User:Drbogdan/sandbox-Denny-HybridHominin

'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Denny_(hybrid_hominin)#Notability? KEEP (a/o 20180829)]'''

ALSO SEE => SUBPAGES

ALSO SEE => "Denny (hybrid hominin)" and "Talk:Denny (hybrid hominin)"

ALSO SEE => Archive Version (20180824archive) & 20180824archive-talk ALSO SEE => Archive Version (20180824wayback) & 20180824wayback-talk ALSO SEE => Archive Version (20180824webcitation) ALSO SEE => perma.cc

Wikipedia discussion for possible ANI => (20180824) [see copy below]

--- MAIN ARTICLE --- a/o August 25, 2018 (9a-et)

Denny is the nickname of a fossil from a 13-year-old girl that lived some 90,000 years ago, shown to be an archaic human hybrid that was half Neanderthal and half Denisovan. Denny was found in 2012 and she represents the first time an ancient individual was discovered whose parents belonged to two discrete species of humans. Its DNA allows for extensive comparative genetic studies between human species, and may inform the frequency of interspecies hominin breeding and its influence on the evolution of the modern human.

The initial genetic analysis was led by palaeo-geneticists Viviane Slon and Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

Overview
Dating analyses in 2016 determined that this individual died about 90,000 years ago, and the bone fragment's characteristics indicate an age of at least 13 years. An analysis of the whole genome sequence (total mitochondrial and nuclear DNA) indicates she was female, with a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father. While previous analyses of other ancient genomes concluded that Denisovans, Neanderthals, and modern humans interbred during the ice age in Europe and Asia, this find is the most direct evidence yet that various ancient hominins mated with each other and had offspring.

Other fossils found in this Siberian cave have previously shown that all three species (modern human, Neanderthal and Denisovan) lived there at different times, and that all three human species interbred with each other. The genes of both archaic human species are present in many people today, which suggests that when these groups met, they actually mixed with each other. It is not evident if the mating was consensual, or if the offspring were fertile. Some of the researchers involved think that this discovery supports the previous notion that Neanderthals and Denisovans may not have underwent extinction, but assimilation into modern human populations.

Discovery
The find consists of a single bone fragment about 2 cm long that was unearthed in 2012 by Russian archeologists at the Denisova Cave, from layer 12 of the East Gallery. The cave is located in Denisova valley, Altai Mountains at Siberia, Russia. At the time, the origin (species) of the bone fragment was unknown, and it was archived along with other 2,000 non-descript bone fragments from the cave for later identification. In 2016, Samantha Brown of the University of Oxford was sorting through the thousands of fragments from the cave, studying the proteins in the bones' collagen to figure out what animal species each one was. Using this method, she identified the bone as hominin. It was dated to about 90,000 years ago, and the bone thickness was used to determine the person's age, which was at least 13 years old.

At this point, the bone fragment was referred to the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, that had previously isolated and sequenced Denisovan DNA. The first analysis done at Max Planck was of its mitochondrial DNA, followed by nuclear DNA. The publication of their results in 2018 was the first direct evidence of interbreeding, and it was called a "landmark find […] that is helping shape our understanding of hominin interactions."

Description
The bone fragment, identified by the code DC1227 or as Densiova 11, is from a human arm or leg. DC1227 bone fragment had mass of 1.68 g, measuring in with a maximum length of 24.7 mm and maximum width of 8.39 mm. A team from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, then used in 2016 a small portion of the bone to extract mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited maternally. The mitochondrial DNA was found to be fully Neanderthal, indicating she was a first-generation hybrid of a Neanderthal woman and a Denisova man.

Further analyses of the genome suggests her Denisovan father also had some Neanderthal ancestry. So from this single genome, scientists got the first direct evidence of multiple instances of interbreeding between Neandertals and Denisovans.

The researchers deduced that the girl's mother was genetically closer to Neanderthals who lived in western Europe than to a Neanderthal individual who lived earlier in Denisova Cave, demonstrating that Neanderthals migrated between western and eastern Europe and Asia tens of thousands of years before they died out.

Context and implications
The hypothesis of interbreeding, also known as hybridization, admixture or hybrid-origin theory, has been discussed ever since the discovery of Neanderthal remains in the 19th century. The linear view of human evolution began to be abandoned in the 1970s as different species of humans were discovered that made the linear concept increasingly unlikely. In the 21st century with the advent of molecular biology techniques and computerization, whole-genome sequencing of Neanderthal and human genome were performed, confirming recent admixture between different human species. In 2010, evidence based on molecular biology was published, revealing unambiguous examples of interbreeding between archaic and modern humans during the Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic. It has been demonstrated that interbreeding happened in several independent events that included Neanderthals, Denisovans, as well as several unidentified hominins. Today, approximately 2% of DNA from most Europeans and Asians is Neanderthal, with traces of Denisovan heritage. Also, 4-6% of modern Melanesian people is Denisovan. Denny represents the first time an ancient individual was discovered whose parents belonged to two discrete species of humans, meaning a 50/50 hybrid, which allows for extensive comparative genetic studies.

Although the narratives of human evolution are often contentious, the discovery of Denny and other discoveries since 2010 show that human evolution should not be seen as a simple linear or branched progression, but a mix of related species. In fact, genomic research has shown that hybridization between substantially diverged lineages is the rule, not the exception, in human evolution. Furthermore, it is argued that hybridization was an essential creative force in the emergence of modern humans.

Notability?
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)
 * Thank you for your comments - seems the article (version 23:05, 22 August 2018 before being substantially reverted) is significant - since the topic is sufficiently worthy (and notable) as a result of substantial world coverage in the press (technical and otherwise)               -  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)
 * 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)
 * Yes - agreed (although even more related news continues to be published at the moment) - nonetheless - a hybrid 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)
 * 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)

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, "Archicebus", "AT2018cow", "Foreshadow (security vulnerability)", "Genius (U.S. TV series)", "Genome Project-Write", "GRB 160625B", "GW170817", "List of gravitational wave observations", "MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", "Pentecopterus", "Spectre (security vulnerability)", "Tersicoccus phoenicis", "ULAS J1342+0928", "Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua", more) seem to have all turned out to be somewhat substantial and worthy over the long term - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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. — Paleo Neonate  – 21:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant comments for here as well =>  Copied from the "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" => 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 Notability => "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)
 * 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)
 * 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:Notability (science). As much as I like teaching, and debates, I decline to further entertain your WP:CHEESE and imaginary policies. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

--- ANI DISCUSSION --- a/o August 25, 2018 (9a-et)

Wikipedia discussion for possible ANI => (20180824)

Uer:Agricolae and CHEESE[edit]

This need not have been brought here as no administrative action is required. The discussion on the Talk page about the article's notability should proceed. However, I think, Agricolae, at some point editors will have nothing new to say, at which time you should either nominate the article for deletion or remove the tag. Rowan Forest, your comments here are melodramatic and condescending. Please focus on the issue at hand, not your unsupported views of other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. Agricolae (talk · contribs) is waging a warrior attitude at the newly created Denny (hybrid hominin) article. He keeps tagging the article for lack of notability: [36], [37], [38]. I tried to reason with him, but unfortunately, his reaction is in the modality of WP:CHEESE and WP:LISTEN ( seeTalk:Denny (hybrid hominin)#Notability). I would rather be creating and expanding articles now, so spending more time dealing with this disruption is not an attractive option. I believe that fellow Wikipedia editors Drbogdan (talk · contribs), PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs) also have advanced degrees in biological sciences, and they made it known that the hybrid Neanderthal girl (fossil) is notable. The research is peer reviewed, published, and welcomed by experts in the field. The event has also been reported extensively by very reliable news media, so I have no doubt of the notability. Your support will be enormously appreciated. Thank you for your time. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Mostly amateur interest in my case (college level biology only, my field is computer science). I commented at the article's talk page (I don't personally see a problem with the tag as long as a discussion about it is ongoing). I'll let others determine if Agricolae is being overzealous about it though. —PaleoNeonate – 21:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so now we are whipping down our pants to see who has the better degree? Which of us has sequenced more genomic DNA? You might want to pause and consider the possibility that your accusation of WP:CHEESE could just possibly be based on a flawed central assumption, that the reason I am disagreeing with you is not because I am just ignorant of the scientific process, as you intimated in an edit summary. I am still looking for a reason this should not go to AfD as WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS (how can you assess sustained coverage after two days?), and all you give me are not-all-that-comparable analogies and WP:CRYSTAL predictions supported by that most persuasive of arguments, "trust me". Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Because WP:Competence is required. Scientific notability happens in a different context than a for a Golden Globe contestant or a music hit. Your demand of proof for a "continued popularity" in the long future is ignorant of the scientific method, and of the wide context in which evolutionary theory is built upon. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---