Talk:Neanderthal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
February 16, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Neanderthal:
  • Expand on the debate between Neanderthalensis as a separate species or sub-species of Homo sapiens
  • General Readability- In general, this article could focus initially on just how the Neanderthals were more robust physically and genealogically different from current Homo-sapiens.
  • Find peer-reviewed (etc.) source instead of current Reference #7 and remove current one.

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, while doing some research I ran across your comment. I haven't edited this article before, and I have no beef in any debate, controversy, or edit war that might have been going on here. I really have no idea about anything like that. I just found this and am wondering what's going on. According to the date of your comment, you must be referring to this long-standing content you deleted:
  • Competition with humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction.[1][2] diff
To make this easier to understand, I will provide the Guardian sentence it comes from, and highlight in bold the relevant parts below (and above):
  • "But it does add to the evidence that competition from modern humans probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction."
It is properly sourced, so there is no plagiarism. If there is anything wrong here, it's only that the exact words aren't in quotes. Instead of fixing it, you deleted it, including two good references. Why did you do that? We're trying to build, not destroy, this encyclopedia. We try to fix things, rather than just delete properly sourced content.
I'm also wondering about all the opinions you posted above, especially the words "not as a source of sentences or phrases." I don't recall that being in any policy here. Maybe I missed it. That would require deleting huge amounts of very widely accepted Wikipedia content and ignoring fair use, which allows sentences, phrases, and sometimes even whole paragraphs. Please explain your thinking, and make it relevant to the context here, which is your deletion above. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi BullRangifer. The content was removed as part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Tobby72. The content is almost identical to the source material and therefore is a copyright violation. Removal of the content is a valid option, consistent with the instructions provided on each case page. I often re-write the content when working on CCI cases, but did not do so in this particular instance because its removal did not do excessive damage to the article. It's okay to re-add the information if the prose is thoroughly paraphrased.

The material in my post above is the template {{cclean}}, not a hand-written set of opinions. Content must not be copied from sources. Sources should be used only as a source of ideas, and prose must be thoroughly paraphrased before being added to the encyclopedia (or placed in quotation marks in the case of direct quotes). Quotations must be short so as not to violate the rights of copyright holders and must be identified as being quotations rather than presented as if they were original prose. Our non-free content guideline states that "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited" (see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text), so if you see instances where "sentences, phrases, and sometimes even whole paragraphs" have been copied from sources without attribution, they are also copyright violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. "Extensive" would usually be more than a paragraph, unless it's a long one. Sentences and phrases are always allowed by "fair use" if properly sourced and in quotation marks. Nowhere in policy is such quoting forbidden, as that template seems to indicate. That template needs fixing. It needs to be based on policy, not someone's misguided interpretation of policy. Quotations are allowed, and this template would discourage that. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Technology template[edit]

That may be misapplied here. There's nothing here about styles of lithic reduction here, for instance. As a side note, links could be added that point to recognized Neanderthal lithic technologies, e.g., Levallois, Mousterian. These have the technology template applied appropriately. Kortoso (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at talk:Neanderthal extinction hypotheses[edit]

There's a move discussion for Neanderthal extinction hypothesesNeanderthal extinction, where I'd like to have more input. --Cold Season (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neanderthals=Humans[edit]

There is no proof that they're not one and the same thing... "Humans" mated with "Neanderthals", so... 129.180.152.199 (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not happy that the words "differ" in this article, relate only to 0.12% of our DNA (which in the case between races, is the case...). And the only other thing being that they had a "more robust build", and "distinctive morphological features", because - that's what people can say about differences between races too... 129.180.152.199 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Neanderthals in Europe died out thousands of years earlier[edit]

1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.254.104 (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Neanderthal[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Neanderthal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes.com":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Extinct species?[edit]

"Genetic evidence published in 2010 suggests that Neanderthals contributed to the DNA of anatomically modern humans, probably through interbreeding".

In that case, how can they be a distinct species? My understanding is that if individuals can interbreed and the offspring are fertile, they're of the same species by definition. Paul Magnussen (talk)

That is not correct. Lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring (ligers and tigons), but they are separate species. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Refer to the species problem. Kortoso (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no fully satisfactory definition of "species". But Paul Magnussen is nonetheless mostly correct in suggesting that evidence of interbreeding goes a long way to support the view that Neanderthals are not a separate species.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ McKie, Robin (17 May 2009). "How Neanderthals met a grisly fate: devoured by humans". The Observer (London). Retrieved 18 May 2009. 
  2. ^ Hortolà, Policarp; Martínez-Navarro, Bienvenido (2013). "The Quaternary megafaunal extinction and the fate of Neanderthals: An integrative working hypothesis". Quaternary International 295: 69–72. Bibcode:2013QuInt.295...69H. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.02.037.