Talk:Walking with Cavemen

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Episode # debate

Are you sure its two parts? If I remember correctly, I saw a four-part version of this. Are there two extra episodes, or are the two longer episodes split in half in some edition? Would there be any sources for the given info?--HJV 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In North America the DVD gives two episodes. They cover the whole of human evolution; nothing seems to be missing. Perhaps in Britain it was originally 4 parts? Can anyone confirm? The Singing Badger 00:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/tv_radio/wwcavemen/ and click on episodes, there appears to be info for four episodes. Seems that the American version is then 2 episodes and the European one 4. Should the article be changed so that it describes the original version (which I assume is the 4-episode one, but not 100% sure) and mentions that a two-part version exists, or? Would be helpful if someone actually had the 4-part version, and could do the changes, as the BBC website's info on the episodes is a bit ambiguous - it's more extra info to them, than a summary. --HJV 22:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB clearly lists it as four parts: [1] The Singing Badger 15:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it to four. Bronzey 06:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous criticizer

207.181.15.218 has been criticizing the documentary not understand the nature of the "Walking with..." series and that they don't explain their evidence unless you watch the special features on the dvds. All the "Walking with..." series are like this and have neve been called "fictumentaries." Anyone else have a problem with 207.181.15.218's statements Thegreyanomaly 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Thegreyanomaly

The term "fictumentary" of course doesn't exist in any English dictionary but is a play on the term "documentary" used inappropriately to describe this film. I understand the nature of the "Walking with..." series completely and take offense at Thegreyanomaly's dishonest attempt to label justified criticism as an inability to understand. Thegreyanomaly and the writer of this article misunderstand the meaning of “documentary”.

Walking with Cavemen is based on scant evidence of various apes and humans that is still in debate let alone unobserved. The film glosses over the many disputed fossil interpretations as if all scientists were in agreement. For instance: anatomists have long known Australopithecus to be physically unable to walk upright yet this film depicts Lucy as a chimp-like ape with the ability to do so. So much is assumed.

The most recent evidence shows Australopithecus to be more gorilla than chimpanzee; taking this creature out of the supposed human evolutionary line (see http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0606454104v1 "Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths"). This film is already dated even within evolutionary circles.

With that in mind, this film is no more a documentary than the Mel Gibson movie “The Patriot” is a documentary on the American Revolutionary War; very little undisputed fact and a lot of imagination. --207.181.15.218 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreyanomaly

Australopithecus species are neither gorillas nor chimps. A long time ago all modern apes had a common ancestor. One group evolved into the lesser apes and one group evolved into a greater apes. There are various theories of what evolved first and what become us and how they became us, but I doubt any of them would dare to take Australopithecus species out of the mix. Also, just one interpretation that states your claim wouldn't be enough to make such claim. Also, you don't even have a whole article available to be read http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606454104v1 . This article is not even freely available. Anything you say cannot be based of two paragraphs. Also just because this documentary is a few years old and some information may or may not be dated, that does not take away its status as a documentary Thegreyanomaly 22:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

You're so confident. One would think you were there. No one highlights the gorilla as a human ancestor so why start with Lucy? Whether any animal can be classified as a separate species is always relativistic. Polar and grizzly bears are supposed to be separate species, yet they mate in captivity and in the wild; producing fertile offspring. Bonobos and chimpanzees are physiologically identical with a slight average size variance, yet chimps are patriarchal and bonobos matriarchal with many behavioral differences. There is only so much one can draw from skeletal remains none of which can be as conclusive as this film makes it. The fact is we just don't know and have no business making it appear as if we do.

Perhaps "fictumentary" is too derogatory. The term "dramatization" is fair. The fact that the footage is of actors portraying assumed, unobserved and extrapolated behavior and "dressed" as the "historical" characters disqualifies this as a documentary. Saying it is a documentary does not make it so.

On another note: thank you for responding and not "scrubbing" my comments (although I don't know if that was you). I'm posting this from a different location and that is why my IP changed from 207.181.15.218. --204.130.172.10 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wws.jpg

Image:Wws.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Baldwin? :{

Errrrr... I'm Canadian and the narrator on my copy of WWC is Andrew Sachs, care to comment? Isna 'Kasamee (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

date?

I specifically remember watching this when it came out in 2002, not 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.131.183 (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]