Talk:Denny (hybrid hominin)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

As I mentioned in my edit summary, I think the creation of this page is premature. Yes, it has received a burst of coverage today, but notability is usually interpreted as involving some level of sustained coverage, which a single fossil specimen rarely receives. The press loves these nicknames, but they tend to go away almost immediately thereafter (you don't see 'X-woman' referred to any more - of course, 'Lucy' is the exception). I just don't this the flurry of coverage we saw today makes this single specimen notable. Agricolae (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

notable) as a result of substantial world coverage in the press (technical and otherwise)^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]} - updated (sustained?) coverage may be tracked here I would think - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

But all of these are coming on the same day, within 24 hours of the discovery being announced. That is a single news cycle, not sustained coverage. Agricolae (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - agreed (although even more related news continues to be published at the moment) - nonetheless - a

hominin (the first one discovered at that) is a *very, very significant* (and remarkable) finding in the eyes of today's world I would think - and is likely to continue being referenced (in a sustained way) as a result - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The key words there being "I would think" and "is likely to". Will this single specimen continue to be reported on (more than just in passing) beyond this news cycle, or will everyone move on to next week's Nature press release about something different? That is why WP:TOOSOON applies. If we wait and see, we don't have to base the conclusion on WP:CRYSTAL ball assertions of what we think is going to be important in the future. Agricolae (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Determining a sustained coverage may take a bit longer than 24 hours of course - maybe best to wait and see how this all turns out - several other articles I've created when first announced (ie, "

While the publication is very recent, it was peer-reviewed and therefore it is reliable. The implications and history of human evolution are clearer, making this find/subject very notable, although additional secondary publications will trickle as time goes by. This article subject is 100% notable by any standard, and guaranteed to grow in detail and context in the upcoming months and years. As an example, remember that the whole Denisovan species (and WP article) relied on a single finger bone not unlike Denny's. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with your position that a single individual fossil is instantaneously notable, I understand the argument. However, it is completely ludicrous to guarantee that details will grow over months and years. This is not about a species or population, where other individuals could possibly be found. This is and individual whose genome has been sequenced in its entirety, and for whom the sole bone remnant is so fragmentary that there will never be any anatomical studies. It is done. We already have all the data we are ever going to have on this individual. It is a flawed analogy to compare this situation to the Denisovans, an entire population that spanned much of southern Asia. Agricolae (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several single fossils that are now historic for their value to evolutionary science. Does Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) ring the bell? No? Lets try Australopithecus anamensis, Denisovan, Taung Child No? Then I guess you will just have to sit back and watch the scientific method at work, and this article expand with time. The research on Denny just started. Trust me. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mixture of exceptions and irrelevancies. Denisovan is not a single fossil. A. anamensis is a species. I already mentioned Lucy as an exception. In particular, Lucy was the first discovery of a new species, which doesn't apply in this case. Lucy was phenomenally complete, and that enabled detailed study of brain, jaw, legs, feet, hands, etc., etc. Plus there was the book, with its accompanying book tour. None of this applies to this little bone fragment - and there are no prospects for future study - it is so fragmentary that it has no surface feature to interpret. It's entire genome has already been sequenced, so there is nothing more to be done there. What exactly are they going to study? Yes, the genome sequence is in a database, and every time someone generates a new genome with a Denisova component they will pull it out and compare it, just like they will do with the genomes of Denisova 1, Denisova 2, Denisova 3 and Denisova 4 - do you want pages on each of thise, just because of this potential future use? Taung child is another such exception - it was 'famous' long before Wikipedia existed. Would you like me to name hundreds of individual fossil specimens that are not notable? We have an article on Archaeopterix, not on the Thermopolis specimen, and the Berlin specimen, and the . . . . . And I will not trust you. I have no reason to. Agricolae (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions outside Wikipedia include the peer-reviewers that deem it notable, as well as scientists not involved in the Denny's project, for example, this piece from the New York Times: “They managed to catch it in the act — it’s an amazing discovery,” said Sharon Browning, a statistical geneticist at the University of Washington who was not involved in the new study." I could probably dig a dozen of similar reactions form experts not directly involved, but it is not necessary, as I believe you are a sensible editor. I removed the tag and lets continue to improve this article. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

blaa, blaa, blaa. This is typical immediate-post-discovery reporting. Yes, of course there was an immediate flurry of reporting. THe reporter says, 'This is a curious press release from the journal, let's do a story. And we will need to get a quote from someone not involved in the study.' So they did. That does not mean the scientist thought that this fossil fulfilled Wikipedia's standards for notability. And the question is whether anyone will still be saying this kind of thing a month from now. I say they won't, because nobody will ask them, because the news cycle will have moved on. Trust me - if you can appeal to your own authority, why can't I? (You say I don't understand the scientific process, but I think I understand it better than you if you think that further studies will be done on this specimen because . . . ummm . . . . . well, just because. Further studies are only done on a sample if there is something to be gained that is worth the investment, and worth more than if that investment went to studying something else. This sample is a blind alley.) That is why sustained coverage is what is the hallmark of notability. You end with a false dichotomy: my questions about the notability of this sample is not stopping you from improving the article. Agricolae (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here may want to see the ANI-notice I just opened regarding user:Agricolae. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this because of the ANI ping. Hmm since there's an ongoing discussion about notability on this talk page I don't thing there's a problem with the notability tag for now (that doesn't prevent reading or editing the article); of course AfD would be the ultimate way to find out (maybe a little soon for AfD though)? I must say that I was glad to find out that an article was being written about it. —PaleoNeonate – 21:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming back to this. Considering the number of independent sources, the length of coverage of the event in those sources, and that such a discovery is not the same as publicity for a fad diet or a scandal related to a public person, I tend to think that the notability is enough (and would not support AfD on TOOSOON grounds). I therefore also dispute the notability tag's relevance (I think we all now dispute it except Agricolae, so will remove it). —PaleoNeonate – 23:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: the scientific implications of a denisovan/neanderthal hybrid are also enormous, just like for human/neanderthal admixture, so I very much doubt that this will suddenly become obscure. —PaleoNeonate – 01:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the implication are not enormous. We knew there were multiple hybridization events already. It is gratifying to find one of them in the flesh (or rather, in the bone) but this discovery doesn't change anything about our understanding of things, except for one specific thing - it shows that there was a migration, perhaps even a replacement, of the Neanderthal population int he Altai region. Not exactly earth-shattering given the number of times AMH populations show replacement. Yeah, it is unexpected that the exact generation would be found, but don't get carried away with yourself.Agricolae (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps relevant comments for here as well =>

Copied from the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uer:Agricolae and CHEESE" =>

FWIW - I'm the OA of the "Denny (hybrid hominin)" article - and have added edits to the article (although perhaps not as much as the excellent efforts (imo) of User:Rowan Forest) - according to Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline => "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independant of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - AFAIK - This seems sufficient for notability for this article - at least at the moment, and for starters - sustained coverage may be more apparent (and relevant) at some later time - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now the AN/I case is closed - no case to answer. Well, that end run didn't work. Now, what exactly are they going to study that they don't already have in hand, that will make this bone-fragment-with-a-nickname the subject of continuing scientific research, and hence make the specimen subject to sustained commentary by the scientific press? Agricolae (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI closed does not mean you understood the relevance, the molecular biology aspect, the scientific method, and does not mean you will. Finally, "sustained" press coverage is not a requirement for

WP:CHEESE and imaginary policies. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the ANI close does not mean that. It does mean that you don't understand a whole lot of policies relevant to AN/I. As to your repeated accusations of cheese, it doesn't apply in the way you think. You somehow wrongheadedly got the idea that you are the one with the expertise here, which sort of makes me smirk every time you say it. Agricolae (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while we are talking about imaginary policies, you say, "Finally, 'sustained' press coverage is not a requirement for WP:Notability (science)." That may be true, but it is also absolutely irrelevant because of one critical detail. Go to WP:Notability (science) and read that little bit right at the top, next to the big red X - "This is a failed proposal." You may enjoy teaching, but you don't seem very good at it, Captain Dunning–Kruger. Agricolae (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]