Talk:Neanderthal#POV tag

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

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

:This is a matter for debate. The proportion of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans has declined over the last 50,000 years, and this is thought to be because some Neanderthal alleles are deleterious. The issue is whether they were beneficial in Neanderthals and deleterious in modern humans, which would indicate incompatability, or they were less fit in both species, which would mean that the modern version is superior. This is briefly discussed in Interbreeding between archaic and modern humans. See also the articles in [https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=genetic+incompatibility+between+modern+humans+and+neanderthals&btnG=]. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

While one could argue that the previous version of this article was too long given that it was well over the 8,000 word guideline, I think the current article is too short for a topic with such extensive literature covering it. Much of the article now seems bare bones. I don't think shunting most of the writing into subpages is a particularly good solution, as less than 5% of people who click on this article are then going on to read these subpages. It think there is a happy medium between the extreme length of the previous version and the current version, which is probably around 7,000-8,000 words. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:Well you also have to keep in mind the general audience of certain articles, which I think we should consider case-by-case. For a more technical or niche subject, the reader who reaches that deep into a topic is probably more inclined to read more detailed prose depending on the case. But for an article as popular as this — 1.3 million in the last year — about a generally well-known topic (that is most people have heard the word "Neanderthal" at least), the average reader is probably quickly popping in for a simple read, and would be offput by lengthy paragraphsand sections. Conversely, the average Tyrannosaurus reader probably wants a lot of random detail — like there's a reason why, say, pop culture paleo books don't bring up too much about Neanderthals (if they do at all) but will absolutely dump random and oddly specific T. rex trivia. If you're worried about the visibility of child articles, I can put {{See also}} at the top or I could make one of those "Part of a series" infoboxes. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::What kinds of details would you want to see added back? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the behaviour section should be re-expanded. I think discussing the specific kinds of prey that Neanderthals ate (e.g, highlight the most common prey items and that they were able to take prey as large as rhinoceroses, mammoths and straight-tusked elephants), as well as their consumption of specific kinds of plant/fungal food and food preparation. I also support the inclusion of more specific details of the interactions between Neanderthals and other carnivores (note: cave bears were essentially completely herbivorous, and therefore it is erroneous to describe them as carnivores as this article currently does).

::::I've expanded the Food section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the genetic section should mention that nuclear DNA taken from H. heidelbergensis found at Sima de los Huesos (c. 430 ka) have been found to be more closely related to Neanderthals than to modern humans or Denisovans [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17405]. The article also currently omits the controversy about when the H. heidelbergensis to Neanderthal transition took place, which seems pertinent to discuss somewhere in the text as many authors attribute late Middle Pleistocene European hominin remains and archaeological sites to Neanderthals than to H. heidelbergenis.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::That study says Sima de los Huesos is on the Neanderthal line instead of the Denisovan line based on nuclear DNA, the significance being it better sets an upper age limit for the Neanderthal/Denisovan split at ~430,000 years ago. The interesting thing was mitochondrial DNA says something different which is probably related to modern human introgression way later overturning Neanderthal mtDNA. I have seen really only one study try classifying a bunch of Middle Pleistocene fossils as H. neanderthalensis (which wasn't exactly a popular recommendation), I more commonly see everything in Europe classified as H. heidelbergensis either on (sensu stricto sometimes) or off (sensu lato) the Neanderthal line, or maybe like in the "Neanderthal clade" or "Neanderthal affinities", if someone is actually assigning names. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is currently 4463 words, less than half the recommended limit of 10,000. There are places people can go to for a quick overview, such as science museum websites, and several excellent books. I think that we should be catering for people who want something in between, an in depth article about a subject of major importance. This would mean getting much closer to the size limit. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agree, though the size limit per Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline seems to be around 9,000 rather than 10,000. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::I mean I can add back detail from Neanderthal behavior or Neanderthal anatomy but I don't want to reflood the page with random detail just for the sake of hitting a word count. Is there anywhere else in particular you feel the article is vague or too general? Or I guess, do you feel only the Culture section is over trimmed? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think something more substantial about their use of wooden spears, particularly the Lehringen spear is warranted. The Lehringen spear was a fully wooden (including the pointed tip) rather than a composite spear, and provides unambiguous evidence of hunting of straight-tusked elephants, the largest animals that Neanderthals encountered, rather than the ambiguous "may" that is currently used in the article. Also the lead incorrectly omits their presence in Centeal Asia and southern Siberia (Western Asia is basically the Middle East without Egypt). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with enough tangential experience reading about palaeanthropology to have a vague idea of the topic's scope but not enough specific interest to know all the details, the article definitely reads poorly in its given state. Sections feel underdeveloped, and principally unorganized. It reminds me of a C or B class article that's received various disorganized updates but lacks a strong sense of vision. In short, rather than feeling like an effective summary it kind of feels like I'm being presented with a loose assortment of semi-random information that's a bit thin taken as a whole. Given we have plenty of headroom on the wordcount, and this is an immense and importance topic, I definitely think we should look at the original version and consider some of what can be brought back. Here is my opinion on how that would be done:

The original classification and evolution sections should be brought back wholesale (and for that matter, should surely share a section rather than being half split into the history section), I think, though with the addition of the new cladogram. The classification subsection was already rather light given the famous nature of the species vs subspecies debate, and the original evolution section manages to summarize the topic very clearly and effectively while taking up a rather mild four paragraphs of space. I see no advantage to the heavily truncated version when the old one fits into our limits perfectly fine. Demographics is rather acceptable, I think; it's a simple to grasp topic and suited well to a side page as few readers will want to know more than the basics. Anatomy is probably the worst new section. It feels absolutely directionless, like a random assortment of facts conveyed out with little detail and jumping immediately into the specifics of the skull anatomy. I think adapting or lifting most of the "build" section from the original article is a far better way to cut down on the length while giving a general picture of their appearance, with some entry-level summaries of the other topics. The brain section should also have been a priority to preserve as an obvious area of public interest.

The culture section was rightly targeted for the heaviest removals, but I think it went a little too far. Absolutely enormous subsections were each cut down to a small set of fragments. You could achieve an effective level of wordcount reduction while stile dedicating three to five solid paragraphs to each of social structure, food, arts, and technology much more effectively capturing a summarized window into each of these topics. The interbreeding section (which again, should surely be with classification and evolution) feels rather curt, but I think it's the least egregious section in this respect and can probably be left alone pending how the size turns out with other sections re-expanded. Extinction, on the other, just isn't acceptable in its current state to me. This is one of the most obvious questions about the species readers are going to have and there's hardly enough room to say anything than just "it happened". The amount of space dedicated to unpacking the burning question of why they went extinct occupies a space that is measured in individual sentences. I think all of these measures could be implemented while keeping the article within reasonable size limits. Take the advice or ignore it, but that's my two cents. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:I concur with LLL's assessment and support the implementation of her recommendations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::Well for the Anatomy section, I can just redirect Neanderthal anatomy back here and copy/paste everything over. That'd be like a little over a 2,000 word increase so the article would still be well under your recommended word count Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with LLL on the extinction section. The lead starts with the generally accepted date of c.40,000 BP, but then says that the Neanderthals may have survived for several thousand years longer in Gibraltar, which is now rejected. The extinction section also has outdated comments on Iberia, and is a random selection of comments. I think this section could be usefully expanded as a summary of the Neanderthal extinction article. I am reluctant to get involved in writing as I have very limited access to sources, but I did write the interbreeding section of the extinction article (a separate topic from interbreeding generally) based on sources recommended at my email request by Chris Stringer. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Ping|LittleLazyLass}} any thoughts on the current state of the article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• Considering how long this got, I'll be submitting this to PR in the near future so there's enough space for everyone to discuss how this article should look like Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

What's this still doing here? Neanderthals have been their own species (homo neanderthalensis) for a while now. The name "H. sapiens neanderthalensis" was the name from they were considered a subspecies of humans, so I propose that we remove it from here and put it under Etymology instead. Vangaurden (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:The term is still used. See [https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_ylo=2021&q=%22Homo+sapiens+neanderthalensis%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5]. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Many of those articles actually agree that "Homo neanderthalensis" is appropriate and "Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis" does not make sense. ([https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379123000239 here] [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC337021/ here] [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/neanderthals-and-modern-humans-must-be-classed-as-separate-speci.html but this is also a good article on it]) But likewise, just because some articles use it does not mean it makes sense or is scientifically accurate, given even this article states that homo neanderthalensis originate from Homo Heidelbergensis with Homo Sapiens, so Neanderthals don't even originate from Homo Sapiens, hence why it is inappropriate to call them that for this article Vangaurden (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Also see [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2021&q=%22homo+sapiens+neanderthalensis%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44 all of these hits] on google scholar about H. sapiens neanderthalensis since 2021 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The top results don't even have "homo sapiens neanderthalensis", many of those results are literally papers that say [https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-052621-024752 Homo sapien neanderthalensis has fallen out of date with scientists], or are not anthropological papers (like genetics papers that just mention it as one of the known names) Vangaurden (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::At least for me, the first one brings up H. s. neanderthalensis as a controversial designation, and the rest (like [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2024.01.017 this]) use it without issue Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'll fix this issue, so please if someone can change the links to either become red or link to any related articles, then do. Abdullah raji (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Please list which ones you have an issue with. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::-Tighennif

::-Petralona

::-Saint-Césaire Abdullah raji (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Got it. I've dab'd them as (fossil) - someone else can track down better destinations, but at least these aren't going to the wrong place now. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

This sentence, in the Evolution section, seems to me to be a typo: "Neanderthals and Denisovans are more closely related to each other than they are to modern humans, meaning the Neanderthal/Denisovan split occurred even earlier."

If ""Neanderthals and Denisovans are more closely related" then their split must have occurred even later.

However, I am neither a paleo-anthropologist nor a paleo-geneticist, so am reluctant to make the change myself, in case there is some weird fluke of which I am unaware. However, when I ask google when the split occurred between Homo Sapiens and N/Ds, the top response it about 500Ka while when I ask about the N/D split, the top response is 300Ka-400Ka. The second masked avenger (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ETA: The cladogram here agrees with my point, showing the N/D split to be later than the HN/HS split (The dates shown are only roughly the same as the ones I mention above).

:And you'd be right. Looks like something got mixed up with the mtDNA suggesting Neanderthals share a closer last common ancestor with modern humans instead of Denisovans. I've fixed it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Dunkleosteus77}} you have reverted my change dating the emergence of Neanderthals 130,000 years ago to 400,000 years ago with the comment "H. neanderthalensis did not emerge 400,000 years ago". The Smithsonian at [https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis] and the Natural History Museum at [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-neanderthals.html] both date them as 400,000 to 40,000 years ago. 130,000 years ago, which is the date you have reverted to, is far later than any date I have seen. What source do you have for saying that they emerged so late?

You have restored the comment in the lead that they may have survived thousands of years longer than 40,000 years ago in Gibraltar. This appears to be based on one recent article at [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.3252]. All other recent sources I am aware of reject the late Gibraltar survival, and one article is insufficient to be referenced in the lead, although it may be worth a footnote.

You have also restored the statement that the 120,000 to 140,000-year-old Israeli Nesher Ramla population may represent one of the Neanderthal refugia which repopulated Europe after the Penultimate Glacial Period. The source at [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh3169] does not say this. It says that Nesher Ramla represents a late survival of an earlier homo which may have interbred with the Neanderthals.

{{u|Mike Christie}} you have worked extensively on radiocarbon dating. What is your view on these points? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:I should have time to take a look at this later this weekend. Radiocarbon dating is only useful up to about 50,000 years ago, though, so I doubt it will be relevant here. It sounds like this is more about which sources represent the current consensus on dating? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:The timing of the transition between Neanderthals and their ancestor Homo heidelbergensis is ultimately ambiguous and arbitrary and varies between different researchers, but a lot of researchers do indeed place the transition during the late Middle Pleistocene prior to the onset of the Late Pleistocene, so I can't say I agree with D77 here, but I don't think the NHM and the Smithsonian are the best sources, and we should be citing the academic literature for this sort of information. If Dunkleosteus77 can find a source for Neanderthals being exclusively Late Pleistocene, we should present both views, with a sentence like {{tq|"some researchers consider Neanderthals to exclusively date to the Late Pleistocene after 130,000 years ago, while other researchers suggest that the earliest Neanderthals date to the late Middle Pleistocene from around 400-300,000 years ago onwards, which other researchers attribute to Homo heidelbergensis}} Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Some researchers, such as Stringer, no longer think that H. Heidelbergensis is the ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals. See [https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2824%2900663-8]]. The dating of the origin of the Neanderthals is, as you say, disputed. Most researchers put it at around 400,000 years ago, eg. Rebeccca Wragg Sykes, Kindred, p. 19 says that they became a distinct population around 400-450,000 years ago. Trenton Holliday, Cro-Magnon, p. 49 disputes Stringer's view that the 430,000 Sima de los Huesos hominims are Neanderthal on the ground that, although they are clearly ancestral, the full suite of features are not seen until the 230,000 Ehringsdorf fossils. Putting the origin this late seems to be very much a minority view. I do not agree that the Smithsonian and NHM are not the best sources. They are leading centres of research on human origins. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't disagree that the researchers working at those institutions are some of the foremost experts in the field, but I think that museum website blogposts are lesser sources than peer reviewed academic works for topics like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Dunkleosteus77 this is also incredibly bizarre, as when you unilaterally split out Sima de los Huesos hominins from the H. heidelbergensis article about two weeks ago your opening sentence for the article was {{tq|The Sima de los Huesos hominins are a 430,000 year old population of archaic Neanderthals from the archeological site of Atapuerca, Spain}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sima_de_los_Huesos_hominins&oldid=1288271363] Why do you have such a strong opinion about this if you aren't even consistent about when Neanderthals originated in your own edits? I have found many of your recent edits/and condensations in archaic human articles to be careless and sloppy, like you did not properly check the sources or did not do enough literature research. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• This article is about the species Homo neanderthalensis, not the entire Neanderthal clade which is where that 400,000 date comes from. The Sima de los Huesos hominins are excluded from H. neanderthalensis and are beyond the scope of this article. Per https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253958 "the present analysis has shown that they [Sima de los Huesos] differ from Neandertals in several cranial regions that are considered taxonomically diagnostic of H. neanderthalensis. We argue the SH p-deme is sufficiently different from H. neanderthalensis as to be considered a separate taxon". Per https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.25190 "Direct comparison of the enlarged mandibular sample from Atapuerca (SH) with the Mauer mandible, the type specimen of H. heidelbergensis, reveals important differences from the SH hominins, and there is no morphological counterpart of Mauer within the SH sample, suggesting the SH fossils should not be assigned to this taxon...the combined anatomical and genetic evidence suggests the Atapuerca SH hominins share a close evolutionary relationship with, but remain distinct from, the Neandertals." I would caution against using a website source that was probably last updated in 2012 when that wing of the museum opened. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3252 is the only one cited after late-survival in Gibraltar because it gives the full overview of the debate. I mean I can certainly expand on the evolution of the Ebro river frontier hypothesis and related models, and the issues of dating sites to this time interval, but to claim it's a fully debunked fringe theory is just untrue Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Chris Stringer is one of the world's leading authorities on Neanderthals and he says 400,000 to 40,000 at [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-neanderthals.html]. The Smithsonian says the same in a referenced article (not a blog) at [https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis]. Steve Parker ed. Evolution the whole story p. 557 says 350,000; Svante Paabo Neanderthal Man, p. 208, 350-400,000 to 30,000 (this was in 2014, before the redating of the extinction); Paul Pettitt, Homo Sapiens Rediscovered, pp. 72, 74, no date for emergence but occupied Levant from 300,000 years ago and disappeared by 40,000; Anne Gibbons, Science at [https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.372.6548.1251], genomes of Neanderthals sequenced dating to between 400,000 and 50,000 years ago; Reilly et al, Current Biology [https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)01304-5], 400,000-40,000 years ago. The mainstream view of leading experts is 400,000 to 40,000. Some experts do not think that the early Sima fossils should be classed as H. Neanderthalis, but that is very much a minority view. I only know of one recent paper which dates survival after 40,000. It is not fringe and I did not say so, but it has not been accepted by other experts so far as I know, and so should not be more than a footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::And in that article notice how Stringer says "Neanderthal-like" instead of just Neanderthal. He does this in other places too, like https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03244-5. The date of 300,000 years in the Levant is clearly in reference to the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex of specifically Tabun Cave and Qesem Cave, and he's being a little reductionist for brevity's sake since it looks like Pettitt's only saying that claim in passing. This technocomplex is normally described as "pre/ante/early-Neanderthal" which means in the "Neanderthal clade". And maybe the Sima de los Huesos being a separate taxon was a minority view a decade ago when all of your sources were written. I just gave you sources from last year. Like Paabo's book came out a few months before Arsuaga and colleagues for the first time decided to separate the Sima de los Huesos hominins completely from H. neanderthalensis and heidelbergensis; which resolved what Paabo pointed out in his mtDNA study a few months before publishing that book where he calls the designation of the Sima de los Huesos as heidelbergensis problematic. It's also published 2 years before the nDNA study where Paabo describes the Sima de los Huesos as "related to the ancestors of Neanderthals" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think you are right about the 430,000 year old Sima. Recent papers describe it as Neanderthal-like. But the 400,000 date is still widely accepted. It is given in the Stringer interview, in the Smithsonian article, and the recent papers I have cited above by Gibbons and Reilly et al. Of course, all paleontologists would agree that as the change was gradual, a definitive date cannot be given. Most think that 400,000 as an approximate figure is reasonable. Stringer no longer thinks that Heidelbergensis was an ancestor, but I do not know how widely his new view is accepted. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The approximate 400,000 year date is in reference to Sima de los Huesos, and again they're not saying that's when H. neanderthalensis appears, they're saying that's when this lineage starts evolving in Europe (so again, Neanderthal clade vs classic Neanderthal). For instance, in https://doi.org/10.48738/2022.iss2.130 2022, Stringer has a section here called "NEANDERTHALS EVOLVED IN EUROPE FOR AT LEAST 400 KA YEARS" and he starts it off by talking about Sima de los Huesos but describes them as, "Analyses of these bones and teeth suggested that they could be early relatives of the Neanderthals, and this conclusion was supported in 2016 when ancient DNA was recovered from one of the SH fossils, placing it on the Neanderthal lineage." So, not Neanderthal, but early relative / Neanderthal lineage. As for heidelbergensis, I'm not really sure which study you're referencing, but in this study he says (in the same section) "in our view, there is currently not enough evidence to establish the exact nature of our LCA with the Neanderthals from about 600 ka, nor where it lived" after discussing facially-derived and late-surviving heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis. As in, he's not outright rejecting heidelbergensis as the LCA, he's just saying at the moment there isn't enough evidence to make a compelling argument for what the LCA is. The previous year https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03244-5 he already rejected these kinds of specimens as a potential LCA candidate "It is impossible to identify any early Middle Pleistocene fossils as definitively representing the common ancestral population for H. sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans, but it is possible to identify groups that probably are not, namely Asian H. erectus, facially derived H. heidelbergensis across Africa and West Eurasia, and the Neanderthal-like Sima de los Huesos hominins." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have pointed out four reliable sources which say 400,000. It is not for Wikipedia editors to reject the date on the basis of cherry-picking sources which use slightly different language. The date is not just based on Sima. Stringer says the 400,000 year old Swanscombe fossil "is generally regarded as belonging to an early Neanderthal woman" in the NHM article at [https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-neanderthals.html]. A few experts, such as Holliday, put the date later, but none at 130,000 years ago, which is the date you reverted to in your edit.

::::::My comment about Stringer rejecting heidelbergensis as an ancestor is based on an article in Current Biology in 2024 at [https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2824%2900663-8]: "I had the view for a long time that it was the common ancestor of us and Neanderthals about 500,000 years ago. Now I think that’s unlikely and that the common ancestor lived further back and did not look like heidelbergensis." Dudley Miles (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And I just pointed out to you that your pop-science sources are oversimplifying for a less technical audience. And if you stopped cherrypicking such non-technical sources and quick, nonchalant interviews to explain a pretty technical idea, you'd also figure out that Stringer is not claiming Swanscombe is H. neanderthalensis but, like Sima de los Huesos, part of the Neanderthal lineage. For instance https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3137 2019 "the Swanscombe skull (UK, about 400 ka – a possible Neanderthal ancestor)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You cite Stringer saying a posssible Neanderthal ancestor in 2019. By 2024 he had decided that Swanscombe is an early Neanderthal and that Heidelbergensis is not an ancestor. We have to go by the sources, and I have cited journal articles for 400,000 as well as an interview setting out his current views. You have not cited sources for a later date, or given any date apart from 130,000 in your revert edit. {{u|Hemiauchenia}} what do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::At least on WP:PALEO, there is a general convention to stay away from pop-science magazines, the news, and interviews. This is because they are a quick, simplistic, generalist, non-technical overview of the subject, which as discussed in #Overtrimmed? is not why people come to Wikipedia. More pertinent, per WP:WPNOTRS we should stay away from primary sources. An interview is a primary source Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84805-6 This paper] has an interesting discussion: {{quote|{{tq|Morphological and genetic data indicate that the Neanderthal clade emerged after 700 thousand years ago (ka), and mosaics of Neanderthal morphological features appear in the European fossil record ca. 450 ka during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 12. Archaeological assemblages dated to MIS 11–10 include technological innovations developed by populations within the H. neanderthalensis lineage, and advanced flake-based industries (e.g., the Levallois technological system) emerge by at least MIS 8 (ca. 300 ka). Hominins unequivocally recognizable as morphologically Neanderthal were present in Europe by MIS 7, ~ 200 ka.}}}}

:::::::::It seems that at minimum, the date for the emergence of Neanderthals should be placed at 200 ka, not 130 ka. It would be useful to have a paraphrase of something like this in the text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The paper says that populations morphologically Neanderthal were present in Europe 200 ka. It does not say that early Neanderthals were not Neanderthals. Indeed it says that "Middle Paleolithic Neanderthal populations occupied Eurasia for at least 250,000 years prior to the arrival of anatomically modern humans." This puts their origin over 300,000 years ago. A primary source is a research paper (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP), not an interview with an expert which explains their views. The interview was in Current Biology, which is not a pop-science magazine, and I cannot find anything in WP:PALEO about staying away from interviews. WP:RS cautions against "news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs,[20] especially those which do not interview independent experts", implying that interviews with experts are reliable sources. A summary of the sources might be that early Neanderthals date to around 400,000 years ago, and classic Neanderthals around 200,000 years ago. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I did say "at minimum", which was referencing Dunk's 130 kyr date for the emergence of Neanderthals. What that bit at RS is referring to is churnalism news reporting that takes the latest scientific studies as gospel and doesn't ask other uninvolved scientists for comment. What "interview" means in this context is that they asked uninvolved scientists for comment. It's not a blanket statement suggesting that interviews with scientists are reliable, and indeed I'd strongly reject the view that non-peer reviewed interviews should be used in preference to peer reviewed publications. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The interview primarily references Stringer's comment that he no longer believes that Heidelbergensis is an ancestor, which confirms what I have heard him say in a lecture. The 400,000 is based on sources which include two journal articles and a Smithsonian article, all of which I have linked above. Looking at the sources again, 300,000 to 400,000 would be better than a straight 400,000. The only source I know who says less than that is Holliday, who says 230,000. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Stringer, while somewhat prominent, is but one of hundreds of researchers who work on Neanderthals. It's hardly a field that dominanted by a handful of specialists (as some fields of paleontology defintely are) such that we would want to look to look to the opinion of one person to settle what is obviously an ambiguous issue and contentious issue such as this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::There's a distinction between "early Neanderthals" from MIS7 and MIS5e and "late Neanderthals" (or in other words, "classic Neanderthals"), but yes it is true that is neanderthalensis, so I'll add MIS 7 and expand on it in Evolution (right now it only specifically mentions "classic Neanderthals"). Interviews are still primary sources no matter where they're published. We also try staying away from these and additionally news sources because authors can make claims here that otherwise wouldn't have survived the peer review process. A research paper is a secondary source because it goes through the peer review process. That's why we can't use predatory journals or pre-prints which haven't gone through a peer review, because those are still primary sources. As for the date of 400,000 years ago, refer to my previous comment about https://doi.org/10.48738/2022.iss2.130 Stringer, 2022 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

A research paper is regarded by Wikipedia as a primary source. See WP:RS, which says "For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." Your comments do not address my citation above of journal articles which give 400,000 as the origin, which are primary sources according to these criteria, but as reliable as the sources you cite. It may be best to refer the question to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is quite a strange stance from someone who is advocating that we use interviews as sources. [https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.25550 This 2024 paper] makes a distinction between "{{tq|Preneanderthals (≈MIS 14-9) [from around 500,000 until around 300,000 years ago) , Early Neanderthals (MIS 7-5e) [~250,000-115,000 years ago), and Late Neanderthals (MIS 5d-3) [115,000-40,000 years ago]}}", which could be useful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I am not sure why you think it is strange. There is disagreement what sources should be considered reliable according to Wikipedia criteria, and it would be helpful to get expert advice. The paper you cite puts Early Neanderthals later than any other source I have seen, and so is a relevant contribution. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Neanderthal/archive3}}