Talk:Neanderthal

«Erroneously» Homo sapiens neanderthalensis ?
All the article, and even more the article Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans, describe interbreeding between Neanderthal man and modern man as a proved fact. If so, what is the reason (other than misplaced racism) for saying at the top of the article that placing them in a single species is «erroneous» ? Aren't species defined by the ability to interbreed and have fertile young (and genera by the ability to interbreed, but have sterile young, like the horse Equus ferus caballus and the donkey Equus africanus asinus, whose offsprings, the mule and the hinny, are sterile) ? If (as assumed by their placement in different species of a common genus) offspring of Neanderthal humans and modern humans was sterile, how come genes originating in Neanderthals have been found in the DNA of most modern people, as these articles repeatedly stress ? — Tonymec (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Species are not defined by the ability to have have fertile offspring. There are many cases of different species having fertile offspring, such as lions and tigers, which produce ligers and tigons. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They do not, in fact, reproduce in the wild: "Like the liger, male tigons are sterile while the females are fertile." You really should have checked the article that you're quoting, Dudley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:A5AA:1A00:3D98:EA76:738:6684 (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought that Linnean taxonomy defined (for sexual animals, at least) a genus as a set of beings capable of having common offspring, and a species as a set of beings within a common genus, and whose common offspring was fully fertile. What defines a separate species then ? — Tonymec (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The section discusses evidence of hybrid incompatibility, not total sterility among all offspring Dunkleosteus77  (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Reducing sources in the lead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations

The MOS basically says that citations in the lead aren't really necessary unless the material is challenged, likely to be challenged, or controversial.

Currently, nearly every sentence in the lead has a citation. It's really cluttered reading, especially the longer lists.

If we can get agreement from other editors, I propose eliminating most of the citations from the lead, to both make it easier on the reader, and to conform more closely with the MOS guidance. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The MOS is a bit vague. The usual rule is that the lead should be an unreferenced summary of the referenced main text. Everything in the lead should be referenced in the main text, and no citations are needed except for quotes, which are always referenced. If you go ahead on this basis, I do not think anyone will object. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Article needs rework, presents obsolete (and racist) pseudoscience
It should be clear that h. sapiens Neanderthalensis was wrongly conceived as its own species, so please stop stating otherwise. Pluto is not a planet anymore, and h. sapiens Neanderthalensis not a species. Tempora mutantur. 2A01:C22:A5AA:1A00:3D98:EA76:738:6684 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There are two facts:
 * Contemporary life sciences cannot (for reasonable aspects) agree on a single common definition of species, and anthropologists cannot agree on a convention to apply either definition to Neanderthals.
 * Neanderthals are a unique phylogenetic line that separated from the H. sapiens line, most probably with the Denisovans in a common branch of the evolutionary tree, and became independent only later. Due to the proximity of these three lines, there were individual cases of mutual crossing, which is evidenced by introgressions in the genomes of all three lines.
 * Let us not take as a basis some dogmas given by convention about species or subspecies, but let us concentrate in accordance with modern science on real phylogenetic relationships. Tempora mutantur. :-) Petr Karel (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The majority of researchers continue to regard Neanderthals (in my view, correctly) as a separate species, so this complaint is utterly meritless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Update based on recent research was reverted?
Hello,

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1222952860&oldid=1222845592&title=Neanderthal

The other editor who removed my update, @Hemiauchenia, gave the reasoning that my update was already contained within the "Evolution" subsection, so there is no need to repeat. Upon further inspection, there was nothing in that section relating to the recent research I was citing. I'd like to request that my original edit (or some variation of it) is reinstated, as it is fairly recent (late 2023) and novel research of interest to the Neanderthal ancestry section. I hope this isn't inappropriate; I understand that the article is long and unwieldy. I've included this research on the Neanderthal genetics and Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans pages. Perhaps it is more appropriate for those pages than here? I am not sure. Youarelovedfool (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is far too long. It is over 16,000 words compared with the recommended limit of 10,000. I think that the topic is covered in the 'Interbreeding with modern humans' section rather than the 'Evolution' section. In view of the excessive length of the main article I think that the new finding should only be added to the Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans article, which you have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. Youarelovedfool (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)