Talk:Harbin cranium

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. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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. Silverseren^C 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)

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 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 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)

Homo denisova confirmation

He has been confirmed as Denisovan. Can we get a serious update to this page please?

Kikiopae (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

How about merging this page and the Denisovan one for example?

Kikiopae (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion. The articles will need to be merged but I think it is too soon as it is not yet clear what the title of the merged article should be. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. This article is mostly about the skull. Maybe it could be renamed? Vpab15 (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It's about the Homo longi species as a taxon.

Which has been confirmed to be Denisovan, lol.

I dont see how this should be contradicting? having two pages for the same species overcomplicates this...

Kikioran (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2025

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) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Homo longi → Harbin cranium – This article is primarily about a specific skull rather than a species. The name "Harbin cranium" is the common name in the scientific literature for this skull . Given that the skull has been found to belong to a Denisovan based on genetic evidence, the taxonomic status of Homo longi looks likely to be in flux for the near future. I don't think the article should be moved back to the nickname "Dragon Man", as that title is ambiguous with other meanings. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should be renamed to Harbin cranium. The status of the species Homo longi is in flux, and based on the Feng et al. (2025) preprint, Homo longi is likely to soon include many other "East Asian Archaic" specimens from China.

"Dragon Man" is just an ambiguous colloquial nickname for this specimen, and not appropriate for a scientific article title.

I think that Homo longi should redirect to the Denisovan page, where there is an entire section devoted to the taxonomic placement of the Denisovans.

When the Feng et al. (2025) preprint gets officially published, then the species box for Homo longi can be added to the Denisovan page.

• Archæogenetics  ^TALK  04:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I also agree. To begin with, Ni and his co-worker thought Harbin cranium represents a newly identified species, which they proposed to be named "Homo longi". After Harbin cranium was firmed to be a Denisovan, some further suggested use H. longi to represent the Denisovan species.

So, H. longi is a proposed name:

1) for a new species, an idea abandoned;

2) as the Binomial nomenclature for Denisovan species.

It is not a proper title at all for this fossil item. I definitely want to see this Wiki title be charged to "Harbin cranium". Snaketong (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• This seems to me a difficult one as under the rules of zoological nomenclature it seems likely that Denisovan, which has never been proposed as a formal name, will cede priority to Homo longi as the formal species name, with the Harbin cranium as the holotype. I nevertheless support the proposal, with redirection of Homo longi to Denisovan, as if the H. longi name is formally adopted, this article would not be suitable as the one about the species. Presumably there would then be a discussion (argument?) about moving the Denisovan article to Homo longi. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2025 (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.