Talk:Ardi

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethiopia: History and politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by History and politics (assessed as High-importance). Primates High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

A fact from Ardi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 October 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Discovery Channel called Ardi, "The evidence that Darwin could only have dreamed of"? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/October.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Orosas (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Shalibalba, Cornyon, Robinkucr.

The Discovery Channel quote is from advertisements for their program. Does an ad really qualify as a reliable source? I think an ad would tend toward hyperbole and in general wouldn't qualify as a valid source. Mr. Darcy talk 17:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I've removed the content in question, which seemed impertinent anyways. Emw (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil articles always need pictures :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.50.17 (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a really important one, too. Why are there no pictures? It really needs at least one. Broodoobob (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added an artist's rendition of what Ardi would have looked like when she was alive... Still looking for a picture of the actual fossil though! cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added an image of the skeleton from the original Science article (Fair Use). Chic happens (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The claims of bipedality, the date of 4.4 Million years and relationship to Homo/Australopithecus are debated. That debate or disagreement has to be reflected in this article. The lack of neutrality is reflected by most citations being to only one source (papers from 2009 Science issue). V madhu (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there aren't much sources, since it's only a year that the first reports are available. 84.222.237.27 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

V madhu, can you provide references that clearly state that these are debated? If you can provide references, then we can add them where they belong in the article, and the tags will go. If not, then your comments are WP:OR and the tags will go. As of now, the article meets WP:RS and WP:V. Edhubbard (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edhubbard, please give me a little time to compile a mini list of citations in support and in disagreement with specific parts of this article. Nevertheless, the fact that all citations in this article are from the same group and issue of Science is of concern, especially because the literature on this topic is extremely large and old. V madhu (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction: In the header the statement is made that Ardi "cannot be a common ancestor of Chimpanzees and humans". However, in the Archaeology section, it says that "it is not known whether Ardi's species developed into Homo sapiens".

Duplification: Also in the header is this quote "The canine teeth of A. ramidus are smaller, and equal in size between males and females. This suggests reduced male-to-male conflict, pair-bonding, and increased parental investment.[4]". This quote is then repeated in the Anatomy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.109.251 (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a contradiction. He could be an ancestor of humans but not of chimpanzees. Also the lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article so it is supposed to repeat som of the material from the body of the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it also notable that Ardi was being promoted as a "Missing Link" in human evolution at one time, but later became disproved? 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one serious has promoted him as a missing link (paleoanthropologists stopped using that word decades ago) - and there has also been no such "disproof".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is the skull bones assembled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ardi.jpg

Should probably be added to the article. I would do it myself, but I'm not sure how. 62.212.129.214 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ardi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091105230304/http://will.illinois.edu/focus580/interview/focuso91104b/ to http://will.illinois.edu/focus580/interview/focuso91104b/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130228131344/http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/ardipithecus.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/ardipithecus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase sounds strange -- Ardi is related to Homo Sapiens as all species on the tree of life are. Presumably it's uncertain whether Ardi is a direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens... AnonMoos (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]