Talk:Homo naledi/Archive 1

Full list of authors of "Berger et al"
Here's the full list if anybody wants to take a crack at adding them to the citation ;-): Lee R Berger, John Hawks, Darryl J de Ruiter, Steven E Churchill, Peter Schmid, Lucas K Delezene, Tracy L Kivell, Heather M Garvin, Scott A Williams, Jeremy M DeSilva, Matthew M Skinner, Charles M Musiba, Noel Cameron, Trenton W Holliday, William Harcourt-Smith, Rebecca R Ackermann, Markus Bastir, Barry Bogin, Debra Bolter, Juliet Brophy, Zachary D Cofran, Kimberly A Congdon, Andrew S Deane, Mana Dembo, Michelle Drapeau, Marina C Elliott, Elen M Feuerriegel, Daniel Garcia-Martinez, David J Green, Alia Gurtov, Joel D Irish, Ashley Kruger, Myra F Laird, Damiano Marchi, Marc R Meyer, Shahed Nalla, Enquye W Negash, Caley M Orr, Davorka Radovcic, Lauren Schroeder, Jill E Scott, Zachary Throckmorton, Matthew W Tocheri, Caroline VanSickle, Christopher S Walker, Pianpian Wei, Bernhard Zipfel HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the full list (indented) after the citation. I hope it's not too overbearing. —Bruce1eetalk 13:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia frontpage candidate
Here's an ongoing discussion about mentioning the discovery on the Wikipedia frontpage, as well as how to word the news item. --93.223.61.100 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Approximate measurements
Given the approximate nature of the measurements, converting 150 cm to 4 ft 11 in and 45 kg to 99 lbs is a little silly. If we must have American units, surely "approximately 5 ft" and "approximately 100 lb" is close enough. Use of the conversion template here is not really justified. Just type in the different values. --Khajidha (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Image
I removed an image of a "reconstruction". There is no reconstruction in the published articles, and the image looks like a photo of a photo. So all in all it is likely to be a hoax or a copyright violation, or both.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen that exact image in reports about this announcement. --Khajidha (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, then the question is about the copyrights and authorship.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And reliability/accuracy. Unlikely that the reconstruction has had any peer review.216.96.78.28 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the source. The reconstruction is John Gurche, "who spent some 700 hours recreating the head from bone scans." And the photo is by Mark Thiessen/National Geographic. Does seem a likely copyvio.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hominini/Hopminid/Homo
I am not quite sure how the find is best described in the opening sentence. Describing it as a species of the tribe Hominini seems somewhat too vague. The interesting thing is that it is clearly in the Hominina subtribe, AND that it proposed to belong to the genus Homo.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between ...
... "Hominini" and "Early species of Homo"?

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hominini includes chimpanzees and australopithecines. Homo is the family that includes only bipedals with nimble thumbs and large brains.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks a lot. Hard for a layman to find the way out of the middle of the family tree. T. 88.89.219.147 (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Dating
I don't understand why such a large collection hasn't been dated. 2 years is plenty of time for radioisotope dating. Could someone add an explanation?216.96.78.28 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything needs to be cleaned, photographed, measured and catalogued before any samples are taken for dating. Given the size of the collection and the fairly obvious implication that this is going to be important to the timing and pattern of human development, I would want to triple verify everything before employing any destructive techniques. --Khajidha (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, many radiometric dating techniques don't date the actual fossils but rock deposits above and below them in stratigraphy. Appropriate layers may not have been found. --Khajidha (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A clean layers of datable volcanic rock below and above the fossils not going to happen here. The lack of animal remains means that one can't use index fossils.   Radiocarbon requires destroying parts of the fossils and will only provide results if they are VERY young.  That most geologists can't (fit?) into the chamber does not help.  This is going to be difficult to date. 68.97.0.80 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand because the context of the pit is not a good environment to date, since there are deposits from many different periods mixed together, with few datable items, and no possibility of using stratigraphy. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Radiocarbon dating works only back to, say, 50,000 years. Any dating has to be done by other means, on rock, but as the above editor notes, there is no rock matrix to be dated. It sounds like a tough problem. BTW, I am not a scientist.  TomS TDotO (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is an article in The Atlantic which discusses the dating problem. This seems to be just of temporary interest, so I don't think that it belongs in the main text of this article, so I am just briefly citing it here, for others may differ.

. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

When page protection is removed, I would suggest that the words "for example" be replaced instead by the words, "by contrast." Activist (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I popped down to Maropeng last weekend to see H. naledi in person in his/her inner chamber behind his/her glass case. While there I met one of the H. sapiens who discovered the Dinaledi cave. I asked him why there had been no carbon dating on H. naledi. The reply was that carbon dating is only valid for 50 000 years. So? What if H. naledi falls within that range? It would be a huge embarrassment, especially after all the hype and claims of multimillion years of age. Nevertheless he did say that the fossils would be dated after they are transferred back to the University of the Witwatersrand (the seat of Prof Berger). My point is this: is it valid to call somebody a man (Latin: homo) if he is not descended from Adam? By calling it a man yet saying that it predates Adam by hundreds of thousands of years is to "overthrow the faith of some" (2 Timothy 2:18). Jesus, described by the apostle Paul as the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), by his death and resurrection will only give eternal life to descendants of Adam, not to the descendants of anything else! JohnSHolder (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam is a fictive character and has no relevance for how to scientifically classify biological species. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a scientific article, not a Biblical one. The fossils were placed in the genus Homo, which in addition to humans includes other species of ape which predate any Biblical human figure, and so it is a valid name regardless of how close its relation to Homo sapiens (and semantically, simply calling something something doesn't necessarily make it so: a starfish is not a fish, a sawhorse is not a horse etc.). This article will address the age of Homo naledi, and any implications, only after it has been investigated and published in reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory accounts of the deposition
The article says that the fossils were "deposited over a long time, perhaps centuries," but it also says that the individuals "appear to be closely related." Those statements don't seem to be compatible. I realize that there are contradictory accounts in the original sources, but maybe the article should acknowledge the discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:D02:63CC:8DBA:D8:64CC:4872 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The close relation is not necessarily as in a close family relation - but more in the sense of a tightly knit population - perhaps with some degree of inbreeding. The claim of them being possibly closely related is based on some odd similarities in one of the metacarpal bones. And again the deposits are not dated, and hence there is no knowledge of the length of time represented by the deposits. Basically it seems that the point made is that it is not a disaster deposit, where all the bones are deposited at once. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of taxonomy, family = family (biology). --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In premodern socieites, it is common for people to be buried in the same tomb, crypt or cemetery section as their ancestors going back centuries. This is how humans mark their territories. Mesolithic shell mounds were garbage dumps, but also family crypts for a lineage or sublineage. Some of these things were used continuously for thousands of years. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

advertising is bad
What's the big idea to say what date the documentary will be shown on TV? Also, in what countries will it appear on 16 September? Crazy. Hickley80 (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not the editor that added it but I'm assuming that's when it will first be broadcast. It's not advertising when related to the subject matter anyway. Kieran  Tribe  13:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Yes - I'm one of the editors that added the "Dawn of Humanity (2015 PBS film)" material to the "Homo naledi" article - the film is *directly* related to the article - and can be viewed, as a trailer (00:30), at => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPpMIhmNRsA - or - as the complete film (113:07), at => http://video.pbs.org/video/2365559270/ - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS and National Geographic are both non-profit. Announcing the broadcast date is not commericial advertising.

PBS programs appears in the USA. I think adding directly related documentaries that expand the value of the article to readers is a very good addition.CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"assigned to the genus Homo"
Who assigned them? On what authority? Why are they not Australopithecus? Who decides/decided? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * True. Scientific consensus must follow and supporting independent papers published. I was thinking to insert the word "proposed".  -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The discoverers assign it to a genus based on the morphological characteristics. And then over time scientific consensus decides to agree or disagree. I dont think "proposed" makes sense since we locate the article at "Homo naledi", either it is a member of the genus Homo or it has been (perhaps incorrectly) assigned to the genus. I think saying "assigned to the genus Homo" is the best way to take into account the possibility that the classification will later be changed. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: write "assigned by the discoverers, to be confirmed by scientific consensus". I think writing "assigned" is making too broad a claim, and seems to convey already agreed by a majority of scientists.CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Maunus on this one. The actual term used in biology is "assign". The author assigns a specimen to a genus. There is no implication that the author is correct or that others agree, it is a simple statement of the fact that the author considers the specimen to belong to that genus. --Khajidha (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: write "assigned by the discoverers", and explain in a note scientific consensus has to be obtained.

Writing assigned without an explanation is too broad and misleading to readers of an encyclopedia looking for facts and precision and explanations. CuriousMind01 (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's in the last sentence of the intro, and has been since Drbogdan added it at 09:43 on 10 September 2015. --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, a species is placed in a preexisting genus based on anatomical similarities (and or genomic in the case of living or recently extinct organisms that can donate tissue and DNA samples).  And as  also pointed out, unless there actually is any literature mentioning actual doubt or contention about a species' placement within a genus, whether it's the describing paper's own author (whereupon then the species binomial would be written as "?Homo naledi"), or another author publishing an actual contention against the species' placement, we can not make any implication that the species' within the genus is questioned without running afoul of original research or synthesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Homo star - colloquial name
add a redirect page to that colloquialism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that this 'colloquial name' even exists in reliable sources? I doubt that a half translation of a combination Latin/Sesotho scientific name would aid English readers in locating this article. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Add location map
can you please add a map of the country when it was found 65.175.243.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a location map. —Bruce1eetalk 07:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Etymology vandalism
"The word homo means 'gay' in the Sesotho and Setswana languages, two of the eleven national languages of South Africa, and refers to the fossils’ origin in the Slytherin's Chamber of Secrets.[1]" I highly doubt that this is relevant. "Homo" is the genus designation that has been used for a long time European and now world scientific designation of human-like beings and fossils. 64.53.191.77 (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been reverted here. Thanks for drawing this to our attention. —Bruce1eetalk 11:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

2001?
Why is this text in the article? It seems irrelevant.

re: "In addition, according to Hirst, the behavior of apes in the "Dawn of Man" sequence of Stanley Kubrick film 2001: A Space Odyssey, largely influenced by the notions of Raymond Dart and dramatist Robert Ardrey, have now been 'proven false', since such violent apes have now been shown to be 'vegetarians' instead."

--CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. It appears to be a bit of trivia that's not particularly worth including in this article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologise in that I removed it being unaware it was being discussed; but I think that there Is a well defined line that divides the mentioning of the documentary and promoting it and Lee's "charming" smile. My 2 cents. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - text and related reference seem relevant since media influences the way many in the public may think about "archaic humans" and/or "apes" - such supported text may help clarify possible misconceptions I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the text is irrelevant and should be removed. It could be in the 2001 film article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Dinaledi chamber"
If I understand correctly, dinaledi means "chamber of stars", so "Dinaledi chamber" is a case of "HIV virus" redundancy. The Rising Star Cave article does a better job of phrasing this, with "a chamber called Dinaledi (UW-101)".
 * scratch that, it turns out that dinaledi is just a plural word meaning "stars", the di- prefix may add something else, such as "abstract noun", idk, but the "chamber" is not implicit; compare tutho ya dinaledi = "astronomy". So, "Dinaledi chamber" should be fine. Also, here is a Sesotho book called "dinaledi hodimo ha totoma", translated as "the stars on the dunes". Clearly, for all practical purposes, dinaledi means "stars. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if "dinaledi" meant "chamber of stars", it would not make "Dinaledi chamber" redundant as "dinaledi" does not mean anything in English other than as a place name for this chamber. The meaning of the root word is irrelevant. "HIV", on the other hand has the English meaning of "human immunodeficiency virus" making "HIV virus" redundant.--Khajidha (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * well, I am glad I won't have to argue this point with you, because it turns out "dinaledi" does not mean "chamber of stars". --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially since the large number of examples given there argue in my favor. --Khajidha (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I assume it is not superfluous to point out that the Sesotho naming is just "fake autochthony", as the chamber was discovered at the same time as the fossils, and there is no way it had an "indigenous" name. It is misleading to say that the species was named "after" the chamber, as both were clearly named at the same time, apparently after the name of the "rising star" cave (but whence the English name of that cave? Its article doesn't say). Apparently, the site has a systematic name "UW-101" as well, and it would be nice to have this explained: what does "UW" stand for (University of the Witwatersrand?) and whose system is this? --dab (𒁳) 07:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that UW refers to the Univ. of Witwatersrand. Google searches for UW-101 and naledi lead to pages with titles like "Specimen: Wits-Dinaledi-U.W. 101-1319, Homo naledi", and other numbers for other specimens. 15:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is pretty standard for museums and universities to give specimens in their collections ID numbers like this. Just look at all the specimens from the Kenya National Museum that have ID numbers starting with KNM. This is one of those simple things that everyone in the field knows so well that they forget that it might not be so obvious to outsiders. --Khajidha (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Scientific Criticisms?
Is there a better term for the section, where scientists are expressing their opinion and assessments? Criticisms is not wrong, but seems to convey the ideas that people are attacking, instead they seem to be evaluating and stating what are the next actions. Like: Scientific Opinions Scientific Assessments Scientific Analysis Dissenting Opinions

Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I vote for either "Scientific opinions" or "Dissenting opinions"--Mr Fink (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It need not be "dissenting". Just "evaluation" or "reaction" by the scientific community. Or perhaps "early reception"?  TomS TDotO (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as scientific opinion is separate from the pop-opinion, "scientific opinions" seems OK. Substancial feedback will come in the form of peer-reviewed publications. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The very first announcement
When were the notable conclusions announced and what website or other media were the very first to present the info? Here to sway (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Not about the media. Besides it was clearly an orchestrated and simultaneous release. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's about the history of the discovery sort of. One thing is to dig up bones, and bag and tag them. Sometime later there was a piece in a peer reviewed periodical or that type of website? Here to sway (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not clear on why some might call it an orchestrated and simultaneous release? Here to sway (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Try creating a Discovery announcement subsection, that includes the Sep 10 2015 unveiling, the 2 research articles, the Nat Geo online documentary. I don't know of any article stating there was a coordinated announcement, but as BatteryIncluded noted, the announcement activities seemed to be coordinated on the same date.  I think their media and public impact was good, and may lead to more funding and fame.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The scientific publication and news media were simultaneous. Do the math. Besides it is repeated all over the article this was announced on Sep 10th. We don't need a special section to repeat that date.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean an announcement event section that consolidates the announcement info into 1 section. "Do the math" is not the same as a reference stating there was deliberate coordination, in a WP style of substantiated statements.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you also want to make a special section on Berger's childhood? Or the car he drives? Common sense, is all I am saying. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say an announcement subsection had to be created, I suggested it to try to the editor above who was asking about it, if the editor thinks it may be useful. I do not plan to create the subsection myself.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"considered to have emerged much later"
The article says that the bones are undated. How can anything compared to the find of the bones then be "considered to have emerged much later"? Here to sway (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Presumptiveness leading to "torches or fires lit at intervals" hypothesis
Have any hypothesis been launched regarding
 * claimed advantages from an evolutionary perspective: When one hides dead members of one's society far inside a cave, then predators will less easily locate the cave where the colony dwells (?); evolution might disfavor colonies where corpses are buried outside a cave one dwells in, since such might attract predators with observation (smelling, seeing) skills.
 * possibilities of colonising a cave without lighting? Ants can follow paths in darkness. Rats can find their way in and out of mazes. In fairy tales, paths marked by bread crumbs etc exist. Humans who have a supply of stones/bones or other path marking materials can map their way into a cave. --Here to sway (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * other path marking material: lengths of foliage. --Here to sway (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What type of additional citation is needed?
What type of additional citation is needed?

If you go to http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/news/150910-homo-naledi-discovery-vin and scroll down you will see videos arranged horizontally. If you scroll right horizontally through all the videos you find all the items in the statement in 1 or more of the videos. You will see some non-related videos while scrolling, because the homo naledi videos are not grouped together.

regarding:

The National Geographic Society has videos on its website .... 

--CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hypothesis opposing ritualistic behaviour
Have hypothesis been launched that
 * oppose ideas about ritualistic behaviour: Years apart, one and one individual who was feeling sick might have used that branch of the cave to hide out for a while to rest, and later died. Years later someone else comes along and kicks the bones farther into the cave, before taking rest in that sidearm of the cave. Years later, multiple repeats. Here to sway (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * suggest that individuals moved thru the cave - in darkness - and sometimes an individual died while exploring the Star chamber and/or while fleeing from predators, or fleeing from (other) H. naledis displaying threatening behaviour.
 * individuals or groups that might have occupied the Star chamber might have depleted Oxygen levels to the point were individuals lost consciousness and later died on the spot. --Here to sway (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * famine resulting in individuals searching the cave for food hidden by others. Individuals find their way into the Star chamber and can not leave (oxygen depletion; or lacking strength to find their way out of the Star chamber) whether the cave is in darkness or not. --Here to sway (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"two years later almost to the date"
So we say. But to the date of what? We should say... Ericoides (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hangin in thin air?
" Berger had dated Australopithecus sediba bones found between two flowstones which could be dated radiometrically". Is there anything about the sentence that hangs in thin air? Some bones were found that belonged to something different. The bones were found in the Rising Star cave? "Had dated" - and then something happened (perhaps so that the dating did not count anymore)? Here to sway (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Australopithecus sediba is a different species discovered at a different location in 2008. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Funding
The article should say how much was funded. Here to sway (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Request: Keep citations when moving text, text gets orphaned
Could the editors please be careful not to orphan text when editing the article?

There have been instances where text is moved, and some text left remaining, but the reference is not left in place, orphaning the text left remaining. Any moved text, in total or partial, should copy the reference also.

Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Article about the 2013 expedition
A article about National Geographic/University of the Witwatersrand Rising Star Expedition has not been written (and I would be glad to support anyone who will try to write that). In one article version I have linked to the section about details about the National Geographic/University of the Witwatersrand Rising Star Expedition - info which might be too detailed for this article about a species (more than a expedition). Without changes, the link brings/brought to the section about Expedition details. --Here to sway (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Which points should be in such a article (and perhaps not in H. naledi)?

 * The size of National Geographic's funding. --Here to sway (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Explain if the 2014 dig had a different name. --Here to sway (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How many members were on the team.
 * Chronology of the various milestones reached by the expedition. --Here to sway (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All of those seem appropriate for an article dedicated to the expedition, and of much lesser relevance to this article. The size of NatGeo's funding does not seem at all relevant to a species article. The number of people and team names are less important than the chronology of events, which should be minimized so that discussion of the fossils themselves (the article subject) receives the bulk of discussion. I realize that this article will probably attract a lot of irrelevant material as non-professional sources and opinions outpace peer reviewed science (and do we need the opinions of politicians at all?) and expect there will require a good amount of curation (perhaps ebbs and flows if not sustained) to keep it focused. I think you and others have done a pretty good job of that so far (kudos!). --Animalparty! (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Because an expedition article does not exist, I suggest editors keep the expedition information in this article, to explain the process to get the fossils for this species; instead of deleting the informationfrom this article. I did not find separate expedition articles for any other species discoveries.The expedition information is in the species article. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the expedition notable enough for a separate article?
National Geographic/University of the Witwatersrand Rising Star Expedition?
 * Quite possibly Notable - Tim White has said that the find is a major one (even though, he has indicated that there is great uncertainty about what the find indicates). Also it is likely that the size of the funding is notable; notable that it comes from National Geographic and of a certain sum. I think there is a need for a seperate article: There seeems to be notable information about the expedition that will not fit into the article about the species. If someone asks why does not wikipedia have more articles about notable expeditions, it might not take a rocket scientist to point out that they have not been written yet. Here to sway (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think yes, then please try writing try an expedition article. If expedition articles do not exist then this may be because there was no volunteer interested in writing an article, or there was not enough information to write an expedition article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While we are waiting the emergency of a Computer keyboard Hero to submit the first few sentences for an article, can someone sponsor a slate in cyberspace where such text can be drafted by anyone interested? --Here to sway (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think any such expedition is notable in and of itself, it is only notable for what it finds. A dedicated section in this article, yes; a dedicated article, no. --Khajidha (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that some expeditions might be notable by themselves. General notability might at some point be attained, or other points of notability might be formulated or come into play. Here to sway (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Name of expedition and link to article creation
Is Rising Star Expedition its name? Are there other notable expeditions named Rising Star Expedition? Here to sway (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The article can be created at this link. (The currrent text is insignificant: It links to the article about the Cave.) Here to sway (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

combine short sections
I think there are several short sections, of 1-3+ sentences in the article which can be combined, because they inhibit readability. Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Body_sections 2.4 Paragraphs

Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Be bold? --Here to sway (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Publicist-like or fan clubesque
Some text is worded as if it was written by a publicist, or a fan club member. One person who might be somewhat overfocused in the article is Lee Berger; there is a separate article about him. Rewrite perhaps needed for the following quotes:
 * "Lee Berger and his team, the researchers, propose (...)". --Here to sway (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "The two cave explores reported the find to Lee Berger, paleoanthropologist, who got funding by the National Geographic Society for the excavation. "
 * These two quotes are from this version. --Here to sway (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Text reverted to earlier version. --Here to sway (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Lee Berger himself used radiometric techniques to date his discovery of Australopithecus sediba bones found between two flowstone layers at another site. " Here to sway (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Homo naledi was formally described in September 2015 by a 47-member international team of authors led by Lee Berger who proposed the bones represent a new species". Here to sway (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree some of the statements above are unnecessary, but the last statement above is a plain fact, and is important to clearly state who described the species and when, since the article as currently written is a mishmash of statements. The 47 authors of the species description hail from South Africa, the United States, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, the UK, Spain, Kazakhstan, China, Germany, Croatia, and Italy, (representing 5 of the 6 inhabited continents!) so in the interest of brevity (not stating every author or nation), I don't think it controversial nor promotional to call it an international team. Following WP:NPOV, pretty much every news article associates Berger as team lead, and thus so should we, and he is lead author of the scientific name: all organisms must be formally described, most often in peer-reviewed journals. The complete scientific name of this hominid is "Homo naledi Berger et al, 2015", regardless of whether future taxonomic decisions render it a synonym of Homo habilis or place it in another genus (actually all 47 authors are part of the official full name, see ZooBank registry, but for common sense and by convention "et al." is appropriate). --Animalparty! (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He is a co-author of the eLife article about the species (and 12 articles - about the find - that did not make the cut, at Nature (journal)). We shouldn't be cherry-picking co-authors. Here to sway (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Berger is widely (see below) credited as the team lead, even if he did not discover the fossils ). I am not advocating anything less than accurate, reserved, fair and proportional coverage of the subject per WP:NPOV. Certainly we should not imply that Berger himself did any work that is properly attributed to the team (Berger et al. is synonymous with "Berger and colleagues", and Dirks et al is a product of Berger's team, regardless of order of authors), but do you deny that Berger is widely recognized as the team leader? Cherry-picking would be unduly highlighting the 17th or 21st author, who surely made important contributions but are not widely covered. It doesn't matter what we as Wikipedians think of any of the scientists, and we should not be inferring anything about why or why any articles weren't published in any journal unless reliable third party sources do. If the predominant view is that Berger led the team that described the subject of this article, it is perfectly acceptable to state such. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "...excited by the fact that Berger’s team has produced..."
 * "research leader Lee Berger said"
 * The paper describing the fossils was published in the journal eLife by a team led by Lee Berger"
 * When lead researcher Lee Berger first got word of the possible fossil find..."
 * "The new hominin species was announced on Thursday by an international team of more than 60 scientists led by Lee R. Berger"
 * "Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist who led the work..."
 * "Lee Berger, a professor at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg who led the work"
 * "Lee Berger's team invited dozens of experts"
 * "Berger and his team have pieced together more than 1,500 ancient human bones"


 * I agree with Animalparty. Berger is the stated lead in multiple articles, and so Berger is to be noted in this article. The "Cherry picking" argument is not applicable.   The fact Berger submitted 12 articles to Nature for publication, but were not accepted by Nature, for whatever reasons, is not relevant to this article.  Berger et al did publish 2 articles on the proposed new species, which is relevant.

Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In the lede, I have said "co-authored by fourty-seven" - about the research article. The authors were largely 30 invited atendees to a workshop held in May 2014. Not all of the authors were expedition members - some of them were "number crunchers" and other specialists who could contribute to the writing of the article. We should not be cherry-picking which co-authors we mention in the lede; all or nothing is a better option. Here to sway (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You still think calling the person widely-described as team leader "team leader" is cherry picking? Do you deny that Berger is widely recognized as leader of the team that described Homo naledi? It doesn't matter how many of the authors were expedition members nor their contribution, nor even their exact numbers (giving generalities is less falsifiable and preferable to exact numbers, obviating quibbles over 30, 47, 60, etc.). The important fact (importance based not on my opinion but on due weight given in reliable sources) is that these fossils were recovered, analyzed, and formally described by a team of researchers organized by Berger. Perhaps you are hesitant to link to the article Lee Rogers Berger, finding it somewhat promotional- I do too, but that's a different article, and its quality should not affect the writing of this article. If anything, the body of this article underplays Berger's role in the operation. How about this compromise: this article is still incomplete and slapped together from a lot of block quotes. Given the mantra "lead follows body", let's work primarily on improving the body first, making it a coherent collection of paragraphs that summarizes the known events without giving undue weight towards certain details or opinions. Once the body is more fleshed out it should be more obvious and hopefully less contentious which elements are important enough to be included in the lead. Sound good? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're overlooking something significant when you say "these fossils were recovered, analyzed, and formally described by a team of ...". Without two men of steel going thru the Superman Crawl and onwards to make the discovery, all of this would at present have only been a wet dream for Berger et al. And let's not forget the role of the "Bone Collector"/"Bone Hunter".
 * I think it is unreasonable to cherry-pick Berger for being mentioned in the lead. I think it's enough to link to the article about Berger - the first time he is mentioned in a section, and the first time he is mentioned in the next section, and so on. Here to sway (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Animalparty is making a very reasonable suggestion - to work on the body and then back towards the lede. I really think you should take that suggestion. Samsara 13:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from the cherry-picking in the lede, Berger is mentioned once in the infobox, and 10 times in the rest of the article, including  the one mention of the phrase "Berger himself". I suggest outing Berger from the lede for now, and then work the body of text and see how the body eventually lands. Here to sway (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, I'm fine with leaving the lead alone until the body is more fully developed. Berger is mentioned by name in the majority of independent, secondary sources about these fossils, something that cannot be said for Hunter and Tucker or anyone else, no matter how important (subjectively or objectively) there contributions were. (For the moment I'm not considering university press releases highlighting contributions from their affiliated researchers, as those are non-independent, even if they have verifiable information that may be useful in another article). Like him or not, Berger is firmly associated with this discovery, and he should be mentioned no more or less than is appropriate (note that several of the 10 mentions of Berger actually refer to Berger et al. 2015, which, if found editorially disagreeable, can be modified through word choice). As editors, our own views of the subject or the people involved mean absolutely nothing. It is not our task to find a different angle than the mainstream, nor "right the wrongs", nor bring our own opinions on what a statement *might* mean, nor unduly highlight elements or people that we *feel* should be given more credit: please see our policies on Due and undue weight and Balancing aspects. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Berger is currently not mentioned at all in the lead, only the taxobox (which as described below is not cherry-picking or promotional but a standard citation for all biological articles, see e.g. Linnaeus in Tiger). Currently Swartkrans and it's location gets more attention! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You said "leaving the lede alone until the body is more fully developed". If you are saying that it is ok to leave Berger out of the lede for now, then I am one of those who will agree to do the same. (Berger was in the lede half an hour before the article was locked; the lock on the article is why he has not been edit-warred back into the lede.) Here to sway (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In Section 38. Regarding discussions on the lead. I think this version is the preferred version to reuse when the article reopens: 08:28, 24 September 2015‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_naledi&oldid=682550625.

I think the terms used "cherry-pick", "Publicist-like" or "fan clubesque" meaning using Berger's name are invalid argument statements. As Animalparty wrote Berger is the stated lead in multiple sources. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia. Clearly to me, or as others might say, it appears that the article has had a heavy hand - of one or more - of someone close to members of the expedition.
 * What the news media say about Berger, is not something an encyclopedia must have in its lede.
 * Another point is that he is on both sides of the table so to speak. Berger is an Explorer-in-residence at National Geographic. That means that it is in his interest there, to make outrageous claims to bolster ratings and interest for various TV broadcast and internet click-counters. Outrageous claims about pin-heads conducting burial rituals associated with symbolic thought. With all Berger's resources at hand - he is not able to land an article in journal Nature? Or is it more like, his resources could land an article if he just cuts away some of the speculative stuff that is fueling the ratings at National Geographic?
 * He did not find the bones, but he was a co-author together with 46 others of the first research article about the species. We should not be cherry-picking one co-author out of 47.
 * For now I am also against using the term Berger et. al. in the lede. (Aren't there a couple of articles most years with that name - with different authors. Perhaps I would think differently if that term linked directly to the name of all the authors; the research article might already have reached a level of general notability to warrant a link also mentioning the authors and the research article. However I don't have plans to write that article.)
 * Again, we should not be cherry-picking one co-author over 46 others. Here to sway (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * HTS, I consider your arguments invalid. I recommend you get consensus after being reverted multiple times, on your proposed changes in the future, or you risk being blocked from editing this article.

Regarding the lead, I recommend the article return to the Drbogdan version when the article reopens, which was the current version until you reverted it without consensus or discussion.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homo_naledi#Suggest:_Use_Lead_text_version_08:28.2C_24_September_2015.

CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homo_naledi#Suggest:_Use_Lead_text_version_08:28.2C_24_September_2015


 * I am opposed to using versions that are publicist-like or fan clubesque. Here to sway (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions on images
First, having the cartoon of Dinali Chamber in the morphology section makes no sense. This is where at least some images of the fossils belong. I believe it is more appropriate in the discovery section. Related, I think the separate Infobox cave for Rising Star Cave is needlessly prominent (there is a dedicated article to it after all), and a smaller version could perhaps go in  in the taxobox to save precious article space. Thirdly, there should be as little repetition of images as possible: currently the holotype image in the taxobox is repeated in the gallery: one taxobox image is sufficient (and would also save space): the bones on the table image is a good candidate for solo lead image, but I also like the simplicity of File:Homo naledi assembled skull.jpg. Holotype or not, a jumble of bones like File:Homo naledi.jpg is of lesser educational value to general readers, and would be better placed near text that describes the features therein. I realize this is a volatile article and wanted to state my rationale before making any changes. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I've implemented most of the changes described above. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Creationist-related views removed - more remain?
Creationist-related views removed - more remain? Apparently, "User:Here to sway", an WP:SPA?, has added creationist-related material (Edit-1, Edit-2, Edit-3), in the form of "Casey Luskin" and "Evolution News and Views", associated with the "Discovery Institute", well-known for the "Fallacy of quoting out of context" and "Teach the Controversy", in the "Homo naledi" article (and possibly elsewhere?) - Comments Welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I later added this edit where I cite a "creationist-related view" (your words) from an article in Nature. Looking forward to continuing work here, contributing on keeping hype, propaganda and castles in the sky in check. Here to sway (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're *greatly* appreciated - Yes - "Nature (journal)" is a very good source of course - but the reference to your followup "Nature" edit seemed incomplete to me at the time and was removed - at least until the edit could be better discussed if possible - nonetheless, the more complete "Nature (journal)" reference is as follows => < ref name="NAT-20150917"> - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You removed the reference to Evolution News and Views, and explained why. I found an article in Nature saying some of the same (as the text that you removed), and I made an edit with that as a source. (If something more should be said that does not directly deal with this article then please, someone spoonfeed me (at where this link leads to)]]. Here to sway (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Crystal ball

 * Berger's research team intends to publish at least a dozen research articles on the finds.

Comment: I have already mentioned the dozen articles that were not published in the journal Nature - for whatever reason - and reported by NBC News. I think that the ambition (of work shop members and/or expedition team members) of having published at least a dozen articles is not notable. This encyclopedia should note when stuff get published - and when notable crash and burns (or rejections) occur. Here to sway (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be perfectly fine to mention that they have planned and submitted about a dozen articles about the details of the finds.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the "highly regarded journal Nature" itself found it worth mentioning that future articles are planned, and I think it is just as–if not more important–to indicate that future research articles are likely to appear than the fact that some articles have not been published- for whatever reason. This article is chock full of statements, quotes, and opinions, and one more statement of intent by the team most intimately related to the discoveries seems prudent. Perhaps the specific "dozen" is the most speculative phrase- I'd be fine with simply communicating the general statement that more articles are in the works. I certainly think that if and when future research articles appear, there will be plenty of new material to render any discussion of what was and wasn't published in which journal completely trivial.--Animalparty! (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not getting a stamp of approval from Nature, after trying twelve times (twelve research articles), is not completely trivial! Nature clearly has sympathy towards some aspects of the excavation, or even the people involved. (The rejection of articles might not have been mentioned by Nature at all.) The future plan is not to write the articles - the dozen articles are already written; something Nature might not have admitted, but NBC News has. Here to sway (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nature deciding not to publish 12 articles is irrelevant to this article. The 2 articles published in eLife by Berger et al. are relevant. If Berger has plans to publish more articles that is relevant. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the link to the discussion about the 12 research articles rejected by Nature. Here to sway (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Reactions section
I don't see that the reactions of South African politicians to the discoveries has any relevance in an encyclopedic article. I think the section should be removed. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thank you for your comments - *entirely* agree - the section has now been removed - after all, there doesn't seem to be similar sections in the "Homo habilis" or "Homo erectus" articles - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for your edits. I thought at first that there was zero reason to include the evolution-denialist position of a controversial trade unionist. Then I thought that the politician's remarks were probably not terribly relevant, either. However, I think President Zuma's approval is relevant. Wits U is a publicly funded university, the third oldest in RSA. The expedition was carried out respectfully, an analogy being regarding digs conducted in compliance with NAGPRA in the U.S. President Mbeki, Zuma's predecessor once removed, was an anti-scientific HIV denialist, so this Zuma's statement should be considered notable, I think. His immediate predecessor, Kgalema Motlanthe said, on succeeding Mbeki, "The era of denialism is over completely in South Africa." Activist (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved what South Africa's president said, to a "Politicians" section. His words hardly added anything factual to the "Ownership" section. I could not find a better name for the section; calling the section "Non-scientists" or "Non-scientific" might not be desirable. In the context of South Africa, at least - even if ignoring apartheid, other politicians/ former political leaders have made public comments which could possibly be included. Here to sway (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A dozen research articles-irrelevant-what do people think?
I think this statement is irrelevant to the article, what do others think? --CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"A dozen research articles on the finds were submitted to the journal Nature, and were not published there."


 * Relevant - Not getting a stamp of approval from Nature (journal), after trying twelve times (twelve research articles about the find submitted to that journal), is not trivial! The rejection of articles might not have been mentioned by Nature at all, but NBC News via Reuters found the news notable. (Nature clearly has sympathy towards some aspects of the excavation, or even the people involved, but that is not enough for the journal to rubber stamp research articles (ill-advised ones or ones with other major flaws such as spelling out alleged burial behavior or articles rejected for other reasons). Here to sway (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW - Thank you for your opinion - No - such content seems *entirely* irrelevant imo atm - even if cited - published studies may be relevant of course - but not those that are not - technically, such material may be "WP:OR" until published I would think - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reuters and NBC News found notable information which might imply apparent miscalculations (and presently unattainable ambitions) of those who submitted the research articles - not necessarily any faults by the authors. (The articles were largely created in a several week long workshop which lasted until June 2014.) I dare to say that there is notability and relevance to the report by NBC News/Reuters. Dr. Bogdan and I will perhaps have to agree to disagree! Here to sway (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * HTS, I also have a problem with the insertion you made (that makes three of us now, I believe). (1) Research articles are submitted and rejected every day. Rejection rates can be quite high. Last time I checked, Nature had a high rejection rate. From an NPOV perspective, Nature is just another journal. There is no reason to emphasise either the rejections, nor the name of the journal. (2) That said, you are also selectively quoting from the news report, in which the lead researcher implies that the reason the articles weren't accepted was their number, not their quality. Your edit could easily be read as implying that the papers were rejected because of their quality. This was not stated in the news report. Hence you're violating NPOV and good sourcing practices (V and RS) and the edit cannot stand on the basis of the sources you've presented. Samsara 13:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Drbogdan, the statement is irrelevant. Nature not publishing articles is not relevant, and should not be in this article about the species. There is nothing in the statements in the source that is notable to me to be in this article. "might imply apparent miscalculations" is a conspiracy theory not even stated in the NBC New report. Per the source: A dozen papers on the finds were submitted to the highly regarded journal "Nature" but were not published there.  "Nature publishes short articles on major discoveries," Berger said. "We attempted to put the 12 in and this was simply too much."  Not a reason to include the statement in the article in my opinion. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nature is just another journal" has been said here. That's like saying all party's are just another party; there is no more presige attached to being invited to party with guests at, say, president O'bama's innauguration party at the White House - compared to the party at the local McDonald's restaurant to celebrate a new species of hamburger on the menu. Here to sway (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is this "O'bama" of whom you speak. Is he any relation to President Barack Obama, and is your slighting misspelling accidental or a deliberate dog-whistle? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * HTS, invalid analogy. Please read Samsara's comments, with which I also agree.  Your statement is selectively quoting, violating NPOV, and violating good sourcing practices. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you go as far as to say that "Nature is just another journal", or would you prefer to sidestep that issue? Here to sway (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I originally used a direct quote from the Reuters article, and "my" text was later modified by another user. The modification seemed reasonable.Here to sway (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't presented any new arguments or information, if we can't agree to keep that section out of the article, I would suggest moving forwards with an RfC. I believe the discussion up to this point will serve quite well to represent the views of the four editors so far attending. Samsara 15:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It took less than four hours for three birds of the same feather to find each other. You might want to link RfC to an appropriate page. Here to sway (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe Here to sway is reading between the lines too much than is appropriate, trying to subtly imply a narrative. What RS mentions "major flaws"? True Nature is a prestigious journal, but the reasons Nature did not publish are unknown, and irrelevant, as there is nothing about the subject in Nature. Here to sway seems to think eLife is a "consolation prize", when another plausible scenario is that the team decided open-access publication would be a better platform (all of Wikipedia should be grateful the content and images are CC-licensed). Per WP:ONUS, not all verifiable facts merit inclusion, and I think mentioning a dozen unpublished articles invites undue speculation and gives undue weight, even paired with Berger's rationale. Let's focus on what is published, and deal with the other papers when they're published. (As an aside, coming from a scientific writing perspective, I think it is often not relevant to mention journals at all, as it can distract from important facts and seem like superfluous padding: "Smith, in a paper called X published in the prestigious journal Y said "important facts". Encyclopedia prose should be more concise than news and magazine prose.) --Animalparty! (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could re-classify that prize as seemingly a secondary- or consolation prize: The primary prize so far being Nature's kind words about the dig, the expedition and members. (I actually take that as more than a hint that Nature has vast expectations about the find (even though it has not yet - I repeat yet - been translated into a research article that Nature can approve). FWIW, in the next section of this thread I have made a suggestion for text. Here to sway (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * HTS, "stigma", "prize", "hint", "yet" are judgements, not facts. The article is about published facts about the species.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * When was the last time you heard Reuters and NBC News taking note of any case where somebody or some project was flying among eagles and drums being banged and horns being tooted, whistles blowing, National Geographics marching band on the field (so to speak), and then the cherry not being picked in the form of an entity not being published by Nature, after submitting research articles. There is something notable about this, and Reuters and NBC News got it, and so do I, and three or four others in this discussion don't get it. The find is being hyped in a way that might be compared with a paleontologic equivalent of The Second Coming of Jesus from Nazareth. Mentioned info coming from Reuters and NBC News adds notable nuances to the picture being hyped. Here to sway (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're exaggerating. All the coverage I've seen has been very clear about the loose ends of the research, i.e. most of all the carbon dating that could affect interpretation of the results. I don't think reliable sources are treating this as anything more than it currently can be reasonably said to be. Regarding the things that you "get" and nobody else does, make sure you've read and understood our policy against original research. Samsara 19:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * HTS, I don't get or extract from the NBC news article, the meaning or interpretations you stated, nor do I think Nature not publishing the Berger research articles is notable in this article. Thank you,--CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You said "The article is about published facts about the species". The species have been desribed in twelve research articles that were submitted to Nature, and not published there. That's a fact and I suggest that it is relevant. I see that the three or four others in this discussion disagree. Here to sway (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Samsara said that "the dust hasn't even settled enough to see if it will be a major story". It is arguably a major story already, and Tim White says that it is a major find, now matter how old the fossils are. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on that point (also). Here to sway (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for wording "Nature", "not published" PLUS something about what Nature has said about expected articles being published in the future (in-house or otherwise)
It is not necessary to use the word twelve (even though its true). That Nature mentions expectations about future articles from the expedition team and/or workshop team is a feather in the cap of Berger et al. and that offsets, I would say, some of the stigma (or whatever) that might be associated with not being published by Nature - after one or more submitted articles. Can the following sentence be tweaked into mutual acceptance? Mentioning eLife might not be necessary because that is mentioned at other places in the article. Here to sway (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nature says that the team expects publication of research articles in addition to the two that already have been published; two articles have been accepted by eLife; articles submitted to Nature have not been published yet. Here to sway (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you're trying to address the wrong concerns. The article is about the proposed species H. naledi. Things to include are its proposed anatomy, taxonomy, biology, social behaviour, geology of the only known site, as well as the criticisms made. Posturing about how many times something had to be submitted and where it was published has never, to my knowledge, been the subject of similar Wikipedia articles, nor should it ever be unless it becomes a noteworthy part of the history of science, as in the case of Watson, Crick, Franklin, et al. or Wallace and Darwin. However, as far as H. naledi is concerned, the dust hasn't even settled enough to see if it will be a major story, and it's unlikely to become as important as the aforementioned. So I see it as a clear case of "not yet". Samsara 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * HTS, I think it best not to include the statement that Nature did not publish articles, or what may be published in the future. As written by the other editors, only the information from published articles, from reliable sources, about this species H naledi belong in this article. Thank you,--CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, in the next section of this thread I have made a suggestion for text for the article. For other suggestions, there are now two sections that deal with those. Here to sway (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for wording "Nature", "not published" PLUS something about what Nature has said about expected articles being published in the future (in-house or otherwise)
It is not necessary to use the word twelve (even though its true). That Nature mentions expectations about future articles from the expedition team and/or workshop team is a feather in the cap of Berger et al. and that offsets, I would say, some of the stigma (or whatever) that might be associated with not being published by Nature - after one or more submitted articles. Can the following sentence be tweaked into mutual acceptance? Mentioning eLife might not be necessary because that is mentioned at other places in the article. Here to sway (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nature says that the team expects publication of research articles in addition to the two that already have been published; two articles have been accepted by eLife; articles submitted to Nature have not been published yet. Here to sway (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * HTS, I vote to not use this sentence either. ("Feather in the cap", "stigma", seem to be your judgements, and are not published facts. Trying to address perceived problems about not being published in Nature does not belong in the article) Only after articles are published should the relevant facts about the species be in the article, not future expectations or predictions, which may or may not happen. Thank you,--CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will gladly answer your concerns about other issues, when you address them in the other sections. (I think I got it: When you say that "I vote to not use this sentence either", then I think you mean that the sentence that I suggested does not meet your approval.) Does anyone other than I, have a suggestion for any sentence that might contain the mentioned three elements? Again, the topic of this section is "Suggestions for wordin...". Justification for why nothing should be worded, belongs in the other sections. Here to sway (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just don't think they belong in this article, for the reasons that have been enumerated. You were asked to engage in discussion, but instead of doing that, you're stating that people who don't agree with you may not reply. That's just not how things work around here. Wikipedia works by collaboration, and I feel that you're blocking that notion. Samsara 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that you do not have any suggestion to a sentence that contains the three elements headlined in this section? Does that mean that you choose to "vote to not use this sentence either" - unlike myself. (The other subjects - I have replied to in the other sections, and probably will not answer in this section. Unlike what you are saying, I am answering: However, probably not what you want to hear, and probably not in the section where you apparently want to hear the answers. I am not saying that it looks like you are trying to hijack this section with your views which are not within the topic of this section, but ... --Here to sway (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK - the present "WP:CONSENSUS" ("WP:1AM"?) is *not* to add the discussed content to the main article - for a variety of reasons that are well described above by several editors - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that you do not have any suggestion for a sentence that contains the three elements headlined in this section? Does that mean that you choose to "vote to not use" my first suggested sentence (in this section) - unlike myself. Here to sway (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - seems, in this instance atm, you may need "WP:CONSENSUS" from other editors - after all, according to "WP:OWN", All Wikipedia content ... is edited collaboratively. - at the moment, there doesn't seem to be "WP:CONSENSUS" for such an edit - or any related edit - iac - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: a dozen articles rejected by Nature
Should there be of a dozen articles submitted by Berger et al to Nature that were rejected? Should Berger's on those rejections be included? clpo13(talk) 04:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This needs some qualification: Berger is the only source for this, as recorded in an interview with Reuters. We have no independent verification that the manuscripts were indeed submitted, received, and rejected, nor if they were ever sent out for review. Samsara 15:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have answered your (interjected) concern, in my sixth (?) post in this discussion. Here to sway (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * CuriousMind01, please do not vandalise my edits in this thread.
 * HTS, fyi, that is an undo/restore of text you moved, not a vandalize.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you are misrepresenting the truth: I interjected text in front of Samsara's edit/interjection, and I struck out my text from an earlier edit of mine, and then you removed the latest text i had added - thru a revert. I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on this point. Here to sway (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Samsara, please do not place your text, in front of text that I have already written. Please discontinue that practice in this thread - in good faith! Here to sway (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems already to be a consensus not to quantify the number of articles which were rejected. (I have recently added to the article: "Some research articles "on the finds were submitted to the (...) journal Nature but were not published there"; two articles were published in another journal.") As long as Nature has not commented why the articles were not published (and possibly Nature has not themselves revealed the rejections), I question why one would want to publish Berger's comment in this article - a comment that some might view as face-saving or wishy-washy or unlikely. Some might say that it is unlikely that Nature would turn down a bunch of acceptable articles from the same authors; some might say that Nature probably would focus on accepting one article at a time and then publishing one article at a time - without rejecting acceptable articles. What I am saying is that Berger's comment is speculation - unsubstantiated speculation. That speculation is probably not notable. Here to sway (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My latest edit is
 * "Some research articles "on the finds were submitted to the (...) journal Nature but were not published there"; ; a September 2015 Nature article said that the "team intends to publish at least a dozen papers from the workshop in coming months; the two published today [in another journal] are the first". "
 * Relevant and balanced, I think. Here to sway (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No to the edit, it is irrelevant. As stated in the previous discussions you have no consensus, no agreement, no support from the participating editors for the edit. 1. Is selectively quoting and is irrelevant; 2. future intent to publish is not a fact about the species and is irrelevant.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is a misquote - please explain. On the other points it looks like you and I might have to agree to disagree. Here to sway (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it does not make a difference, but the following is what I wrote in the article. (In this discussion I threw in an extra pair of quotation marks, that are not in the article).
 * Some research articles "on the finds were submitted to the (...) journal Nature but were not published there"; a September 2015 Nature article said that the "team intends to publish at least a dozen papers from the workshop in coming months; the two published today [in another journal] are the first". Here to sway (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since my last post, Samsara has interjected an opinion earlier in this thread: About the Reuters article [via NBC News] she claims that "This needs some qualification: Berger is the only source for this". I say that is an assumption on Samsaras part! Samsara is unlikely to have full knowledge of what contacts Reuters has for gathering facts. I can say with the same conviction that Samsara seems to have, that "The Reuters article is stating a fact (12 rejected articles - a fact that Reuters can state without being required to say that the source is a confidential source - someone who has leaked information). Reuters was able to get Berger to respond to the fact about the 12 research articles which were rejected, and Berger responded; one or more people on the team made a mistake by trying to do too much of something; Berger did not blame the journal. Let me try to rework my previous suggestion in this thread - maybe someone will accept the rework:
 * Some research articles "on the finds were submitted to the (...) journal Nature but were not published there", according to NBC News; a September 2015 Nature article said that the "team intends to publish at least a dozen papers from the workshop in coming months; the two published today [in another journal] are the first". Here to sway (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No to the edit. As stated in the previous discussions you have no consensus, no agreement, no support from the participating editors for the edit. 1. Is selectively quoting and is irrelevant; 2. future intent to publish (which may or may not happen) is not a fact about the species and is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain in what way you perceive that the quote is selective. The other points you and I might have to agree to disagree about. Nature is reporting a fact when it says that the "team intends to publish at least a dozen papers from the workshop in coming months". Nature is arguably at the top of food chain, when it comes to reporting achievements and setbacks and notable plans relating to science; so there is a difference in notability when Nature states the intentions of the team, compared to things which are said in the newsletter of the science club at Joe Blow High School. Here to sway (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As was stated in the discussion above you are selecting to omit: "Nature publishes short articles on major discoveries," Berger said. "We attempted to put the 12 in and this was simply too much." The rejected articles even with the Berger quotes are irrelevant to the article. Regarding intent to publish in the future: Nature is reporting the team intends to publish in the future, which is a news item, and the intent may or may not happen, and a news item which is not relevant to the encyclopedia article. No to the edit.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Berger is not a known (yet) as an expert on the publishing practices of Nature. He has stated his personal opinion about something he is not yet an expert about, in the context of a news agency confronting him with facts (rejection of twelve articles). And neither did he say what he considered was "too much": "too much" unacceptable text (in each article)? "Too much" cooks spoiling the broth, so to speak, at the [research article] workshops? "Too much" biting off more than one can [decently write and] chew? Nature's notable report of the team's intent - might balance off, somewhat, the report from Reuters/NBC - about the notable fact that the team submitted some (or twelve, to be specific) articles to Nature, and they were rejected. Perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree on these points. Here to sway (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It is clearly juicy details to add, but the relevance is not fully clear. We don't know what the concerns of the editor and reviewers were and to what extent this publication is different from those. (and we are not likely to know the reviews, as Nature is supposed to keep that confidential). In the absence of such clear relevance, I don't see why we should add it. The speculation of the author is just that: speculation... L.tak (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If someone says "very informative" or even "encyclopedic" - that might support my claim.
 * When you say "juicy" - that might be seen as you "using rhetoric" to influence this discussion.
 * Censorship is something that wikipedia is not about: Why would we want to censor that Nature has rejected research articles about the find; our article already tells about a less prestigious journal's publishing of two research articles from the find?
 * "My text" is cited, and what it says does not rule out that "A undiscovered species has been proposed, but the expedition team is promoting interpretations of the find - and wording thereof - that Nature finds too unsubstantiated." Here to sway (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my text was a bit exaggerated and related mainly to the opinion of the author. That's (whatever it is, I didn't go into it) always a one-sided view that is (for me clearly) unnotable. Regarding the inclusion of the wording you state here, it is clearly neutral. It does suggest strongly however that the same article was submitted; in the same form. If that is true, I am ok with the addition; but if we are not sure, I think something should be changed, as now the text suggests that Nature (for whatever reason) made a different decision on the exact same paper. Many papers (at least from my own experience, I have no source) are changed based on reviewer or editor comment in rejections and thus not submitted in the same form... L.tak (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No. The dozen unpublished articles and Berger's opinion should not be included at this time. With the current sources (and other sources I've seen), there is no encyclopedic value of mentioning any articles that haven't been published yet. Per Undue weight, only two sources I've seen mention any current or future articles (the Nature piece and the Reuters piece). Mentioning that articles weren't published anywhere simply begs the question why, which existing sources do not adequately explain, and any attempt I believe would stray too far from the subject, and may involve original research. There may or may not be a story here, but if there is it is not yet on any radar, and Wikipedia should not imply or suggest otherwise (either explicitly or subtly by juxtaposition, omission, etc.).  The fact that some articles haven't yet been published is not relevant to the article subject, and invites undue speculation. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Animalparty on this. Papers are rejected all the time for all kinds of reasons. The fact that articles on this topic were rejected by Nature is insignificant. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One difference is that NBC News and Reuters are reporting about this rejection only. Here to sway (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Attribution to the person who started this RfC
In one edit remark in the article I am being called the one who started this RfC. I have tried to ask that the term RfC be linked to a sufficient explanation of the term. I have also commented the thread above. I don't understand how I could possibly have started RfC, since I have not intended to do so. Did someone else start the RfC or am I going to get the blame for that? Here to sway (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I started the RfC. Samsara attributed it to the wrong person. clpo13(talk) 02:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Full protection restored

 * I have restored full protected the article. The articleshould only be unprotected at the end of the RFC or when consensus is reached between the warring parties on the article talk page. -- Jayron 32 12:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Vanity removed from infobox
The current mention of Berger in the infobox - would that be ok to have removed? Here to sway (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's convention, not vanity, to include the naming authority. You need to read more articles and become familiar with our conventions. Certain elements of our format are applied consistently across all articles in a particular genre. Regards, Samsara 14:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Many things are needed - including you not accusing me wrongfully of things, in edit remark. Sorry is the hardest word to say? Here to sway (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

HTS: The standard infobox field is "binomial_authority", which here is the namer of the species, Berger et al.; for more information, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Template, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Taxobox. Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Here to sway (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Move text into different section
The paragraph that starts with "When the Dinaledi Chamber was first entered, the sediments (...)" tells about when the paleontologists first entered the cave - not the cavers. So its about the excavation, not the Discovery (by Hunter and Tucker). I think that paragraph should be moved to the next section (Excavation and Research), and placed right in front of "Dirks et al. say that ', in some of the material (...)". The article is locked, so someone with the keys are the only ones who can move the text. Here to sway (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggest: Use Lead text version 08:28, 24 September 2015
Regarding discussions on the lead.

I think this version is the preferred version to use when the article reopens: 08:28, 24 September 2015‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_naledi&oldid=682550625.

--CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is already a discussion going on, in part (see link ) about cherry-picking in the lede - of authors of the research article about the species. Here to sway (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with CM that that version should be restored, given that no new consensus seems to be developing at the discussion you linked to, HTS. Samsara 00:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the mentioned version should be restored. I suggest that one opens the article as it is. Thereafter one will know if edit warring is still a problem. Here to sway (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In terms of edit warring, YOU are the problem. YOU did not accept consensus and received a 3RR warning, issued by me and confirmed by . You should not interpret the circumstance that your version got protected as any sort of approval. That's not how it works. As regards consensus, and  have told you much the same thing, and there will eventually be a limit to how much you can stall progress on this page against a majority of users who apparently can all agree on what would be sensible, on topic inclusions and phrasings. "Agree to disagree" does not hold water as a justification for repeatedly re-inserting fringe viewpoints. Samsara 12:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinions, including your view on who is "stall[ing] progress on this page", and views you sneak into edit remarks. I have not seen any valid arguments for why the article should be unlocked with any other version, than the one where it was locked. Here to sway (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * After the article is unlocked I recommend reverting to lead version: 08:28, 24 September 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_naledi&oldid=682550625 by Drbogdan; which I plan to do.  If needed we can get a request for comment now.CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

YES - restoring the Homo naledi article to the "08:28, 24 September 2015" version is *entirely* ok with me as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NO - have the article unlocked first, and let "wikipedians that have found each other" - take it from there. Thank you. Here to sway (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Homo naledi at the Natural History Museum, London
Fossil casts Homo naledi are now on display at the London Natural History Museum. If anyone is willing and able to take some high quality photographs of the fossils and release them to Commons with a CC license, that would be a great contribution. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in the lede?
"The individuals show signs of having been deliberately disposed of within the cave near the time of death". This is not an established fact, is it? Perhaps it is a hypothesis based in part that the bones have not been gnawed on, and based on some other information. Here to sway (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That they were deliberately disposed of is a hypothesis; that they show signs of having been deliberately deposited is a set of observations that the hypothesis addresses. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit in Discovery
".....on 1 October photos were shown "to Pedro Boshoff and then to Lee" Berger." Shouldn't that be "on 1 October photos were shown "to Pedro Boshoff and then to Lee [Berger]", as the surname functions as a clarification of the quoted material and not an addition to it? --Khajidha (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest


 * "to Pedro Boshoff and then to Lee" Berger ...
 * "to Pedro Boshoff and then to" Lee Berger ...

Your suggestion "to Pedro Boshoff and then to Lee [Berger]", is an ok third choice, imo. Here to sway (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first suggestion is what is in the article now. As I said, that formulation is used when adding separate things to a quote not when clarifying a quote. Your second suggestion is a rather random break off point in the quotation. My suggestion is the long-standing standard way of handling clarification in quoted material. --Khajidha (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style--Khajidha (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have much of an opinion about this: My number two suggestions looks and feels somewhat better, than your suggestion. However your arguments seem fair enough. Here to sway (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My suggestion in this case is to do away with quotes altogether. There are too many quotes/quote fragments in this article that can simply be stated rather than quoted. Excessive use of quotes where prose is sufficient does not make a professional tone (see WP:QUOTEFARM). For instance photos were shown "to Pedro Boshoff and then to Lee" Berger could be simplified to photos were shown to Pedro Boshoff and Lee Berger (no quotes). There is nothing particularly unique in the words quoted, so why quote them? (P.S. the quote in question is not evenly properly attributed: it comes from the Rising Star Expedition blog, not Ed Yong's Atlantic piece.) --Animalparty! (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In many cases a "do away" will probably be just fine. Here to sway (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

TV programme
There was a good programme on naledi on Channel 4 in Britain last night. See Dudley Miles (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

To link "Berger et al."-article - what notable subjects could it link to?
Of notable subjects that either have or not have articles, I suggest that this Berger et al-research article should link to
 * the first (?) workshop of its kind within paleontology; after all, this article and others were created at that workshop. Or
 * Wits Uni; the workshop was held in the vault containing the fossils.

Linking to the Rising Star Cave is not a good solution. Linking to the expedition is not a good solution; not all the members of the workshop were a member of the expedition.
 * One might want to establish consensus about the workshop being notable, before one creates an article about (or redirect from) the subject of the workshop.

"Berger et al." as a stand alone article is premature; this Berger et al. research article has not been peer-reviewed yet. Here to sway (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By "Berger et al" do you mean the 2015 eLife article? Why should it link to anything? I don't think a link/article/redirect for the term Berger et. al is warranted. I don't think it needs to be wikilinked at all, as it is a primary reference, and its statements can simply be described in any article that uses it as a source. Also, just to be clear, Berger et al. 2015 did undergo peer-review by two reviewers, one of whom was Chris Stringer (see Section: Decision letter). --Animalparty! (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant the authors - Berger et al., not the article itself. About the peer-review: I don't have any reason to question the publisher or Chris Stringer's integrity. However, that peer-review would maybe not qualify as being an independent one. Here to sway (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris stringer is not one of the authors, he is not economically dependent on oor otherwise affiliated with Berger and therefore it is of course an independent peer review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

HTS, I'm still not quite clear on what you are referring to or what specific action(s) you want performed: are you referring to the text in the author citation in the taxobox that currently says "Berger et al., 2015", or the inline citations that read e.g. "Berger et al. say that..."? For the first case, a single citation after "Berger et al. 2015" that contains all 47 co-authors could erase any doubt of who these other authors are. For the second case, I think it is clear (as well as standard editorial practice) that when a statement like "Berger et al. say ..." is followed by an inline citation that lists Berger and (46) others, that the statement is properly attributed to those 47 co-authors. Are you proposing additional wikilinks be added to any reference? --Animalparty! (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont think it should link anywhere except the bibliography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When the article says "Berger et al." it could link to an article about a notable subject, somewhat like this - Berger et al. --Here to sway (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, if I understand correctly you are proposing that Berger et al. link to an article or section of an article that describes the 47 authors of one paper and/or the larger team of ~60 researchers that participated in the workshop that produced what is intended to be a dozen or so articles, 2 of which have been published so far. If this is the case, I think Homo naledi is the notable subject, and said workshop where scientists studied Homo naledi should be more appropriately summarized in a few sentences in this article and/or Rising Star Cave, and any new articles are not warranted at this point. Keep in mind WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS ("While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion"). Will the nitty gritty details of the workshop (the names, institutions, and contributions of every participant) be noteworthy in 5 years, or will the the findings (i.e. papers) be more important? We do not need to state in list-form or encyclopedic prose every person involved with the event unless it becomes so momentous that the workshop itself becomes a story with notability separate from Homo naledi, which I believe is unlikely. Note that I am not saying that this workshop is insignificant or unworthy of note, I just think that it can be succinctly described in existing articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We dont wikilink titles unless there is a dedicated wiki article about the work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. The http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560 research article and it's reference in this article list the authors now. There is no need to link to author names or repeat the names again.


 * 2. Some of the "Berger et al" text in the article (not the taxobox, not the lead) can be removed anyway, just write a paraphrased statement or quote, and add the citation to the research article justifying the statement.


 * 3. "Berger et al"  text should not link to any documents or sections of documents.
 * -CuriousMind01 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

First two Nature papers published
Further to earlier discussion of the 12 articles mentioned by Lee Berger as having been submitted to Nature, incorrectly asserted to have been "rejected", the first 2 have now (yesterday 06/10/15) appeared as open (i.e. fully available free) at


 * http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151006/ncomms9431/full/ncomms9431.html

and


 * http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151006/ncomms9432/full/ncomms9432.html

(Sorry, don't know how to render those more concisely.) I leave it to others more capable to (a) modify or add references to them in the existing article text and add pertinent information from them. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting those articles. Unfortunately most of us can not add to the article until the issue above is settled. Hopefully the fact that there are now four peer reviewed articles about the subject is more significant than the fleeting fact that some versions of some papers were not accepted at some point in time. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, these two new papers were published in Nature Communications, a different journal than Nature but from the same publisher. That said, we cannot "read between the lines" and speculate on what that means (lets please move beyond personal opinions of "stigmas", "consolation prizes", "feathers in a cap", etc). --Animalparty! (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I take a different view than Animalparty: I don't operate with a glossary of words and phrases that should not be used on this talk page. Having two research articles published on nature.com's website arguably is a "feather in the cap" of the authors, and arguably far beyond being a consolation prize. For the record, "stigma" arguably has been taken out of context. Part of the quote was "stigma (or whatever)". It might be fair to say that Animalparty and myself are having troubles finding common ground in the various discussions here. Here to sway (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a stigma for scientists to have papers rejected from journals. All scientists get papers rejected. And a very large portion of rejected papers are later published in other journals. This is how publishing works. If you submit 12 articles to a journal without having a prior agreement about a special issue being published then chances are 99% that most of them will be rejected regardless of their merits.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it's great that more articles are published, period, and I'm sure the authors are pleased. In my opinion, Nature Communications has slightly more clout than eLife, but is less prestigious than Nature. But my opinions about the sources are irrelevant for the purposes of building this article. All three sources are legitimate, peer-reviewed, scientific publications, and to my knowledge no reliable sources have made any comment whatsoever about what the venue for publication means, and thus nor should we, so I was trying to preemptively avoid undue speculation on the "what ifs". Of course we are all free to make any inferences or opinions personally, but remember that our own opinions mean diddly-squat in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. I hope we can agree on that. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The statistics that Maunus refers to have not been published at any notable source that I am aware of. Another thing which does affect the chance of being published is to what degree one employs "archaelogic mindreading" - which in part is the art of postulating thoughts that Homo Pinhead might have had hundreds of thousands of years ago. Here to sway (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I was one of the many WP editors working on this article when the news broke, and I quit working in this page because of the annoying and disruptive actions of user 'Here to sway'. After many weeks witnessing his antics, my assessment is that this edit warrior will never acknowledge the evident consensus to remove his POV from the article, and I think that since he remains a nuisance, user 'Here to sway' must eventually be banned from editing archaeology-related articles, if you wish to end this conflict. My 2 cents. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You quit, for whatever reason. And now you are back editing the article. A hearty welcome to you. Here to sway (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Yes - *entirely* agree atm with the comments made above by "User:BatteryIncluded" - seems the purpose of user 'Here to sway', "WP:SPA"?, is not to agree to "WP:CONSENSUS" in the "Homo naledi" article - but to disrupt editing instead - and - to prevent anyone from editing the article by prolonging the page protection - as suggested, the user may need to be "banned from editing archaeology-related articles ... to end this conflict" - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you adapt the following dated suggestion, to the ideas of your original research, User_talk:Panyd? Here to sway (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Stigma (or whatever)" and context
There might not be a need to rehash here, another discussion that has not been closed: Talk:Homo_naledi --Here to sway (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nature publishing 2 after rejecting 12
[This discussion has been moved out of a RfC that has been closed.] Now that Nature.com has started publishing research articles about the find, mentioning the twelve rejections might be less controversial. I now suggest the following text:
 * On 6 October 2015 Nature Communications published two research articles; twelve articles about the find had previously been rejected by Nature. --Here to sway (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

BBC has already reported about the new research articles. --Here to sway (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here to sway, I believe you are the only one supporting the inclusion of the fact that some articles were not published in Nature. The consensus from the RfC so far is that the fact, verifiable as it may be, is not significant enough to include in this article at this time. We as editors do not need to include every verifiable fact about a subject, per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTNEWS. The sooner we can reach consensus, the sooner this article can be unlocked, and the business of improving it can continue. Stylistically, I object to the proposed text as it unnecessarily gives a choppy, play-by-play tone to the article (this happened, and then this happened, and then this, then this...) which should be replaced by more timeless encyclopedic prose. In most good science writing, exact publication dates are extraneous and trivial. In 5 years, should we expect or desire high school students doing a report on Homo naledi to remember 6 October 2015? --Animalparty! (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your objection seems to be "stylistically". Do you have a suggestion for text that meets your stylistic requirements? Here to sway (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My objection is on both content (the oft-debated 12 rejected articles) and style. Stylistically, my suggestion would be to omit dates that aren't relevant, throughout. Rather than include extraneous data that's more about papers than Homo naledi, a more concise style would be to simply state e.g. "the hands have been described as yadda yadda yadda (Kivell et al. 2015). The feet are yadda yadda yadda (Harcourt-Smith et al. 2015)". Whether the paper came out in September or October is of little importance. When there are a dozen, or 100 papers discussing H. naledi, it would be tedious and poor style to announce the exact date of every publication in text, and I think the same holds true when there are only 4 articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory of rejected research papers. Samsara 20:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that you don't want any mention of Nature (journal) rejecting 12 articles? Here to sway (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at this time in this article, and probably not ever, for all the reasons enumerated on this page before. Samsara 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "All the reasons" sounds like an exaggeration. At least now you are not speaking thru "directory riddles", and I find that to be an improvement. Here to sway (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

On consensus
While the above Request for Comments was closed due to stale discussion, I believe consensus, or at least a majority opinion, has in fact emerged, although more participants would have been preferable. The debate is somewhat convoluted and scattered across different sections and subsections, and not all comments clearly articulated a position. For the record, here is a brief tally of opinions, from the RfC itself and others, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pinging all involved so that they may clarify or correct their stance, and sorting users based into basic categories of yes (for), no (against), and equivocal based on Talk page comments (direct statements quoted after, apologies for any resemblance to cherry-picking). The focal question was Should there be mention of a dozen articles submitted by Berger et al to Nature that were rejected? Should Berger's opinion on those rejections be included? The range of opinions is below. Yes: No: Equivocal:
 * "Relevant" (outside of RfC)
 * "No to the edit, it is irrelevant"
 * "No. The dozen unpublished articles and Berger's opinion should not be included at this time."
 * "The fact that articles on this topic were rejected by Nature is insignificant."
 * "No - such content seems *entirely* irrelevant imo atm" (outside of RfC)
 * "the edit cannot stand on the basis of the sources you've presented." "Not at this time in this article, and probably not ever" (both outside of RfC).
 * We report on the published science, not on the publishing process.
 * "In the absence of such clear relevance, I don't see why we should add it." "Regarding the inclusion of the wording you state here, it is clearly neutral. It does suggest strongly however that the same article was submitted; in the same form. If that is true, I am ok with the addition; but if we are not sure, I think something should be changed, as now the text suggests that Nature (for whatever reason) made a different decision on the exact same paper."

Additionally, : states outside of RfC: "It would be perfectly fine to mention that they have planned and submitted about a dozen articles about the details of the finds." This does not directly mention rejection by any journal, so I cannot reliably assign opinion.

By my count that's 1 yes, 5 no, and 1 or 2 equivocal. I don't think anyone is trying to gang up on anyone, but "consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity; nor is it the result of a vote." The majority of participants so far have argued against mentioning unpublished or rejected articles, citing such policies as WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:ONUS, WP:SYN, and WP:Consensus. Here to sway, your argument for including the debated material is a minority view. Note that consensus can change, but it is unproductive to continually bring up issues that have been discussed many times, especially when edit-warring leads to prolonged page protection, during which little improvement can be made. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read 's comment as opposing - "absence of [...] relevance [...] don't see why". Samsara 23:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment was indeed neither absolute "no" or "yes". I lean towards no; only on one condition I would be ok adding it: when it would be clear that the same paper as the one finally submitted to the journal that accepted it was submitted exactly in that form. Otherwise there are so many options for rejection that it is merely suggestive and not very informative. Anyway, the close of the RFC seemed well reasoned and I see no consensus for including the info on the rejected reviews, and that is what should be proven in this case.... I -naively- suggest we all move on. L.tak (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Process to overturn the decision to close the RfC
Some seem to be considering the possibility to overturn the decision to close the RfC. Perhaps both sides should find it sobering that there was little input from new participants to the discussion: that might indicate that either the matter is not viewed as important and/or that none of the sides had convincing arguments. Here to sway (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We can only work with what we're given, and can't deal with hypothetical scenarios ("might", "perhaps"). Maybe the silent majority is on your side, perhaps a pesky elephant sat on their computer before they could respond, that might indicate why no one has agreed with you. Per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Thus the onus is currently on you alone and unless you can establish consensus to include disputed content, it should not be included. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "We can only work with what we're given, and can't deal with hypothetical scenarios ("might", "perhaps"). Maybe the silent majority is on your side, perhaps a pesky elephant sat on their computer before they could respond, that might indicate why" Reuters and NBC News don't agree with you. --Here to sway (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither Reuters nor NBC are writing this Wikipedia article, we volunteers are. You are seeking to include disputed content. No one is disputing the veracity of the statement, but whether the statement is relevant enough to include. Consensus currently says no. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I'm not sure about the entire basis of the "12 papers" being "rejected by Nature." On Berger's testimony they they were submitted. They were not all immediately published because, on Berger's testimony, there were too many to appear all at once. Two of them (presumably), submitted in January 2015 and accepted in August 2015, have now appeared in a subsidiary publication of Nature. More may reasonably be expected soon. It's a while (OK, 25 years) since I was a professional Science Editor (for John Murray, FWIW), but this seems to me to be quite normal in the context of science journal publishing practice which has to balance the material to hand and the variably lengthy process of peer review with size constraints of dead-tree publications to produce roughly even monthly editions. {The Poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.81.139 (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If anyone is interested in a new voice, let me offer my opinion that it was correct to decide not to mention the rejections. The topic seems to me to be of ephemeral interest.   TomS TDotO (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Homo_naledi. 12 research articles were rejected by Nature (journal). How they might relate to the two research articles at Nature Communications we don't have any notable sources that say. Here to sway (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So we shouldn't say anything. Samsara 00:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Except about the topics which are notable, have notable sources and are relevant. Here to sway (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Relevancy is an opinion, and again yours is the sole minority in this discussion. The notable topic here is Homo naledi. Individual scholarly papers and news articles are sources that can be used to build articles on notable topics, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We need not include every fact ever written (here's a paper on spotted hyenas that probably doesn't merit inclusion on Spotted hyena). Very likely there will be a news blip each time new research is published in the near future, yet we need not necessarily cite every source, nor incorporate every opinion in the flurry of news activity (see WP:Recentism). The aim of all of us here, I hope, is to create a well-written article that is accurate, on-topic, and balanced, giving no more coverage to details than is warranted. If all the remaining research articles were published tomorrow, would you still insist on mentioning the fact that at first they weren't, and then they were? To me that's about as trivial as listing the peer-reviewers of each paper. How about a table with each paper and its journal, submission date, acceptance date, and publication date? These are all facts that can be found in the articles themselves, but I think consensus would argue such facts are not helpful to include in this article. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Another way to look at this: Why would we want to censor the relevant fact that the 12 research articles that were submitted to Nature (journal) were rejected? Here to sway (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rejection is routine, and in fact more common than acceptance. There is no need to even mention it unless there is some special reason to. This is not censorship - this is simply keeping insignificant information from the article, information that would benefit no one's understanding of the topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should we include it? This isn't abut censorship, it's about relevance, and you're not going to win any arguments by repeatedly saying a fact which consensus holds irrelevant is relevant. Why should we censor (omit) the fact that Berger et al. 2015 was received by eLife June 19, 2015 and accepted August 4, 2015? Because it is irrelevant and its inclusion does not add to the understanding of Homo naledi. And ditto for "12 papers were submitted to Nature, but weren't published in Nature". --Animalparty! (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is still at Talk:Homo_naledi. Part of the rationale there seems to be that "Nature is just another journal. There is no reason to emphasise either the rejections, nor the name of the journal." What will the next cherry-picking suggestion be: perhaps that it is ok to mention Berger et al. when applicable, but not Kivell et al. or Harcourt-Smith ''et. al''? Here to sway (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I miss a consensus on removing mention of Berger? Or did you just decide on your own what's cherrypicking and what's not? clpo13(talk) 07:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No articles have appeared in Nature so it is unessential to mention Nature. True Nature is a prestigious journal, but it is you, Here to sway, who is connecting the dots and inferring "rejection by a top journal = notable relevant event", despite the prevailing opposing view. And quit throwing red herrings: it would be entirely permissible and in line with standard scientific writing to state "Kivell et al" when referring to that paper if it makes clearer the source of the info. If you find mentioning first author cherry-picking, read the MLA Style Manual. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"what's cherrypicking and what's not"?
The following might be the discussion that is most in depth about that subject: Talk:Homo_naledi. Here to sway (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

President's reaction notable for Homo naledi?
There was a suggestion to remove the passage on Zuma, and a counter-suggestion that it should be included because as president of South Africa, Zuma is "the top representative of the owners". Opinions/arguments? Samsara 14:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - He is notable at several levels regarding this topic, including also that he is the head of the nation that was one of two sponsors for the excavation of the fossils: The sponsorship by the Research Council of South Africa consisted of money from the government of RSA. --Here to sway (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually Samsara is underplaying what has happened: Zuma was removed from the article again, today. Someone might consider notifying the wikipedian who edited Zuma into the article - on September 10 or one of the following days; there is a good chance that person also thinks that Zuma is notable in this context. --Here to sway (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's part of the normal life-cycle of an article that it gets less news-y as time goes on. Samsara 15:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is still part of the facts-y cycle that "his" agency, was one of two sponsors (Reseach Council of South Africa) of the excavation. And he is the top representative of the fossils' owners. He is the most powerful man regarding the fossils; if he is not satisfied, he is the only one who is powerful enough to have anyone else kicked out of direct contact with the fossils, with one phone call or one sms or one whisper. Here to sway (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a scientific article; stay with the science fundamentals. That and other political factoids can be moved to the expedition article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You are again extrapolating way beyond what sources state. Show one source that directly states Zuma is the most powerful man regarding the fossils. And again see WP:SYN. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you would like to inform us who is the most powerful person regarding the fossils: The head janitor at Wits University? The CEO of the security company that guards the vault at Wits U.? Here to sway (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof for claims you make is on YOU, not Animalparty. Samsara 19:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded - This encyclopedia is not purely a science encyclopedia - it is a general topic encyclopedia. What you would like to see in other articles, I suggest you deal with that on those talk pages. President Zuma's opinion is notable in the context of this article. Here to sway (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not our role to decide who is the most powerful person, and unless sufficient reliable sources explicitly make the connection that Zuma's position or opinion is of import to the fossils, it is below the threshold of relevance to a scientific subject. Besides making a statement, Zuma played no direct role in any part of the research or analysis- please provide sources that claim otherwise. If he had said his favorite animal is a lion should that be mention in Lion? --Animalparty! (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As the top representative for the owners of the fossils, and as the top CEO, so to speak, in the one holding corporation, so to speak, that was one of two that funded/sponsored the dig, his position relative to the fossils is significant enough. Here to sway (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "significant enough" by whose opinion? Yours? Unless you can provide sources justifying your claim of importance, this issue will be settled by plain old WP:CONSENSUS. Should we hold a vote? --Animalparty! (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Another user has previously expressed a wish to keep - "(...) However, I think President Zuma's approval is relevant. Wits U is a publicly funded university, the third oldest in RSA. The expedition was carried out respectfully, an analogy being regarding digs conducted in compliance with NAGPRA in the U.S. President Mbeki, Zuma's predecessor once removed, was an anti-scientific HIV denialist, so this Zuma's statement should be considered notable, I think. His immediate predecessor, Kgalema Motlanthe said, on succeeding Mbeki, "The era of denialism is over completely in South Africa." Activist (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)". --Here to sway (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of denial, this article is a scientific subject. If you want to elaborate and let everyone know of your perceptions, politics and judgements, you may want to start a blog. Sincerely, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Another way to look at it, how many unique sources (not counting reprints of press releases, etc) devote attention to Zuma's views, and how much weight (page space) do they give his views in an article. If his views were given several paragraphs in multiple sources, that would be evidence that his views are considered relevant by reliable sources. But a sentence or two acknowledging comments would not, and it may ultimately be WP:UNDUE weight to mention in this article. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please let us now how many words and pages you counted, after leafing thru all South African newspapers. Maybe all of those newspapers will be available at your nearest public library or college library. Here to sway (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof for arguments you propose is on YOU, not Animalparty. Samsara 19:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any benefit to mentioning that the President congratulated the team. Doesn't add to the article and isn't exactly an earth shattering statement Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove? Research articles have been submitted to journals... Suggestion
'''Opinions? I think this text should be removed.'''

Regarding: "Research articles have been submitted to journals including Nature;[14] as of October 2015 research articles have been accepted by eLife and Nature Communications.[15][16]"

Reason: I think the text seems like a publishing submission status report, and is not relevant or notable now or 10 years in the future, to this article. CuriousMind01 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I also think the sources should be given in the references section and not duplicated elsewhere. Samsara 21:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - the exact published papers are cited as inline citations (references). BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a unanimous consensus by three editors. I will remove it. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of this sentence. Currently it's a Chekhov's gun to mention Nature at all- if it isn't salient to anything else later on, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. I think that as future papers come out, it will become less important to mention any journals by name, but currently it is probably not inappropriate to mention the two journals that have the only primary research on these fossils, somewhere in the article, with care. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it will mean much to the lay reader without some qualification, and the qualifications so far have always implied something that wasn't necessarily true. More importantly perhaps, I think it sets a poor precedent where one might then argue that the same should be done for other discoveries. What bearing does the place where its discovery and interpretation were published have on our understanding of H. naledi? To my mind, none. Should we mention that it was published as open access, and that eLife is rare among OA journals for not charging a fee? Does it change the quality of the research? Samsara 22:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I'm not strongly in favor of naming any journals, but I wouldn't object if someone were to add eLife in the context of species description. I'm fine with all journals unnamed in text currently. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

How to describe Boshoff
Regarding this edit, the source at the end of that sentence does not mention Boshoff, so I went looking for how he was described in sources, to wit (from the first five pages of Google results, some more reliable than others):
 * Geologist
 * Exploration team leader      (these seem to be copy-pasted from somewhere)
 * Spelunker
 * Cave exploration leader
 * Geologist and caver
 * "A caver who is also a geologist"

Google news recovers a narrower range of options (from first two pages, excluding duplicates from first list):
 * Geologist
 * Cave exploration leader
 * Cave exploration team leader
 * "A caver who is also a geologist"
 * Geologist and caver

I think calling him a geologist is a good, conservative option, with the possible addition of "caver". Any other views? Samsara 01:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Geologist CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Promoting theories in the article's lede
The theory about deliberate placing of dead bodies has been put in the lede. I am not convinced that the theory belongs in the lede. Note that William Jungers is more dismissive of Berger's suggestion that H. sapiens may have inherited the practice of burying their dead from H. naledi, a creature with a much smaller brain than modern humans: "That’s crazy speculation—the suggestion that modern humans learned anything from these pin heads is funny". Maybe we can also put the burying ritual theory in the lead, along with William Jungers' opinion. --Here to sway (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something, but I don't understand the reasoning in your post. Could you clarify a bit? You start by asking yourself whether the hypothesis on "deliberate placement" should be placed in the lede. Then you "note" 2 different hypotheses that are based on that hypotheses (deliberate placement=burial; H. sapiens learned from H. naledi). Are you stating those other hypotheses to show that it is not good to have hypotheses at all, because choosing any hypothesis would be cherry picking; and shaky hypotheses exist? Or are you suggestion that it is imperative to have also subhypotheses in+their criticism? L.tak (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summary of the main body of the article. Being that the speculation/hypothesis od deliberate placement is prominent in the article, it is included in the lede. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of hypotheses in the article. Are you also planning to cherrypick Berger's theory about the cascades (or relays) of bonfires from the cave entrance towards the Star Chamber? I think we need a better rationale for if, and what, theories to cherrypick for presentation in the lede. --Here to sway (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rick Potts says "These bodies seem to have simply been dropped down a hole and disposed of…" The question of why the remains are found where they are doesn't bear mention in the lede in my opinion. If it is decided to mention the topic in the lede we should be very careful to allow for the possibility that what we are observing could be mere disposal and that at this point in the research we simply do not have answers to these questions. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What I would certainly like to see is a clarification of what is meant by evidence of having been accessed in recent decades vis-a-vis the claim of deliberate placement. If we can dig into the sources so far available and arrive at a paraphrasing that makes this distinction clear, then I think that would be very good. Original synthesis on our part should, of course, be avoided as usual. Samsara 16:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The bones of an owl have apparently been arranged in a way, that some of the 47 co-authors think that a recreational caver might have been responsible - some decades ago. The research article makes no connection whatsoever between the bones of the owl - with the bones of the pinheads (or Homo naledis). Apart from being found in the Dinaledi chamber. --SPay Pal (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one of the artists on staff at a "Geographic" company can make a painting: perhaps of pinheads throwing a dead owl and a dead pinhead thru a six inch hole. When The Telegraph or some other newspaper mentions that, aren't we all set to mention the owl and deliberately placed pinhead, in the lede? SPay Pal (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Re-rendering a published fantasy-genre painting/drawing
Would it be ok if someone can re-draw (without copyvio and upload into the article) the fantasy-genre National Geographic painting/drawing of a few dozen Homo naledis gathered for a funeral ceremony, while several of them are lugging a corpse of their fellowman/fellow pinhead? --Here to sway (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The following links to the titillation. --Here to sway (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be a violation of the copyright to the original image? --Khajidha (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The illustration is potentially highly misleading. It suggests that those who died outside the cave were brought into the cave. No evidence that I'm aware of supports that any corpses were brought into the cave, only that the remains of Homo naledi were found in the deepest recesses of that cave system. I don't think our article should include such an image. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest to plagiarise the image. That is copyvio. --Here to sway (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you need to rephrase your question, because redrawing the image sounds like you are making a direct copy of it. --Khajidha (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or you need to realise that this is not a forum for exchanging pointers about how to break laws. I am not sure what you mean by a [manmade] direct copy, since I already have made it clear that I am not suggesting Plagiarising. --Here to sway (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then what ARE you suggesting? Because (like L.tak below) I don't see how this could be anything but copyvio or original research, neither of which are allowed.--Khajidha (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid it would either be so close to the original (especially when it is rerendering) that it would be a copyvio, or require so much interpretation of data and sources that it would be original research. To be honest, I don't see a middle ground... L.tak (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That "The illustration is potentially highly misleading", is a notable answer to my question. Here to sway (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I can only recall seeing one critiqe of the painting: "Homo Naledi Cartoon — Meant to be taken seriously (Monkey-Men tossing Each other into a cave) (...) As if that wasn’t enough, it gets better, in the cartoon that goes with the backstory — they drew a cliff the Monkey people are throwing their dead loved ones (I guess) in from; this was in reality a tiny, tiny hole (they had trouble finding people thin enough to squeeze in and fetch monkey bones) that led to an old cave system". I can not vouch for the website where I found the critique, but the following  links to the critique. I believe the painting was done by a colleague of Berger - another employee at National Geographic. Here to sway (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Here to Sway, why do you ask this question? Because someone asked it? To highlight Berger et al did some speculation? In other words: how is this discussion helping making the page better? What change in wikipedia are you proposing and how is this discussion helping us? L.tak (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes the theory does belong in the lead, it is one of the aspects that have made the find particularly notable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait until notable authors comment on this in notable journals. SPay Pal (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * user:Spay Pal is a blocked sock puppet of blocked user:Here to swayCuriousMind01 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If anyone were to create a restoration of Homo naledi, be they standing, sitting, holding a funeral, or operating a dinosaur crane in Mr. Slate's quarry, it should first of all introduce no unpublished ideas or arguments, and secondly undergo Paleoart review for accuracy. Even still, we are under no obligation to include any image, amateur or professional, especially if one gives undue weight to certain ideas, or is otherwise irrelevant or of poor quality. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

" No evidence that (...) supports that any corpses were brought into the cave"
User:Bus_stop has brought up a very interesting point. I can't say that BusStop's statement is wrong. Anyone? Here to sway (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is wrong, because the authors very clearly explain which parts of the find they consider to be evidence of deliberate deposition. That someone else might not agree with them that this is evidence is a different thing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. The co-authors list some reasons for circumstances for why the bones apparently did not end up in the remote part of the cave. One of the reasons were that the bones have not been chewed on. One possibility the authors did not give significant consideration to: individual scavenging pinheads finding their way into the (vertical) shute, without being able to escape the Dinaledi chamber. --SPay Pal (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the bones were not chewed on by a (big) predator, they were not likely dragged there by a predator. --SPay Pal (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * user:Spay Pal is a blocked sock puppet of blocked user:Here to swayCuriousMind01 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Heads up about one wikipedian's particular focus on one of the 47+3 players
Please scrutinise the future edits of CuriousMind01 regarding Berger. That includes how that wikipedian positions such text in the article, and words it. --Here to sway (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I restored text which you had revised without consensus. Please stop your tendentious edits and wikilawyering.

CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored text which you had revised without consensus. Please rethink your focus on Berger, and how you have been manifesting that in the article. Here to sway (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Berger is the head of the expedition and the lead author of the paper, he SHOULD have more focus than the other members of the expedition. That's how such things work. --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about the research article. How Berger should be mentioned is a judgement call, if guidelines are not clear how to mention co-authors of research articles. I am advocating that Berger is possibly being tweaked into/within the article - by CuriosMind01 in particular - in manners that need attention by the community. Here to sway (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the community here gathered, besides you and possibly other recent arrivals, solidly stands behind CM's putting back mentions of Berger as the lead author. Besides CM, that includes myself,, and , as a minimum. Samsara 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Berger's inclusion as well. The sources refer to him specifically, so why shouldn't Wikipedia? clpo13(talk) 17:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Berger is the intellectual lider behind the fossils, the workshop, the National Geographic documentary, the funding, and the lead author. Yes, Berger has to be mentioned in proportion to his significance. You have been told that dozens of times by many editors. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Dear user:Here to sway, it is obvious that you refuse to accept the collaborative requirement in Wikipedia. I have taken this to the next level:. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice: blocked sock puppets of blocked user:Here to sway
To editors: User:SPay_Pal is now a blocked sock puppet / (disguised user) of blocked user:Here to sway --CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And now, because of more socking, Here to sway is blocked indefinitely. clpo13(talk) 23:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Umpteenth missing link is now a 2nd blocked sock puppet of blocked user:Here to sway --CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean third (red link but the info is there). Samsara 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Orville Dragonbacker is the 3rd blocked UserID.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor guy went off the deep end. The funny thing is he was originally blocked 48 hours for edit-warring, but he couldn't stay away and got indeffed for socking. Well, hopefully we'll be able to discuss further changes to the article without worrying about unfounded concerns over "cherry-picking" and unpublished journal articles. clpo13(talk) 17:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)