Jump to content

Talk:Neanderthal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNeanderthal has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowIn the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 12, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
April 5, 2020Good article nomineeListed
May 31, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 1, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Neanderthals went fishing?
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 7, 2010.
Current status: Good article

Update based on recent research was reverted?

[edit]

Hello,

My recent May 8th edit regarding research relating anatomically modern human ancestry in neanderthals ca. 250k years ago was reverted.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?diff=1222952860&oldid=1222845592&title=Neanderthal

The other editor who removed my update, @Hemiauchenia, gave the reasoning that my update was already contained within the "Evolution" subsection, so there is no need to repeat. Upon further inspection, there was nothing in that section relating to the recent research I was citing. I'd like to request that my original edit (or some variation of it) is reinstated, as it is fairly recent (late 2023) and novel research of interest to the Neanderthal ancestry section. I hope this isn't inappropriate; I understand that the article is long and unwieldy. I've included this research on the Neanderthal genetics and Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans pages. Perhaps it is more appropriate for those pages than here? I am not sure. Youarelovedfool (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is far too long. It is over 16,000 words compared with the recommended limit of 10,000. I think that the topic is covered in the 'Interbreeding with modern humans' section rather than the 'Evolution' section. In view of the excessive length of the main article I think that the new finding should only be added to the Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans article, which you have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. Youarelovedfool (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not resolve the issue that interbreeding between species is not possible, so neanderthalensis is not a species.
'Old school' editors should consider themselves biased and refrain from editing the field. Tempora mutantur.
--77.188.115.73 (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see a Bob Dylan song quoted on this page.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The lead looks very, very long to me compared to other articles. Is it the case of "It's actually fine", "No one has cared enough to tag it" or "Don't over tag the article since it already has a general 'too long' tag"? AkiyamaKana (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long articles tend to have long leads. :D But yeah, this one is a bit long compared to the rest of the body. If you can find a we to better summarize the article, have at! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution paragraph one

[edit]

Evolution paragraph one is kind of all over the place, but I wouldn't know what to do with it at the moment, this isn't my subject.FourLights (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "however" in the article

[edit]

The word is used over 50 times. MOS:EDITORIAL says:

Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...

More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.

I think we need to reduce its use. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm planning an extensive (and much more condensed) rewrite once I move everything into the proper child articles (and you know, fix up the prose). That'll probably take quite a while, so feel free to edit whatever you see is problematic. "However" is definitely high up on the running list of prose issues Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]