Talk:Neanderthal behavior
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neanderthal behavior article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A fact from Neanderthal behavior appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 July 2010. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Violence
Remove reference to evidence of violence. One skull is frankly and shockingly insufficient evidence on which to base such a statement. 166.181.87.93 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a scientific textbook. That skull was written about in the peer-reviewed literature and presented as evidence. That constitutes a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense). We do not claim that Neanderthals were violent and it is not our place to decide whether evidence is sufficient. Unless it can be validly argued that the paper would be given Undue Weight, we are in principle bound to reflect it. "It's only one skull" is not much of an argument because the skull can be placed within context, e.g. other indications of intraspecific violence, such as specimen Shanidar3.--MWAK (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- "We are in principle bound to reflect it" seems odd reasoning referring to a popular book by a non-expert. For good reasons, we chiefly aim to cover the current scientific consensus within any given field, including major areas of disagreement. WP:FRINGE theories may occasionally be mentioned shortly, as long as they are clearly labelled as such, but we certainly don't "have to" mention them. Gawaon (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I fear there has been a misunderstanding. My remarks were meant to answer 166.181.87.93's demand to "Remove reference to evidence of violence" which in turn was a reaction to C.P.E. Zollikofer; M.S. Ponce de León; B. Vandermeersch & F. Lévêque (2002). "Evidence for interpersonal violence in the St. Césaire Neanderthal". PNAS. 99 (9): 6444–6448. Certainly Vendramini's sensationalist book can be safely disregarded :o). I took the liberty of inserting a new heading.--MWAK (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 17 August 2026
 | It has been proposed in this section that Neanderthal behavior be renamed and moved to Neanderthal behaviour. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Neanderthal behavior → Neanderthal behaviour – Not sure about WP:MOS on this, but since the article used EN-UK spellings, should we also rename it? 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 13:36, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Support This seems like a reasonable proposition. I don't have a rationale that would keep a title and article body at different language variants. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)