Talk:Near-Human

Really, this list seems to provide no evidence for the common ancestry of say the Chiss and humans, or Arkanians and humans, even though it explicitly states that common ancestry seperates Near-Humans and humanoids.--The Erl
 * I think we're meant to assume any species which is classed as Near-Human has common ancestry with Humans, even if the details of their ancestry is uncertain. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course, but I can't imagine a source that explicitly states that the Chiss is a near-human species. Or rather, I can, but the authors don't seem to worry about the fine points, so they may very well not have meant that.--The Erl
 * Don't they call them near-human in the WOTC sourcebooks? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't read those, so you may be right. And of course sourcebooks would be held to a higher standard of precisiion. The other thing that bothers me, of course, especially for the Chiss, is that some of the species have been established with a history difficult to reconcile with human ancestry. What would Coruscanti be doing at Csilla?--The Erl
 * I actually haven't read the Chiss entries in the WOTC sourcebooks either, but the WEG sourcebooks which originated the term Near-Human do mention that Humans and Near-Humans have common ancestry. Other source also mention that Human prehistory is uncertain, so there's plenty of room for far-flung long-lost colonies founded under mysterious circumstances. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Too true. On the other hand, specific sources have yet to be stated. Can someone who owns one of the listed sources check the entries for the specific species? The ErlErl 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is sufficiently sourced: as long as the articles on specific types of Near-Humans are properly sourced, there's no need to add more here. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the Arkanians, but Star Wars Gamer 5 explicitly and in detail discusses the Chiss having been descended from humans. jSarek 10:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

From an outsider's perspective- the term 'near human' may mean an 'in-universe' assumption of ancestery due to similarities. The largest similarity would be that their anatomy is 'near' enough that its the same.

In theory this would be something as common as "all the parts are mostly the same" ie two lungs, one heart, similar parts and systems. Or it has a closer to meaning that the species are infact genetic relatives. (From a galaxtic view point a shark and monkey are similar because they both have the same/similar genetic design and evolution. Where as a rancor and and a shark would not be similar at all)
 * Exactly so (though I suspect DNA would be more accurate than just anatomy.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Are Boltrunians and Siths really near-human? There are other humanoids that resemble humans more than these two MoffRebus 10:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not completely certain about the Sith: that might just be an inference from the fact that they interbred with Human Dark Jedi. However, the description of Maw in The Dark Forces Saga IDs the Boltrunians as Near-Human.  (You didn't ask, but the Taung are called Near-Human in the NEC.) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Utai are Near-Human?
What's the source on that? The look like Near-Grann or something, not a mere mild step away from standard humans. MaclimesZero
 * See the BTS note on Utai: there are several sources calling them Near-Human, and they haven't been retconned away yet. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I don't like it, but canon is canon. Thanks alot! (That was me before I figured out how to sign my name!) MaclimesZero 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

These are NOT near-human species
There are some species in the gallery that are definitely NOT near-human and should be removed. They are: Also, Hapans aren't near-human. They are human, just like Corellians are human. They are humans from the Hapes Cluster. So unless I hear some dissenting opinion with valid reasoning, I'm going to remove them. - JMAS 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Boltrunian
 * Khommite
 * Lowen
 * Pau'an
 * Utai
 * According to their own article, Hapans are not human, but I think you're right as every source I have checked says they are humans.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|30px]] 15:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if you look at the "Biology" section it says : Hapans were biologically the same as Humans, but the main difference is that the Hapans were bred over many generations to be beautiful. So it seems there is contradictory information in the article. I'm going to remove any mention of "near-human" from the article. - JMAS 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, you already got it. Thanks. - JMAS 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)