange bias can be set by cooling through TN in the presence of an applied magnetic field. The moment of the magnetically ordered ferromagnet will apply an effective field to the antiferromagnet as it orders, breaking the symmetry and influencing the formation of domains.

The exchange bias effect is attributed to a ferromagnetic unidirectional anisotropy formed at the interface between different magnetic phases. Generally, the process of field cooling from higher temperature is used to obtain ferromagnetic unidirectional anisotropy in different exchange bias systems. In 2011, a large exchange bias has been realized after zero-field cooling from an unmagnetized state, which was attributed to the newly formed interface between different magnetic phases during the initial magnetization process.

Exchange anisotropy has long been poorly understood due to the difficulty of studying the dynamics of domain walls in thin antiferromagnetic films. A naive approach to the problem would suggest the following expression for energy per unit area:

$$E = \frac{1}{2} n J_{ex} S_F S_{AF} + M_F t_F H$$

where n is the number of interfacial spins interactions per unit area, Jex is the exchange constant at the interface, S refers to the spin vector, M refers to the magnetization, t refers to film thickness and H is the external field. The subscript F describes the properties of the ferromagnet and AF to the antiferromagnet. The expression omits magnetocrystalline anisotropy, which is unaffected by the presence of the antiferromagnet. At the switching field of the ferromagnet, the pinning energy represented by the first term and the Zeeman dipole coupling represented by the second term will exactly balance. The equation then predicts that the exchange bias shift Hb will be given by the expression

$$H_b = \frac{n J_{ex}  S_F  S_{AF}}{2  M_F  t_F}$$

Many experimental findings regarding the exchange bias contradict this simple model. For example, the magnitude of measured Hb values is typically 100 times less than that predicted by the equation for reasonable values of the parameters. The amount of hysteresis shift Hb is not correlated with the density n of uncompensated spins in the plane of the antiferromagnet that appears at the interface. In addition, the exchange bias effect tends to be smaller in epitaxial bilayers than in polycrystalline ones, suggesting an important role for defects. In recent years progress in fundamental understanding has been made via synchrotron radiation based element-specific magnetic linear dichroism experiments that can image antiferromagnetic domains and frequency-dependent magnetic susceptibility measurements that can probe the dynamics. Experiments on the Fe/FeF2 and Fe/MnF2 model systems have been particularly fruitful.

Technological impact
Exchange bias was initially used to stabilize the magnetization of soft ferromagnetic layers in readback heads based on the anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) effect. Without the stabilization, the magnetic domain state of the head could be unpredictable, leading to reliability problems. Currently, exchange bias is used to pin the harder reference layer in spin valve readback heads and MRAM memory circuits that utilize the giant magnetoresistance or magnetic tunneling effect. Similarly, the most advanced disk media are antiferromagnetically coupled, making use of interfacial exchange to effectively increase the stability of small magnetic particles whose behavior would otherwise be superparamagnetic.

Desirable properties for an exchange bias material include a high Néel temperature, a large magnetocrystalline anisotropy and good chemical and structural compatibility with NiFe and Co, the most important ferromagnetic films. The most technologically significant exchange bias materials have been the rocksalt-structure antiferromagnetic oxides like NiO, CoO and their alloys and the rocksalt-structure intermetallics like FeMn, NiMn, IrMn and their alloys.

History
Exchange anisotropy was discovered by Meiklejohn and Bean of General Electric in 1956. The first commercial device to employ the exchange bias was IBM's anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) disk drive recording head, which was based on a design by Hunt in the 1970s but which didn't fully displace the inductive readback head until the early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, the spin valve head using an exchange-bias layer was well on its way to displacing the AMR head.

title: Exchange bias