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

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]

there are potential indicators of hybrid incompatibility

[edit]

There are signs of Neanderthal genes in Homo sapiens genetic code from over 50,000 years age; Neanderthal genes that are related to immunity and metabolism that may have helped early humans survive and thrive outside of Africa. We still carry Neanderthals' legacy in our DNA. Modern-day genetic quirks linked to skin color, hair color and even nose shape can be traced back to the Neanderthals.

How does this gene flow fit in with the supposed incompatibility? Creuzbourg (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter for debate. The proportion of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans has declined over the last 50,000 years, and this is thought to be because some Neanderthal alleles are deleterious. The issue is whether they were beneficial in Neanderthals and deleterious in modern humans, which would indicate incompatability, or they were less fit in both species, which would mean that the modern version is superior. This is briefly discussed in Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans. See also the articles in [1]. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]