Talk:Homo longi

Requested move 26 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. A substantial portion of this discussion was devoted to debating norms of taxonomy and nomenclature in science, which as far as I can tell have no role in our article titling policy. The closest I could find was WP:FAUNA, which, though not cited in the discussion, contradicts the idea that we should be guided by formal scientific naming conventions. To the extent that arguments were grounded in existing policy, there was no agreement on which title is the common name, with reasonable arguments being made for both titles. The nominator's argument that Homo longi should be preferred per WP:QUALIFIER was not contested, but since few other participants mentioned it this was apparently not persuasive enough on its own. Since there is no consensus on what the best title is at this time, the current title should be retained. If there's to be further discussion, I'd suggest that confining it to the article title policy is more likely to produce a clear result. – Joe (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Dragon Man (archaic human) → Homo longi – The specimen has been officially named in a peer reviewed paper, and Dragon Man requires disamb which should be avoided per WP:QUALIFIER. Of course it is unclear how well this nomen will be received, but we should assume good faith unless overwhelming consensus has deemed this species invalid.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. The article began as a page on the example, and has now developed into speculation (?) on the species. Whether its too soon to assume a species, have no idea. Not my area. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's been officially declared a species in peer reviewed papers, certainly not a case of WP:TOOSOON   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Has an official name, using it is better than this disambig.  Nixinova   T   C   02:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, there is a very high likelihood that this is not a species (and not new to science), as can be seen in secondary sourcing, already. There's no such thing as an official name, and Homo longi is fine as a redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 04:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: There is no secondary sourcing as no responses have been published. A taxonomic opinion is invalid if the person has never even studied the skull before. If you declare a specimen to be a new species and you publish this in a peer reviewed paper, congratulations, you've officially coined a taxon. As to whether it's valid, further discussion will tell, but certainly there's no such thing as an open/shut case in anthropology. That'd be like moving Homo floresiensis to "LB1" because some people in the Scientific American article said it was an individual with down syndrome before anything had gotten published, and even when it did get published, we kept the article at the species name, because we require evidence of overwhelming consensus that a name is rejected, not accepted, like what happened to Herto Man/H. s. idaltu or Nanotyrannus  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The situation with Homo floresiensis was the reverse of this, with the local scientist saying it wasn't a species and the secondary sources saying it was. This thing is deeply embedded in our lineage and is either mis-dated or previously described. Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Its validity is not for us to decide. Currently, a new species has been erected, and maybe a decade down the road it might fall out of use. Who knows? But until then, it is standard to use the published name   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Validity is not the correct metric, and it is for us to decide. The primary source name is already being refuted in the secondary sources, don't think that scientific articles are the only kind of secondary source. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What secondary source are you talking about? You can't have a valid taxonomic opinion on a specimen you haven't even studied, it's simply not possible. Another example is Australopithecus bahrelghazali and A. deyiremeda with a lot of (actually published) secondary sources arguing for synonymy with A. afarensis. Why don't we rename them to specimen names then? What if I just really disagree with Ardipithecus being a human ancestor, supported by some other published people who argue the same thing; should I judge it to be an invalid opinion and strike it entirely?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The primary source is the species description, and the secondary sources have headlines such as, " 'Dragon Man' may be new ancient human" and "'Dragon Man' Skull May Be Proof Of A New Human Species". Abductive (reasoning) 05:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

On the science side of Wikipedia we do not cite news articles. Those are the immediate reactions of certain scientists, and of course, literally any new human species will have its detractors, but even they recognize their taxonomic opinions are just shots in the dark until they themselves can study the specimen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh? Where is does it say that policy or guideline? Abductive (reasoning) 14:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Widely recognized convention of WP:PALEO to avoid science writers and journalists and cite only peer-reviewed published articles, because sources like CNN are not reliable authorities when it comes to such matters, and their entire knowledge is entirely constrained to those peer-reviewed published articles anyways. All you're doing risking misrepresenting the actual paper due to editorialization or sensationalism. Since it is peer reviewed it is considered a secondary source, not a primary, as other knowledgable people not connected at all to the study support its conclusions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support Reliable sources declare "Homo Longi" is indeed a species, so the article should be titled respectively. The only objections being made are trivial: some secondary sources' headlines referring to the species by the nickname "Dragon Man" is not a good reason to title the article that. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 05:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The skepticism expressed in multiple secondary sources is certainly not trivial. The headlines I mention above were to direct the other user's attention to what constitutes a secondary source, not to be the entirely of their skepticism. In fact there are many strong reasons why everybody other than the original describers (including the source you provide) are not convinced that the find is a species, or if it is, then it is either a Denisovan or Homo daliensis. Abductive (reasoning) 05:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no skepticism in the name "Homo longi" though, and that is what we are trying to decide. The incertainity of its classification is explained in the article and should not keep us from using the formal name as the title. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 07:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, if this is a Denisovan, which has no scientific name, H. longi will simply become the name of that species. Or H. s. longi, if it is later "demoted" to subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support Homo longi does not need disambiguation, "Dragon Man" does. To me, Homo longi also fulfills WP:CRITERIA better. I agree that skepticism in the secondary sources is not trivial, but as Dunkleosteus77 points out, the skeptics have yet to examine the fossil material themselves and opinions expressed in news articles and whatnot, as far as I know, do not usually count as academic responses. Without a paper objecting to the new species yet it formally remains unchallenged. Whether this could turn out to be a denisovan or a "H. daliensis" is of no consequence right now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Dragon Man is the correct article title using the commonly recognizable name for this species, readers will have difficulty locating the article if we use the scientific binomial name Homo longi. See the article examples: Human (not: Homo sapiens); Neanderthal (not: Homo neanderthalensis), Peking Man (not: Homo erectus pekinensis). Blockhouse321 (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Blockhouse321: See also Homo naledi and not Star Man, Homo floresiensis and not Flores Man, Homo luzonensis and not Luzon Man, Homo erectus and not Upright Man, Homo habilis and not Handy Man, etc. Also, if someone were to search for Dragon Man, it's a bit of a journey to actually make it to this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: This publication is less than a full 24 hours old. It took 4 years for Homo habilis to become accepted. It took 9 years for Homo floresiensis to become accepted. It took 57 years for Homo erectus to become accepted. There is a reason we wait for consensus before promoting a special name. Likewise to your point, see also Saldanha Man and not Homo saldanensis, Ceprano Man and not Homo cepranensis, Dmanisi Man and not Homo georgicus, Lantian Man and not Homo erectus lantianensis, Nanjing Man and not Homo erectus nankinensis, Solo Man and not Homo erectus soloensis, etc. etc. 47.20.177.163 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

H. saldanensis and H. cepranensis have already been phased out by overwhelming consensus. Subspecies of Homo erectus by convention are left at [place name] Man, not because the scientific name is debated (like H. e. pekinensis is well established). Homo ergaster, though not universally used, still keeps the scientific name as the title. As for H. floresiensis, even though you say it took 9 years to be accepted (so 2004–2013), the article used the scientific name since its creation in 2004 immediately after it was coined. See also Homo naledi which was created using the scientific name in 2015 immediately after being coined.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a name used in the media. Don't think it holds up as more than a nickname for now, same as with the other hominins Dunkleosteus77 mentions above. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support Even if the nickname Dragon Man is more likable for its sensationalism, the formal Homo longi fits the mentioned criteria (above) and is more educative for anyone who comes from related articles. If scientists later reach a consensus, by their own structured criteria, that this name is no longer adequate, we (the Wikipedia community) shall reconsider moving the article again to the potential new name. ACLNM (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - the scientific name seems to be more widely used now, and there is no ambiguity about what it is, unlike the nickname. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. All of the comments about validity are moot. In taxonomic practice, a species name sticks after it is created provided that it is accompanied by a proper diagnosis (which this one is). If it is found to belong to an existing species, the name still persists as a junior synonym. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, "Dragon Man" vague and not likely to be the primary topic after the hype from the news coverage dies down. John D. Hawks has an interesting video on YouTube entitled Species concepts in the hominin fossil record Where he elaborates that in paleoanthropology that species are used to describe populations and groups of specimens, rather than what we would call biological species. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The announcement is less than a day old. It is far, FAR too early to definitively state it is a chronospecies; and there is not a single case on Wikipedia (especially amongst the human fossils discovered in China) where a special name which is unconfirmed is used in place of the colloquial name: Saldanha Man, Altamura Man, Peking Man, Lantian Man, Nanjing Man, Yuanmou Man, Solo Man, the list goes on. 47.20.177.163 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

See my response to the 2nd oppose. Also the first two of your examples aren't their own taxon so clearly there isn't a unique scientific name applicable to them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support Homo longi for the scientific name to be used. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not commercial media seeking sensational headlines nor internet chatter, let's use scientific terms that will endure rather than having to list this next after "Dragon Lady". _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose calling the species "Homo longi" is unknown for some users who does not have basic knowledge in Latin language. 114.125.63.228 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a poor argument. I guess you are opposed to article names like Tyrannosaurus, Panthera and Canis as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Israeli Archaeologists Think New Chinese Hominin 'Dragon Man' May Be Homo Nesher, confirming we do not know for sure yet what the binomial name is now or in the future. Blockhouse321 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You can't "confirm" something that may or may not happen in the future. Yet again, WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FunkMonk (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a news article, not a scientific publication. "Homo Nesher" is not a scientifically described taxon. I don't see what you're getting at here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The actual publication makes a very clear point that it refuses to name a new species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the species name Nesher Ramla Homo, which might be the same species as "Homo longi", the scientists have not conclusively determined yet. When it is ascertained what species Dragon Man is we may want to consider a change. However, at Wikipedia the common name should be used, which is Dragon Man not Homo longi. Blockhouse321 (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not a scientific binomial name, so it has no bearing on Homo longi at all, just like Denisovan isn't a scientific name either. If they turn out to be the same species, Homo longi will become their scientific name, because they had none already. FunkMonk (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Blockhouse321: I've said these points several times now but it doesn't seem like it is getting across to you for some reason - your point is flawed because 1) Nesher Ramla Homo is not a species name 2) there is no academic source claiming they are a distinct species or that they are the same as H. longi (your references to this are news articles) 3) 'Dragon Man' is not a common name - it's sensationalism and a direct translation of the species name. 'Pinocchio Rex' is not the common name of the dinosaur Qianzhousaurus just because some news articles used that name for it. "Neanderthal" is the common name for Homo neanderthalensis because it has become well-established as such. To claim that 'Dragon Man' is the well-established name for this population of hominins is ridiculous, given how newly described the species is.

If we look to WP:CRITERIA, the guidelines that should be followed when selecting an article title, Homo longi is easily the correct choice. When compared to 'Dragon Man (archaic human)' it is more concise, more consistent with other hominins (see Homo heidelbergensis instead of 'Heidelberg Man', Homo rhodesiensis instead of 'Rhodesian Man' etc.) and more precise (no need for disambiguation). The last two criteria ('naturalness' and 'recognizability') cannot be determined at this time, certainly not through looking at Google hits (which goes against WP:HITS), but given that it's 3-0 I don't understand why there is a need to debate this at all. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's wait for DNA evidence. Dragon Man might turn out to be the holotype for the Denisovans.

2A00:23C8:A889:B700:2038:D882:A89B:121D (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It was washed up by a river and sat in the bottom of a well for nearly a century, there's not gonna be any DNA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

They stated in one news source they hadn't looked for DNA yet, DNA in molars can be very resilient. And again, it doesn't matter what happens down the line, WIkipedia is not a WP:crystal ball, and if it turns out to be a Denisovan, that only means the name Homo longi will become the scientific name of that species, and will be retained. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support—people aren't going to be getting here by "dragon man" any differently with such a change as you need a disambiguation. We should stick to the official name, which yes, is a real thing. After all of this sudden hype, the name usage will likely normalize anyways Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose given that publication was only two days ago, and the likelihood that this is not a new species, and we will be here again in 6 months arguing for a "X location [MAN]" title. Also, Dunkleosteus77 your sig is incredibly distracting and obnoxious; can you tone it down please as it makes it hard to parse that there are other people commenting in the discussion. Ceoil (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That it may not be a "new" species is not a problem, if it turns out to be a Denisovan, Homo longi will become the name of that species, as it has none already, and is therefore a new species name anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support While mainstream media, press, and most of people referred it as Dragon Man, the phrase cannot be used when it tells about scientific nature. In cases where there is an human species, a scientific latin name is preferred in order to avoid ambiguity. 36.77.95.183 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Homo longi will be an invalid name if this specimen turns out to be a Denisovan, as suggested by many western specialists. May already be an invalid name, when considering priority of the previous scientific name Homo daliensis. Before a possible consensus emerges among specialists, a more neutral naming could be Harbin Man, following the form of Dali Man. Keranplein (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, if H. longi is a Denisovan, it will simply became the scientific name of that yet unnamed species. "Denisovan" is not a scientific name. In any case, it's irrelevant if we think Homo daliensis could be the same taxon as this, as no one knows yet and they haven't been synonymised, and won't be for years to come, if ever. Since Wikipedia isn't a WP:crystal ball we can't and shouldn't take hypothetical future scenarios into account. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment French Wikipedia is calling it Harbin Man: [1] Thriley (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, we'd have to establish that the English media does that widely too to even consider that name. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It is important to note that this is a very recent subject. The French page was created less than 24 hours ago [2] and had just a few editors. Its talk page is currently empty [3]. From their four references [4], only one is scientific, and two of the remaining three "lay media" sources are enthusiastically clickbaiting the "dragon man" name. Once their article gets up on its feet and/or gets more attention, or more scientific papers (peer-reviewed, secondary sources) reach the French WP community, they might also come to the conclusion that they want to change the name. \\ My opinion: I do like the name Harbin Man, thanks for bringing that up. ACLNM (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: For interest only, if we take the three names/terms and compare them in the Google News results, we obtain the following:

- "Dragon Man" About 1,670,000 results (0.44 seconds)

- "Harbin Man" 5 results (0.28 seconds)

- "Homo longi" About 42,900 results (0.51 seconds)

Making the case that using the name/term "Dragon Man" for now, would be the best to aid people looking for the article in Wikipedia. Blockhouse321 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That is very misleading, exactly for the ambiguity reasons that led to this move request. "Dragon man" includes results such as "El Paso County's 'Dragon Man' could be getting cable TV show " from 2017[5], and "Marvel Contest of Champions Adds Two Quirky Fantastic Four Characters".[6] You'd have to wade through all those results to determine if these hits even refer to the fossil. Not the case with Homo longi. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, searching results prior to the announcement of the fossil in 2020 gives 244.000 hits, which can be thrown right out. So all we can say for sure is that "Homo longi" has 27,700 hits.FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:HITS is as always a terrible argument. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The way search engine algorithms work, a generic phrase will always garner more hits than a precise/specfic one. As has already been said, a lot of those hits are not in any way related to the species. So if anything that should be more reason to use the scientific name because it distinguishes the subject from unrelated topics. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - The suggested target has very little chance of being the long-term namespace. Possible outcomes: 1) a scientific consensus develops that this is a specimen of Denisovan (this is the way the first-reaction seemed to be leaning). We already have a page for that grouping, so if it is to be assigned this species name, that page, and not this page dedicated to a single specimen, would merit the name. 2) a consensus develops that it is NOT a Denisovan. However, the authors interpret it as being closer to humans than either Denisovans or Neanderthals, this just drops it right in the middle of the whole species/subspecies dispute with regard to those groups - if we can't decide Neanderthal is a separate species than humans, there is no way the analogous question will be resolved unambiguously (as indicated by assigning it a species name as namespace) for something even closer to humans. 3) it could be that the final conclusion is that is not Denisovan but also, contrary to the authors' interpretation, it is not closely related to humans, in which case all bets are off in terms of what the final resolution may be. So, the new namespace would be 1) wrong, 2) wrong, and 3) who knows? for the three options, which is not a strong recommendation for the change. Agricolae (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

All of your scenarios end with Homo longi being a valid and supported taxon. The convention of labelling recent archaic humans as H. sapiens subspecies is arbitrary and universally recognized as unimportant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Two of the three scenarios will make H. longi the wrong name for this article. If it is a Denisovan, then this article will not be about the entire species, just this specimen. Were there a consensus that Dragon man is a Denisovan, and likewise that Denisovans are a separate species and not a subspecies, that would be the time to discuss whether Denisovan should be renamed H. longi, but there is no circumstance where this specimen is Denisovan where H. longi would be the appropriate name for this page. If it is not Denisovan but closer to humans than Denisovans, then naming this page either H. longi or H. sapiens longi implies a consensus on the sub/species question that doesn't exist. It is also a false characterization to portray those who call them subspecies as 'universally recognized as unimportant' - this is the characterization of the entire debate, placing both those arguing for species and those favouring subspecies in the same boat of making a big deal over a triviality, and it also means that any possible consensus that would allow us to determine which is more appropriate is a long way off, and hence we shouldn't pick sides in naming this page. Only in the third scenario it might be a valid name, or it might not, depending on how the chips fall (e.g. Australopithecus longi - stranger things have happened in the world of taxonomy). Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how these hypotheticals make a strong argument.

1) Then Homo longi becomes the scientific name of the Denisovans (since they don't have one currently) and we'll have to discuss which page to merge where. It will take time for something like that to be published so there's no use waiting around til then with this title.

2) Then we'll handle it the same way we handle it for other taxa with debated scientific nomenclature such as the Neanderthals or Homo ergaster ???

3) I don't think this derived example of Homo will turn out to be "not closely related to humans".

Homo longi is superior from a WP policy standpoint (WP:CRITERIA). Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this move request is problematic because it has so many opposes from people who don't appear to understand how basic taxonomy works. Votes based on misconceptions should almost be disregarded. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

And I think this move request is problematic because so many of the supports are treating Wikipedia namespace usage as if it was governed by the rules of basic taxonomy. (and as to your suggestion on counting votes, I likewise think that everyone who disagrees with me shouldn't have their votes counted.) Agricolae (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

But "Dragon Man" is not a common name - it's a nickname that has so far been used for this species in the media. Should the article for the dinosaur Qianzhousaurus be under the name "Pinocchio Rex" because that name was used in some news articles? Absolutely not. Dragon Man is also not consistent with the articles for other human species, even those that are disputed (see Homo ergaster, Homo gautengensis and Homo rhodesiensis), and it is longer, because it needs disambiguation, than Homo longi. I'm not sure votes can be discarded but it is remarkable how there are so many opposing voters who 1) do not understand the principles of taxonomy and 2) who disregard the consistency in the article names on archaic humans and proto-humans. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

1) Since we have a page for Denisovans, that is the page what would bear whatever species name applies, not this page that will relate to just one specimen of Denisovan.

2) We handle it for the most analogous taxa, Neanderthal and Denisovans, by not naming the pages with a species name, but instead using a common name.

2) So the only scenario where H. longi might possibly be an appropriate name is the one you don't think is very likely at all. Well, I don't think it is very likely at all either, which is why giving this page a name that only suits an unlikely outcome is not the way to go. Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yet again, no one has demonstrated in a peer reviewed article that Homo longi is a Denisovan. Until that happens, all the above amounts to WP:crystal balling. What I told you above is simply that in the case it is shown that Denisovans and Homo longi are the same species, it will have zero effect on the name Homo longi, which will just become the species name for both. If that happens, then we can discuss whether the article should be called Denisovan or not, not before. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

1) If they are proven to be one and the same, I agree that the article should be under Denisovan. They have not been proven to be one and the same yet, however. If they were proven to be one and the same, Homo longi would become the scientific name for the Denisovans. Why should we be stuck under the poor title 'Dragon Man (archaic human)' until a hypothetical future study, which make take years to materialize?

2) Because those species have a common name. 'Dragon Man' is not a common name in the same way 'Neanderthal' or 'Denisovan' is and it's ridiculous to suggest that it is. Homo ergaster is a perfect analogue because that species is disputed - we still have the article by that name. Homo gautengensis and Homo rhodesiensis are also disputed species. You are arguing against consistent article titles, one of the key WP:CRITERIA.

3) Homo longi being not closely related to humans is not the only scenario where the name is appropriate. I don't see why you would think that. Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis are closely related to Homo sapiens but their articles are not under 'Heidelberg Man' or 'Rhodesian Man'. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. As per Abductive and others. Not particularly impressed with the argument that the scepticism expressed by several experts should be entirely swept under the carpet just because it has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.--Leptictidium (mt) 13:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

even when skepticism is published, it certainly doesn't mean the name is invalid anyways. Like the article title Homo floresiensis stayed as Homo floresiensis even when a flurry of papers were published arguing it's a modern human with a down syndrome   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• @47.20.177.163, 114.125.63.228, 2A00:23C8:A889:B700:2038:D882:A89B:121D, Ceoil, Keranplein, Agricolae, and Leptictidium: pinging all opposes whose arguments seem to be grounded in a misunderstanding of naming conventions. If the Harbin skull does represent a Denisovan, H. longi will be a valid species. If the Harbin skull does NOT represent a Denisovan, H. longi will still be a valid species. If the Nesher Ramla Homo are the same species as the Harbin skull, H. longi will still be a valid species. Yes, many scientists are talking about this on the New York Times and whatnot, but it is widely acknowledged (even among these scientists) that you cannot make a solid taxonomic opinion on a specimen you've never even studied yourself. These news articles promote sensationalism, like recently a bunch of news sites declared the Nesher Ramla Homo to be a new species "Homo Nesher Ramla" even though the actual study itself very clearly stated they did not want to erect a new species. A peer-reviewed study is a secondary source because multiple disinterested people have analyzed and supported the data. Thus, as discussed here, we do not cite science news writers because they are either primary sources when introducing the personal opinion of some scientists which haven't been peer reviewed (and therefore should be avoided), or tertiary sources when summarizing the study itself (the same standing as Wikipedia)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If the Harbin skull turns out to represent a Denisovan, then the species name H. longi should arguably be applied to the article currently titled "Denisovan", not this one. If it turns out to be a phenotypically aberrant specimen of an already known species, then H. longi no longer has a type specimen and it becomes a nomen nudum. As for the debate on news articles, while I obviously agree that peer-reviewed sources are much better than non-peer-reviewed ones, I do not think the latter can be dismissed altogether as long as they are written by experts in the field —especially when their views are echoed by other experts. Cheers.--Leptictidium (mt) 14:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not really how it works, though. Whatever happens to the name H. longi, the skull will forever be its type specimen, even if it becomes a junior synonym of something else. Similarly, the holotype skull of Nanotyrannus lancensis will forever remain the holotype of that species, even if the skull is later considered a juvenile specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex, and the name is regarded a synonym. Plenty of now junior synonyms have been based on aberrant specimens, but that doesn't make them nomina nuda. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You are describing how taxonomy works, not Wikipedia. If a consensus arises that this skull is a Denosovan, we and not going to convert the Wikipedia article Denisovan into a redirect to this page just because it is now viewed as the type specimen. We will retain the Denisovan article, while this page will continue to be a page about this particular specimen. Wikipedia does not restrict usage of species-name namespace solely for articles about types specimens. If used at all, they are used for article about the entire species, in this case the article now named Denisovan, independent of the existence of another article about the type specimen. Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Leptictidium brought up rules of taxonomy, I simply explained that their interpretation is wrong. I am talking about type species designations above, not Wikipedia titles, so your comment is irrelevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

My opposition is not related to the validity of the actual designation Homo longi. I simply believe that it is too early to definitely claim its veracity. There is no doubt in my mind that the publications which posit its subspecial nature are professional, but I am of the opinion that to claim it as fact so soon after initial publication may be counterintuitive. As of now there is rampant speculation – and while I recognize that there is a clear difference between a sensationalist source spewing nonsense and a peer-reviewed archaeological resource making educates guesses — I think its too early to say definitively that the Dragon Man is a human subspecies. I am not an expert on human evolution, I was not a part of the examination team, and as such I'm not trying to disprove the claim, I'm merely saying that we oughta wait for more follow-ups, more solid consensus, and/or at the very least a statement by the ICZN, before we make the decision to make a page for Homo longi, a species which may not ultimately become accepted. With that said I fully support Homo longi serving as a redirect to the current page – at least until the proper time to rename the 'Dragon Man' page.

tl;dr - my answer is not a no so much as it is a not yet. 47.20.177.163 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to the validity of its name how it is exactly classified, unless it is considered a synonym of something that has already been scientifically named. If it is a species, it will stay Homo longi. If it is a subspecies, it will become Homo sapiens longi or a similar variation with longi in it. But you can be pretty sure no one disagrees it belongs within the genus Homo. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If ultimately it were classified as Homo sapiens longi', we would still wait for that consensus, and keep it under 'Dragon Man' in the meantime. Why would we name it something before its classification as a valid, clarified species is officially accepted? What part of this is Arabic? 47.20.177.163 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTALBALL, all we have right now is a peer-reviewed published name. We've seen this happen before with Homo floresiensis, Homo naledi, and Homo antecessor where we named the article immediately by the published scientific name, even though CNN said Dr. XYZ doesn't agree with the name, and after subsequent studies began arguing amongst themselves over validity. Should we stay away from all scientific names entirely, because nearly all in anthropology are disputed by someone or another, and that's never going to change. There's people who recommended moving Homo habilis to Australopithecus habilis, should we move the page to "Handy Man"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support per all above. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per comments above (specially to avoid disambiguation). Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as too soon. From the various accounts I've read there is still some question as to whether this actually represents a separate species. Until there is a scientific consensus that it is a separate species, it's preferable to keep the title the correct "Dragon man" than the potentially incorrect "Homo longi". TJRC (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@TJRC: Please read the discussion we had in regard to comments like yours. Those "various accounts" from newspapers are primary sources and have no place on Wikipedia   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per all reasons above, scientific name should be preferred if there is an human species and most opposers in the discussion citing the WP:COMMONNAME guideline for an species. 180.242.42.109 (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per COMMONAME. --DreamerBlue (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: @DreamerBlue: the common name is "Dragon Man" not the scientific binomial H. longi; therefore, you would Oppose not Support. Blockhouse321 (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

With that interpretation of COMMONNAME, we'd have to move Homo habilis to "Handy Man"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out to you (though you refused to respond?) 'Dragon Man' is not the common name for this species. You have not provided any evidence that it is. It's a name used for sensationalism purposes in media headlines and a direct translation of the species name. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the numerous reasons enumerated, and per ambiguity guidelines.--Kevmin § 21:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Strong support for Harbin Man or Harbin Skull as neutral names. Keep in mind that due to the short genetic distance Neanderthals and Denisovans max be subspecies of the same species, it may not be reasonable that the Denosovans will ever be a species for theit own, esp. not a Homo longi (however maybe a Homo neanderthalensis longi ;-) ) --Ernsts (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

extinct species aren't defined in the same ways living ones are because all we have to go on is skeletal anatomy which we can demonstrate among today's biodiversity is not the most telling indicator when you get that specific. Extinct species and subspecies are more to identify a population in a certain time and region as opposed to another to make discussion flow smoother, and the lines between species and subspecies can blur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I am not aware that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) has approved and recognized the binomial Homo longi. Blockhouse321 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: One thing that concerns me, though I am not aware of any relevant policies, is that Blockhouse321 does not appear to have any previous editing history in human evolution, or paleontology (and by extension taxonomy etc.) in general, and many of the voters opposing the move to the more correct Homo longi were personally invited by Blockhouse321 to take part in this discussion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Out of these invited editors, Lepticitidium has some paleontology experience, but Abductive, Agricolae and Ceoil do not appear to have edited paleontology articles prior and Keranplein has no editing history before June 27. There is of course also the issue that Blockhouse321 refuses to reply to me asking for evidence that 'Dragon Man' fulfills WP:COMMONNAME (and any other queries I asked them). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I first voted in this discussion before Blockhouse321 left me a message on my talk page. As far as I remember, Blockhouse and I had never even interacted before that. Furthermore, he did not invite me to take part in this discussion, but in the other one, the one about removing H. longi from the article altogether. I do have "some palaeontology experience" here, but especially on the Catalan Wikipedia, where I've written and translated quite a few featured articles on palaeontology, including my namesake. My understanding of what would happen to H. longi if its holotype were to be assigned to an existing species may or may not be 100% accurate, but it is rather patronising to imply that everyone who opposes the move is here because some other user called them in.--Leptictidium (mt) 10:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted. Looks like the other invites were sent afterwards as well so I apologize for misrepresenting the events. That was not my intention. It looked fishy to me considering that many of them lacked previous paleontology editing histories, I should have double-checked the dates. I've struck out these portions of my above comment and I've also struck out the mention of Keranplein, who does appear to have extensive editing history with human evolution on the French Wikipedia. Apologies again. I still maintain that several of the opposing votes, including Blockhouse321, whose zeal is admirable but difficult for me to understand, are not experienced with the topic at hand and that keeping the article under 'Dragon Man (archaic human)' violates WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME, among others, as well as going against the internal consistency of the archaic human articles. I've yet to receive a satisfactory response to that from any of the opposing voters. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As it has been several days since the last discussion of this topic, and the 7-day minimum period has transpired, and then some, I made final tally. The count is 16 support to 10 oppose for moving the page to Homo longi. All there is to do now is wait for an admin or other authorized user to make the proper move. 47.20.177.163 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Size

Do any of the sources estimate the height or weight of the individual? It should be in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 14:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You can't estimate height and weight based only on a skull   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Since only a skull is known, this is almost impossible/pointless to try to deduce. Anyhow, the paper is freely available[7], so it's easy to just take a look, but the answer is no. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on using news articles as sources

Should news sources be used in this article in addition to journal sources? —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 15:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion resolved June 2021✓

Remove Homo longi from the Article

Hello friends,

With respect, at this point in time there is not enough evidence to support that Dragon Man is a new species warranting the scientific binomial Homo longi. I believe that we should remove Homo longi from the article completely. Scientists have stated publically that Dragon Man might be Nesher Ramla Homo [8] or it might be Denisovan [9] or it might be Dali Man [10]. In addition, uncertainties about the fossil’s exact age are casting doubt on the findings [11]. Prof John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison states “I think it’s a bad moment in science to be naming new species among these large-brained humans that all interbred with each other"...“What we are repeatedly finding is that the differences in looks didn’t mean much to these ancient people when it comes to breeding.” [12] Blockhouse321 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you please read the above discussions before making drastic suggestions based on misconceptions and ignorance of basic taxonomy? For the, what, sixth time, neither the Nesher or Denisovan fossils have a scientific name yet, so it is absolutely irrelevant to the validity of H. longi whether they turn out to be the same species or not. If that happens, they will become Homo longi, because that is the oldest available binomial for the species. Repeating these same misconceptions over and over while ignoring what has been explained to you multiple times doesn't exactly help your case. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts, you are speculating about the future. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions; Wikipedia does not predict the futureWP:Crystal Balling. Blockhouse321 (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that the Denisovans and Nesher fossils don't have scientific names, and the only speculation is yours that these common names will have any effects on a scientific name, which is simply impossible. Please explain to us exactly how their lack of scientific names can affect the validity of the binomial H. longi. There is no taxonomic mechanism for this, unless Denisovans and Nesher fossils are shown to belong to a species that was scientifically named before H. longi. This is very, very basic taxonomy, not original research or whatever. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Blockhouse, speculating H. longi will be completely invalidated in the near future based on the unverified opinions of people in random news sites is crystal balling. If the Neshler Ramla Homo are H. longi, then they will be also discussed in this article since H. longi would still be a completely valid species. If it's a Denisovan, then H. longi is still a valid species. John Hawks himself says that you shouldn't make taxonomic opinions on fossils you've never studied   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Note here how User:Dunkleosteus77 uses Wikilawyering techniques to attempt to casually insert his—and only his—belief that comments in major newspapers by actual scientists are "unverified opinions of people in random news sites" and that this should be stricken from his precious article. Abductive (reasoning) 20:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

We literally just had a discussion about why we can't use science news writers. You were there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. On June 25th were published in The Innovation journal 3 articles written by 3 teams, mainly composed of chinese co-authors. The second article relates the Harbin skull to the Xiahe mandible, which has been proved to be Denisovan by a paleoproteomic research. This strongly supports the idea that the Harbin skull might also be a Denisovan specimen. The cladistic analysis proposed in the second article is contradicted by the current paradigm, based on paleogenetic research, which says that the Denisovans are more closely related to Neandertals than to Homo sapiens. There is some suspicion that the Chinese authors may have been driven by non scientific considerations, when proposing a scheme relating the Middle Paleolithic Chinese fossils (including Xiahe, Harbin, Dali,...) more closely to Homo sapiens than to Neandertals. As long as there is no confirmation by American or European specialists of the validity of these Chinese articles, it would be unwise to take them like good bread. Keranplein (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

— Keranplein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(Keranplein is active on the French Wikipedia https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Keranplein)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't a purely Chinese team; for example, Chris Stringer's name's on there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"Although there is excitement at the possibility that the Harbin skull might be Denisovan, there is less enthusiasm about the decision to officially name it as a new species. Five members of the research team, including Ni – but not Stringer – co-authored an accompanying paper in which they established it as H. longi." [13] Blockhouse321 (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

But yet again, that has absolutely no consequence for the scientific name H. longi, because the Denisovan species has not yet been scientifically named, "Denisovan" is just a nickname. If they turn out to be the same species, then H. longi is the oldest available name for that species, and that is what the Denisovans will be called scientifically. In the event that the Denisovan species was scientifically named for example H. denisova tomorrow, and the two species were shown to be the same next week, H. longi would win out because it was named first, due to nomenclatural priority. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Surely Homo daliensis has priority? Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If someone proposes their synonymy in print. But if/until that happens, the suggestion doesn't exist scientifically. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

that entirely depends if the Dali skull is included in that group   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

At the moment Homo daliensis doesn't "exist scientifically", but if all the specimens were to be synomynized, Homo daliensis would have priority. That's all I'm asking. Abductive (reasoning) 18:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"Denisovan" is an informal name. There is no "H. denisovensis" or whatever. Please understand the principle of priority. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The article needs to reflect the scientific consensus. So, if Hawks says he disagrees with the assignment of the term H. longi to this specimen, the article still has to mention the name H. longi to explain that. I preferred it when the word "putative" appeared before the first use of the word species. "Putative" is a good word, indicating doubt but also that it might very well be true. Abductive (reasoning) 17:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

But there is no peer-reviewed, published doubt, so scientifically the doubt doesn't exist yet, and including it here would give WP:undue weight to unreliable sources. Off-hand comments in the press don't count for anything at all in taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion counts less than Hawks. He is putting his professional reputation on the line, with all the danger that entails. His opinion should be prominently featured in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not offering my "opinion". I'm telling you how scientific consensus and taxonomy works. Whether Hawk's opinion should be included or not is besides the point of this section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem to be getting across: a species once validly named remains valid until there is a formal taxonomic act to declare it as something else (junior synonym, dubious, or other). Those are the rules, this is not subjective. The burden is on Hawks to create a taxonomic act that sinks the name H. longi. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Even Hawks would disagree with you because, as I keep trying to tell you, you can't have a valid taxonomic opinion on a taxon you haven't studied yourself   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment I agree with @FunkMonk in that the lack of scientific consensus has no correlation to whether or not the name Homo Longi will be used for the prospective species. However, I think there are several sources, such as the aforementioned Innovation journal, that are strong reasons to include the wording @Abductive suggests, since it is technically not a confirmed species but rather a presumptive one. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 01:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: There is definitely a lot of doubt in the scientific community about stating that Dragon Man is a new species. “Many researchers prefer not to name new human species for several reasons, including the fact that DNA evidence shows that “species”, including Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, interbred. Most academics prefer to refer to the Denisovans as a “group” or “lineage” rather than a distinct species. “You can be a separate lineage and not have achieved species status,” says Shara Bailey at New York University. [...] "I do think that the one type of analysis they use isn’t conclusive enough to say that there’s a new species,” says Sheela Athreya at Texas A&M University. [14] Blockhouse321 (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like you haven't been reading any of our previous responses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that quote is almost even more irrelevant than any of the others pasted here so far. Often researchers don't name a new species. In this case they did. And that's the end of the story, until someone demonstrates it's a synonym of something else. Scientific names don't just "disappear" or get "removed" unless they become synonyms. That some researchers disagree that a new species should have been named counts as exactly nothing when it comes to taxonomy, which is why we are stuck with so many dubious names today. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Because one paper "alleges" a new species with little support from the scientific community reaffirms we should not be calling the article H. longi. The Wikipedia community can decide what the article will be called and whether H. longi should be removed from the article until a proper pier review and more research has been conducted. At best, there should one-sentence advising what is happening with the potential of a new species, but at the moment there is not a consensus in the scientific community that there is a species even if some Chinese researchers state in a paper there is a new species. Wikipedia has its own standards and those standards are set by the Wikipedia community. Blockhouse321 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you been reading what people have been saying to you at all? The name has been validly published, you can't claim that it hasn't. The paper has been peer reviewed, you can't claim that it hasn't. This is the equivalent of arguing in 2005 that Apatosaurus excelsus should be redirected to Brontosaurus because you've looked through 14,000,605 futures and in one of them it's renamed to Brontosaurus excelsus in 2015. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

These discussions are very concerning because they are amounting to someone without knowledge in the subject making wild assumptions, disregarding all the times their assumptions have been refuted and disregarding Wikipedia policy, internal consistency in the hominin articles and how taxonomy and science works. You're essentially suggesting that we should engage in original research by holding out with this obviously worse title until more research is done, potentially years down the line. Homo longi has been named in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The articles have NOT been peer-reviewed. They were accepted one day after reception by The Innovation journal and published online three weeks later, where peer-reviewing often needs several months, especially on controversial topics. Check the publication. Absence of peer-reviewing strongly weakens the validity of these articles. Furthermore, we see internal contradictions between the first and the second article, which raises a strong suspicion of dishonesty from the authors. I agree with the affirmation that Wikipedia has its own rules, and is not necessarily to blindly follow any controversial scientific publication just after publishing. Keranplein (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You can't claim that there was no peer review based on the dates as stated. This is a short contribution with high impact, and so extenuating circumstances may apply. Regardless, the description meets the criteria for availability under the ICZN. Wikipedia is not bound to the whims of a single paper, but surely it is bound to the rules of the body that governs literally all of animal taxonomy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of there not being a peer review? Why would we use something which amounts to a informal media nickname that is a direct translation of 'Homo longi' when we use the scientific desgnations for other putative species with not a lot of support, such as Homo gautengensis (literally supported by just one author) and Homo rhodesiensis (majority opinion seems to be that they are H. heidelbergensis). 'Dragon Man (archaic human)' goes against Wikipedia guidelines, taxonomy and how science operates. No one has demonstrated that 'Dragon Man' is the common name here. The only alternative acceptable title as of now, other than Homo longi, would be to name the article after the actual fossil specimen, as was done for Homo tsaichangensis (the article being titled Penghu 1), but I don't think anyone is going to argue that 'HBSM2018-000018(A)' is the superior title. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are some scientific names provisionally accepted (waiting for further confirmation or rebuttal) and others are not, like Homo tsaichangensis ? Because the scientific context plays a major role : a binomial name should be proposed within a credible scientific context, which is not the case here nor with Homo tsaichangensis. When the Middle Paleolithic Chinese human fossils are related to their Denisovan DNA, a scientific name will then be proposed, which will not necessarily be one of the already proposed binomial names for this species (where Homo longi is clearly not he first one), since exceptions are sometimes accepted by the scientific community. Keranplein (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Homo tsaichangensis is a valid, available name under the ICZN: [15] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Homo tsaichangensis" was also named in a book by a single person who has never worked with mammals in general and has a publisher who apparently really likes him considering he seems to have written nearly half of their publications   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Presence or absence in ICZN database has nothing to do with scientific validity, since there is absolutely no critical analysis in this database about what makes a scientific name valid or not. Making such an argument sounds like a joke. Keranplein (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like it. But the ICZN is the sole arbitrator of whether a scientific name is valid or not. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Has the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) approved and recognized the binomial Homo longi? I am not aware of this occurring; my search at the Zoobank.org turns up nothing for Homo longi. Blockhouse321 (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws here. Zoobank does not have an entry for Homo erectus either (see here). Are you going to argue that Homo erectus is not a species either? Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say that this is not the best reason. Homo erectus has certain provisions that permit its existence since it is a name published before 1931: [16] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a moot point because Homo longi has been registered:

The holotype of Homo longi sp. nov. has been deposited in the ZooBank database (http://zoobank.org/) with Life Science Identifier urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:B2179E99-5CDF-44DA-A1F1-A2BBAFB47185.

Registered entries typically take several months to show up. Check back in 6 months, I would be very surprised if it was not there. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Hoping the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) will accept Dragon Man as a separate species at sometime in the future is Crystal Balling! I would think the ICZN would realize the scientific data is weak and requires more time and research before it is considered a separate species...yet more Crystal Balling! Blockhouse321 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blockhouse321: Please stop. You're ignorance of taxonomic acceptance processes is showing. H. longi has already met the ICZN nomenclatural requirements for being considered a valid species. The one who is crystal balling is you by stating its NOT an accepted species.--Kevmin § 21:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is, indeed, ridiculous and disingenuous. The issue of whether or not entries show up on the ZooBank website has zero bearing on validity. It has already been registered and verified as valid by virtue of it having a LSID in the first place. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: As can be seen below the scientific community is advising that more research is required to determine what Dragon Man is and is not. It is far too early to use Homi longi; therefore, the WP:COMMONNAME Dragon Man is appropriate.

- "William Kimbel, a professor at Arizona State University and a research associate at the Institute of Human Origins, told Salon he's equally "skeptical" that Dragon Man belongs to a new ancient human species." [17]

- "Terrence Deacon, a professor of biology anthropology at the University of California–Berkeley, told Salon he thinks the fossilized skull might be an early Denisovan." [18]

- "Professor Marta Mirazon Lahr of the University of Cambridge, who believes that the Dragon Man is a Denisovan, says "The Denisovans are this fascinating mystery population from the past. There is a suggestion (from DNA evidence) that the jawbone found in the Tibetan Plateau might be a Denisovan." [19]

- Two paleoanthropologists quoted by the New York Times support the Denisovan theory: “When I first saw the picture of the fossil I thought, now we finally know what Denisovans looked like,” says Philipp Gunz of Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. Karen Baab of Midwestern University in Arizona, agrees: “Harbin is better understood as a Denisovan.” [20]

- While Dr Stringer admits that “something doesn’t match,” he stresses the importance of “the recognition of a third human lineage in East Asia, with its own distinctive combination of features.” He reportedly is ready for more surprises, perhaps to be brought on by a future DNA testing of the Dragon Man skull, and concludes “It’s going to be a more complicated plot.” [21]

Blockhouse321 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Blockhouse321: What EXACTLY do not NOT understand regarding the fact that "Denisovan" is an INFORMAL designation for a genetic population with NOT published taxonomic name. If this species IS "Denisovan", the species name WILL still be Homo longi. Your continual quote-mining is utterly ignoring that NONE of those people have studied and written a paper CHANGING the placement of the species from Homo longi. Your fetish with the "Denisovan" possibility does not change the current taxonomic placement in Homo and it is highly likely that "Denisovan" population are a species of Homo so all your prose here is irr4elevant to the move of this page the unambiguous binomial.--Kevmin § 16:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that Kevmin's reply is too strong, but I find it incredibly disturbing that you have not once responded to comments made above about the clear errors in your interpretation of scientific principles and Wikipedia policy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Though the reply is strong, I can understand the frustration, as Blockhouse's arguments are becoming increasingly inaccurate and irrational, and they keep completely ignoring all counterpoints. It is verging on disruption. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in June 2021, scientists described "Dragon Man", a member of a new species of archaic human that lived at least 146,000 years ago on the Northeast China Plain? Source: "The discovery of a huge fossilised skull that was wrapped up and hidden in a Chinese well nearly 90 years ago has forced scientists to rewrite the story of human evolution....An international team led by Prof Qiang Ji at the Hebei Geo University in China drew on geochemical techniques to narrow down when the skull came to rest in Harbin, dating the bones to at least 146,000 years old" Massive human head in Chinese well forces scientists to rethink evolution The Guardian

• Comment: Article created 25 June

Created by Thriley (talk) and Dunkleosteus77 (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 22:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm inclined to approve this nom. Article was new enough at the time of nomination, and is long enough and well sourced. Earwig pulled up no copyvio, and it seems like the article and hook reflects current mainstream science and media coverage. Every paragraph except for the lede has a citation, and the info in the lede is expanded upon/cited in the article. Hook is cited and interesting. The discussion about the page title on the article's talk page has no bearing on the DYK nomination and was already resolved in RFC (not here). Overall I can't see any issues with the nom. I wouldn't exactly be surprised if there are other disputes on that page regarding taxonomy or naming (especially as research comes to light) but that's an issue for the future. The only issue I identified is that QPQ has not been provided. Once that's done, this should be ready to go. QPQ is not needed so this is all set. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I believe this is one of the first five articles I have nominated, so QPQ is not needed. Thriley (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Great! this one looks ready then. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment You say "species" but don't give a species name. Also, why "what is now Northeast China"? It was still Northeast China 146,000 years ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I changed the sentence around bit. I do not want to get into the debate. The find was called “Dragon Man” in the source I used. Thriley (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Since my comments concerning the hook got lumped together with my comments concerning the article title below, I'll just reiterate here that I believe 'Dragon Man' should be in quotes given that it's an informal nickname and that it is in quotes in all the sources referenced below. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking the initiative to go ahead and do that, since it's a minor enough change. Are you okay with that, @Thriley:? Silverseren^C 22:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Thriley (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended discussion of article title

The source you use refers to the archaic human as Homo longi first: 'The extraordinary fossil has been named a new human species, Homo longi or “Dragon man”'. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Why does that matter? The species name doesn't need to be used in the hook. "Dragon Man" is a much more interesting and hook-y name to use from the source. SilverserenC 07:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC) The species name does not need to be used in the hook, no, but 'Dragon Man' is a media nickname that is a direct translation of the species name, not something that fulfills WP:COMMONNAME. We would use Tyrannosaurus or Tyrannosaurus rex, not "T-rex", and Thalattoarchon, not 'T. Rex of the Seas'. At the very least, Dragon Man should be in quotes - “Dragon Man” or 'Dragon Man' - as it is in the source used here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Comment: The WP:COMMONNAME is Dragon Man and there is no agreed upon scientific binomial name for the species in the scientific community. Homo longi has not been accepted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and it has not been accepted by the scientific community at large. In fact, there is dispute that Dragon Man might be a previously discovered species, it is still unclear. More scientific work including DNA testing will be required over the next several years. Blockhouse321 (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC) These are the same things Blockhouse321 has been saying in the discussions on the talk page of the relevant article. They have been refuted by myself and other editors but Blockhouse321 has repeatedly refused to respond to these refutations. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Sorry, but never refuted, you have only supported that my position and the general consensus of the scientific community is correct, i.e. no new species, no new binomial scientific name Homo longi; therefore, we default to the WP:COMMONNAME...Dragon Man. Blockhouse321 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Perhaps it would be best to hold off on the article appearing on DYK until the title dispute is resolved. I do not think it is necessary to continue discussing this here rather than in the previous two discussions, but just to make myself clear, you have not demonstrated how 'Dragon Man' is the WP:COMMONNAME. I asked you about this at least twice in the discussions on the talk page but you never responded to me there. You have not demonstrated that Homo longi is not a valid species either, and several editors have refuted that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Dragon Man is what is likely to be the name readers use to look up the article. It is the name used in the popular press: Science], New York Times, BBC. Thriley (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC) If you search Dragon Man or Dragon man, you will not get to that article. It's a rather imprecise title   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC) That is easily fixed and should have been fixed a long time ago with so many entries in the disambiguation like that. The disambiguation page should be the main page for Dragon man. I'll go and correct that now. SilverserenC 17:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Thank you, Silver! Thriley (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Note how all three also include Homo longi and put 'Dragon Man' in quotes and/or refer to it as a nickname. More readers probably search for 'T-Rex' than Tyrannosaurus, that doesn't mean that 'T-Rex' should be the title. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Why does this have anything to do with the DYK nomination? If you are suggesting a name move request, do that on the article talk page. It has nothing to do with this nomination. SilverserenC 20:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Why is it okay for Thriley to use the argument "Dragon Man is what is likely to be the name readers use to look up the article" but not okay for me to counter with "More readers probably search for 'T-Rex' than Tyrannosaurus, that doesn't mean that 'T-Rex' should be the title"?? T-Rex should not be an article title, nor should it be the name used in a DYK. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC) 'T-Rex' would be perfectly acceptable in a DYK. Article titles are often changed for brevity and/or appeal to the reader. Thriley (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Would it be? In any case, as I stated previously, I would be fine with 'Dragon Man' as long as it is in quotes since the sources cited all put it in quotes, designating it as an informal nickname. I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't follow suit on that point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Oppose. Title should be Homo longi, everything else is simply an error. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC) You don't "oppose" DYK nominations and the title of the article has nothing to do with the DYK nomination. Again, if you want the article title changed, go to the article talk page and start a name move request. All of you need to stop misusing this DYK nomination page for an article talk page discussion. SilverserenC 20:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC) A DYK should obviously be free of errors (this is why there is this review). With this important issue, the article is clearly not ready. My oppose still stands. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC) There are no errors in the nomination, a reliable sourced used nickname is allowed to be used in a nomination hook. Furthermore, if you disagree with a hook, then you instead should suggest an alt hook. Again, you don't "oppose" a DYK nomination, that's not how this works. SilverserenC 20:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC) "Dragon man" is the specimen (the individual skull), not the species. You got the definition of your article wrong. Articles with such issues won't be shown on the main page, simply put. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Comment I found the problem. This nomination is being transcluded onto the talk page, where a name change debate is going on and people are confusing this with that discussion. I'm going to delete the transclusion to prevent this from continuing. SilverserenC 20:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Comment: on the article talk page, the Administrator has determined that there is no consensus for the naming of the article, so the name of the article remains Dragon Man and not Homo longi. Blockhouse321 (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Comment: With regards to the naming debate between Dragon Man (archaic human) and Homo longi, there has been a new discussion opened regarding an article move on on the respective talk page. Pax Brittanica (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the update. The results of that discussion are not relevant to the DYK nomination. The text will remain the same if the article is moved, with “Dragon Man” linked to Homo longi.Thriley (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Since this discussion would not only change the title of the article, but also the definition of the article as reflected by the very first sentence of the lead (which, as argued in the moving proposal, borders on misinformation), it would, in my opinion, be prudent to wait until a decision is reached. I do agree, though, that the DYK text is technically correct in any case. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC) @Jens Lallensack: Changing the name is irrelevant, as you noted. The hook is still accurate even for a Homo longi article, as the specific remains found was nicknamed Dragon Man and the hook refers to it as a member of a new species. Which is Homo longi. Literally nothing in the hook needs to change. SilverserenC 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC) The problem is that, at the moment, the article contradicts the hook. The article says that Dragon Man is a species, while the hook says that it is only a member of that species (i.e., an individual). This is a problem in my opinion. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Since the article is what will be changed fairly soon it seems like, the issue is not on this end of things. SilverserenC 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC) I agree. I merely suggested to wait with putting this on the main page until that decision is made and the article is renamed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Common name

• I'm not a professional, so I'm not going to comment on the validity of the Homo longi name. However, as a common reader, I will say that I had heard of "H longi" but until reading this article this afternoon I had never heard of "Dragon Man".

Also, there is no indication it is even a common name, it is just a nickname currently used by the pop science media, it doesn't seem like any researchers use it or that it will even stay once media interest dies down. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

And, if that's the case, then a name change request can be made at that point. There's no problem in waiting. It should also be noted that even publications like Science in their coverage use the nickname. Furthermore, Homo longi would literally mean Dragon (long) man (homo) as well. That's where the nickname came from, after all, translating the purpose of the scientific nomenclature the scientists used in Mandarin. Silverseren^C 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The mentioned Science article [22] uses "Dragon Man" only for the individual skull, as do most other high-quality news articles (including BBC). The species is referred to as "Homo longi" in that article. This is an important distinction. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This will likely then end up depending on if Homo longi is actually recognized as a separate species in the future. If not, then this article would likely have to be made about the specific skull found instead. Silverseren^C 21:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

If it is of any use, the Zoobank page has been finally publicised. Homo longi. Pax Brittanica (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

But this article is about the species, not the individual, and the title needs to reflect that imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not a confirmed species as of yet and we already had a name change RfC. You're gonna need to wait before another one is allowed and we might as well wait until the species designation is actually accepted or not. Silverseren^C 22:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I can only repeat myself: As long as this article is about the species (which is definitely notable independent of its validity), the title should of course be the name of the species, not the name of the individual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

And you can make that claim as much as you want and it won't change the fact that the name change RfC failed and you have to wait before another one will be allowed. Those will remain the rules no matter what you say. Silverseren^C 23:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• The needed research to determine a conclusion will take several years. There is no need for any follow-up name change discussions until that time. Blockhouse321 (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not how we do with any other recently named taxa. This is not some kind of exceptional case, not at all. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

And apart from that, the article is already about the species and not about the individual. If we would need to wait for follow-up research (which we do not), the article here should not exist in this form to start with. This question is completely unrelated to the question of the correct article title. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You're have had paragraphs explaining to you why this is wrong. WP:LISTEN. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Everything here points to using Homo Longi, from sources to Wikipedia policy. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 07:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• And the name change RfC did not agree. Silverseren^C 16:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It was swamped by people who had only read hyperbolic pop science headlines but didn't understand the issue (as well as an editor who is currently under sock-puppet investigation, and will soon be sent to the blockhouse, so to speak). If we wait a few weeks until this is out of the media spotlight, hopefully we can get some more qualified opinions down the line. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Dragon Man (archaic human) → Homo longi – It's been almost a month since the closing of the previous move discussion and there is no hard rule that there be a lot of time between nominations (and waiting about a month was recommended to me). I'm restarting the move discussion because 1) Homo longi finally has its ZooBank entry (link), 2) I believe the current title borders on misinformation and 3) because I believe it is worth discussing the matter based on actual Wikipedia title policy rather than getting lost in what is and is not proper taxonomy. Wikipedia title policy supports the article being titled as Homo longi rather than 'Dragon Man (archaic human)':

• The WP:COMMONNAME of the species H. longi is not 'Dragon Man' and no evidence was ever provided that this was the case. As indicated by the article title being disambiguated, 'Dragon Man' is the name for other things as well and google search results cannot thus not be used to back up 'Dragon Man' as being more common (see also WP:HITS). Many uses of 'Dragon Man' indicate that it is a media nickname for the fossil specimen (see for instance [23], [24], [25]), not for the entire species, which is a big problem (it makes the very first sentence incorrect - "Dragon Man is an extinct species...") and why we can't go around waiting for several months to rectify this. It is also simply a direct translation of the scientific name. The vast majority of news articles, which supposedly establish Dragon Man as the common name, use both Dragon Man and Homo longi and always put "Dragon Man" in quotes. We don't use popular or media nicknames as article titles for other extinct animals (see Tyrannosaurus not T-Rex, Velociraptor not raptor, Qianzhousaurus not Pinocchio Rex), a common name is only a common name if it's also used as such by the scholarly community, which is the case for taxa such as the Neanderthals, Megalodon, lions, tigers etc., not Homo longi.
  • Even if 'Dragon Man' had been the common name, per WP:QUALIFIER it is preferrable to avoid having to disambiguate in this way (since the longer title is redundant) and we can instead use "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" - in this case that would be Homo longi.
• The cornerstone rules of article titling, WP:CRITERIA, support Homo longi over 'Dragon Man (archaic human)':
  • Recognizability: Homo longi accomplishes identifying the subject as an archaic human species just as well as 'Dragon Man (archaic human)' does but it's also shorter and identifies the subject as a species of Homo, making it the superior option.
  • Naturalness: This criterion is essentially WP:COMMONNAME so same argument as above here again.
  • Precision: Homo longi unambiguously identifies the subject as a species of Homo, and distinguishes it from other species, 'Dragon Man (archaic human)' does neither and is more cumbersome.
  • Conciseness: Homo longi is more concise than 'Dragon Man (archaic human)' - the article title does not need to be four words long when two words do the trick.
  • Consistency: Homo longi is more consistent with other archaic human species than 'Dragon Man (archaic human)', see Homo erectus (not 'Upright Man'), Homo ergaster (not 'Working Man'), Homo heidelbergensis (not 'Heidelberg Man'). Better yet, note that it's Homo floresiensis, not the translation of its name ('Flores Man'), nor the media/popular nickname 'Hobbit' (which is a name that would also require disambiguation).

Homo longi is of course also taxonomically correct, but it is pointless to get into that aspect as the article title policy (which also supports Homo longi), rather than correct taxonomy, decides the article title. Preferrably any opposing arguments or additional supporting arguments should also be based in title policy. It doesn't matter whether Homo longi is a valid name (it is) or whether it might be rendered invalid in the future (that would be a WP:CRYSTALBALL argument). What matters to the article title is the article title policy, which is in support of Homo longi over 'Dragon Man (archaic human)'. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support move - the article scope is the species, not just the skull. Only the skull is called "Dragon Man", so it is not a common name of the species either, and is therefore not an inclusive title. Furhtermore, "Dragon Man" is a terribly ambiguous name, and we should avoid disambiguation parentheses if we can. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons listed above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons given above, it would be silly to keep the 'Dragon Man' title. Especially with hnw resources such as a zoobank page, it is quite clear that 'Homo Longi' is the appropriate title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pax Brittanica (talk • contribs)

Looks like you forgot to sign, Pax Brittanica. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Blimey, could have sworn I did. I'll sneak a sig in there. Pax Brittanica (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support – a clear case. "Dragon man" is simply not the common name of the species. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the numerous reasons noted in the second move request, notably that if a name is ambiguous, an alternative name should be used preferentially, thus the species name Homo longi is best.--Kevmin § 17:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and FonkMonk. Cavalryman (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC).
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom, this is even more clear cut than before. Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. "Dragon man" is in no way unambiguous, and in any case parenthetical disambiguators are supposed to be avoided where possible. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homo longi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 20:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This page has sat long enough, I'll do this review. For issues that have been resolved, please use  Done, strikethrough, or some other means of indicating when an issue has been resolved. Etrius ( Us) 20:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Images

• Image rights appear to be in order.
• Caption: '(pictured top)' change to 'pictured above'

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:SANDWICH, consider moving the "China edcp relief location map" to the infobox

I don't think that's possible since it's a template, not an actual file Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps moving the location map to below the infobox, and putting the bridge images in a gallery template after the 'Paleoenvironment' section would suffice. Etrius ( Us) 23:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Copy-vios

• It appears that [26] ripped the article wholesail. I checked the article before Aug 3rd, 2021, and confirmed that the text was already on Wikipedia. TLDR; not a copy-vio but worth mentioning.
• Earwig hasn't found anything else exciting
• No close paraphrasing noted on spot-checks.

Stability

• Nothing to note

Sources

• Link FN 4 to here [27], current url is dead.

I added a url but that is the doi listed on the site Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Consolidate duplicate refs FN 5 & 7

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Have AIbot archive sources

Prose

Lead

• Please specify that this is also referred to as the "Harbin Skull"

it's called the Harbin skull because it's the skull from Harbin, I don't think I really have to say "a nearly complete skull from Harbin (the Harbin skull)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, the Cladogram should be changed to reflect either "Harbin Skull" or H.longi. Etrius ( Us) 00:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm just being consistent with Jinnuishan (skeleton), Xiahe (mandible), etc. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'Due to a tumultuous wartime atmosphere' WWII? Specify what war and cut 'tumultuous' WP:Puffery

Well there was the Chinese Civil War, which was interrupted by WW2, then the continuation of the Civil War, then many (most certainly tumultuous) events under the Maoist government Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I wrapped up the rest of the page, specify it was hidden from the Japanese invasion. Here's a good source if interested [28].

it wasn't just hidden from the Japanese, otherwise he would've turned it over in 1945 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not stated in the page that the skull was intentionally hidden from the Chinese after the Japanese left. The page states that he hid his profession, not the skull. Etrius ( Us) 21:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'represents the enigmatic' puffery, just say 'possibly related to'

it's more of a gloss of Denisovan because it's only identifiable by a genetic signature, so it is in fact enigmatic Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing on the fact that Denisovans are 'enigmatic'. Enigmatic by itself means little to non-technical speakers and removing the adjective still keeps the same core sentence meaning. The page later on goes into more detail on why it is a difficult classification. All in all, removal of the term enigmatic would keep the wording more encyclopedic. Etrius ( Us) 23:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'massively developed' more puffery, to my knowledge this is not a scientific term.

You can see the word "massive" in the titles of 2 of the sources so I don't see how this constitutes puffery Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's cited then its okay to leave it as is. Etrius ( Us) 23:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Dragon Man' name is not mentioned nor cited outside the lead.

that was a compromise on the giant move discussions you can see on the talk page Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Seen, thank you. Etrius ( Us) 21:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• 'concealed his former employment' This does not follow. Was he concealing the skull or the fact he was a laborer? Clarify.

He had to conceal that he worked for the Japanese army, so if he told the Nationalist or the Communist authorities he found a skull, he'd have to explain where and how. It isn't said so directly in the source, but if it's confusing I can clarify some more Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Please clarify it further. That should be included if possible. Etrius ( Us) 21:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'tumultuous' is already implied by the preceding paragraph.

removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'provenance' excellent word but a tad bit WP:TECHNICAL. 'location of origin' works better.

I wouldn't have thought of provenance as a proper technical word, especially considering how often it's used in pop culture and fiction Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I see you linked the term, that will work fine. Etrius ( Us) 21:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'abandoned it' abandoned the name or the skull? Clarify.

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'enigmatic' per above.

I still don't really see the problem, anytime I see Denisovans talked about it's always prefaced by "enigmatic" or "mysterious", like https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01408-0 "unlock more details about the prehistory of the enigmatic Denisovans" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Overall, excellently written.

Anatomy

• Despite the face being so wide, it was rather flat (reduced mid-facial prognathism), and resembles the condition found in modern humans, the far more ancient H. antecessor, and other Middle Pleistocene Chinese specimens. I think something is missing here.

what is it? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Does "the condition" refer to just the general facial structure or some kind of pathological goings on. "The condition" is vague phrasing. Etrius ( Us) 21:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'enormous' reword for an encyclopedic tone

Enormous is a completely valid word, I've used it before on Gorgonopsia, Gigantopithecus, whale, etc. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'The describers' specify who

I did? It's already stated who described the skull earlier Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Its mentioned in a preceding paragraph. Since it's mentioned at the beginning a new paragraph, it needs to be restated. I can assume its referring to the "original describers", but I can just as easy come to the conclusion it is a separate set of describers. Etrius ( Us) 22:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Paleoenvironment

• 'frigid' WP:Puffery

Puffery is not so rigid, I've used frigid many times when talking about ice ages or the poles, like Steller's sea cow or Neanderthal, and it's most definitely not an unscientific word Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that WP:PUFFERY is technically outside the scope of GA criteria, and I tend to have a very narrow view of what qualifies. These are suggestions for improvement but not 100% required. Etrius ( Us) 21:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment After reviewing, the page is very well done. A few bits of clarification and word clean-up are needed but otherwise, the page is nearly ready. Throwing the page on review and leaving it open until Sep. 22nd. Etrius ( Us) 00:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77, making sure you saw my replies. I've summarized the bits the need to be taken care of:

• Clarify why he hid his profession and skull until 2018.
• "the condition" clarify what this means.
• Specify again who 'The describers' are.

The other suggestions are not necessary for GA status but welcome changes. Etrius ( Us) 21:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, did a few CE's. Attempted to strike a good balance between the words I pointed out and the prose you had, most of the edits I did were basic clarifications and cosmetic work. Article has passed GA review, congrats!!!! Etrius ( Us) 02:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article passes GA review. Good work!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DNA

"DNA evidence suggests Denisovans are more closely related to Neanderthals than modern humans." Should this be interpreted as "more closely related to Neanderthals than to modern humans" or "more closely related to Neanderthals than modern humans are"? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77 I have looked at this as a result of the comment above, and I am not sure of your interpretation. You say that the describers postulate both that longi is a member of the Denisovans and that longi is closer to sapiens than to Neanderthals. These seem to me to be rival interpretations of two different papers by mostly the same authors, that the authors must have changed their minds even though the papers were published almost simultaneously. The 'Massive cranium' paper at [29] says "The Harbin cranium is one of the best preserved of all archaic human fossils and its estimated late Middle Pleistocene age places it as an Asian contemporary of the evolving H. sapiens, H. neanderthalensis, and Denisovan lineages." It then says "Our analyses also suggest a potential link between the Harbin cranium and the Xiahe mandible, a fossil attributed to the Denisovan lineage." Thus it was contemporary with the other three lineages with a possible closer connection to Denisovan. The other paper at [30] does not even mention the Denisovans and says longi was closer to sapiens than Neanderthal. These are rival interpretations which cannot be combined to give one view.

Also the family tree appears to have Neanderthals diverging before antecessor, but the Massive cranium article says the opposite. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah these authors used a really different family tree which contradicts genomic evidence, placing Denisovans (Xiahe) and H. antecessor as more closely related to modern humans than to Neanderthals, which is why I mentioned that "DNA evidence suggests Denisovans are more closely related to Neanderthals than [to] modern humans." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I read "To separately reflect recent results from palaeoproteomic and ancient DNA research,5,21,22,32 partial backbone constraints were used to force the Xiahe mandible as the sister group of Neanderthals and to force H. antecessor outside of the Neanderthal-Xiahe-H. sapiens clade (see the supplemental information)." as saying they rejected that family tree in light of the DNA evidence. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ji, Ni and colleagues further contend that Middle Pleistocene Asian specimens are more closely related to modern humans (H. sapiens) than the European Neanderthals, though nuclear DNA and ancient protein analyses place the Xiahe mandible and Denisovans more closely to Neanderthals than to modern humans."

Read literally and in isolation, the "though" part is consistent with the preceding part, if Denisovans are somehow between Neanderthals and modern humans, but closer to Neanderthals than to modern humans. A clarification would be good. I noticed the same strange pattern in one of the press articles, though. So maybe it stems from one of the papers.

To be honest, the whole research smells a bit fishy. The intense harassment of skeptical voices in discussions here is not reassuring either.

I think the article should be named "Harbin skull" and focus on the finding, of course also mentioning the homo longi proposal and its possible relation to "Denisovans".

Elias (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)