Talk:Hualong Cave

Orphaned references in Hualong Cave

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hualong Cave's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ni2021":

• From Dali Man: Ni, X.; Ji, Q.; Wu, W.; et al. (2021). "Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern China establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage". Innovation. 2 (3): 100130. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130.
• From Homo longi: Ni, X.; Ji, Q.; Wu, W.; et al. (2021). "Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern China establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage". Innovation. 2 (3): 100130. Bibcode:2021Innov...200130N. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130. PMC 8454562. PMID 34557770. S2CID 236784246.

Reference named "Chen2019":

• From Homo longi: Chen, F.; Welker, F.; Shen, C.-C.; et al. (2019). "A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau" (PDF). Nature. 569 (7756): 409–412. Bibcode:2019Natur.569..409C. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1139-x. PMID 31043746. S2CID 141503768.
• From Neanderthal: Chen, F.; Welker, F.; Shen, C. (2019). "A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau" (PDF). Nature. 569 (7, 756): 409–412. Bibcode:2019Natur.569..409C. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1139-x. PMID 31043746. S2CID 141503768.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Regional continuity, saving misleading deletion

The following content has been removed by another user, claiming it to be "fringe". Strangely, the content is based on a study, published in an academic science journal, with a large amount of authors, well known in human anthropology and genomics. Here the content for readers, including the academic paper:

In 2019 a discovery of 16 human fossils was announced which were estimated to be about 300,000 (275,000–331,000) years old. The fossil assemblage included 8 cranial elements, seven isolated teeth, three femoral diaphyseal pieces, and major portions of an adolescent skull (designated HLD 6, HLD for Hualongdong). They were identified as archaic Homo sapiens. HLD 6 is remarkable as it was analyzed to be that of an adolescent person aged 13-15. It has large brain size of 1150 cc. According to the authors, the samples and their craniometric characteristics, strikingly resemble modern East/Southeast Asians, suggesting regional continuity.

Furthermore, the editor called "multiregionalism" as fringe, which is highly problematic. Calling the multiregional origin theory or the "Out-of-Asia" theory fringe, is nothing but personal views (and maybe political agenda). Even well known geneticists agree that the old "Out of Africa" theory is outdated and that it is much more complex such as proposing a multi-regional origin within Africa. More and more evidence from Asia, support a broader area of human evolution, as well as multiregionalism. This has been published in the Nature (journal):

“We argue that no specific point in time can currently be identified at which modern human ancestry was confined to a limited birthplace, and that patterns of the first appearance of anatomical or behavioural traits that are used to define Homo sapiens are consistent with a range of evolutionary histories.”

Other interesting papers published in academic journals: and .

I am requesting other authors to check this. The content should be mentioned according to WP:NPOV, WP:Weight, WP:Due, and WP:Neutrality.

To the IP: I did not remove the material because I felt "threatened" as you have stated. Assuming another editor's motivations, along with aspersions and imputations of "ignorance" "personal views", and "political agendas", are very inapropriate and violate Wikipedia policies. See WP:AGF WP:NPA (no personal attacks), and WP:CIVIL.

I removed the material because, as I explained twice, it seems to (again, as I explained in the edit notes) radically contradict the scientific consensus on modern human origins (which is that AMH originated in Africa, not in Asia or on multiple continents). Such a position is in fact WP:FRINGE. An opinion that radically contradicts the WP:MAINSTREAM merits concern and caution (also see WP:REDFLAG). A source can be puplished in a peer-reviewed outlet and still be fringe. And neutrality does not require treating fringe and extreme minority positions as though they were equivalent to the mainstream view

You wrote:

...well known geneticists agree that the old "Out of Africa" theory is outdated and that it is much more complex such as proposing a multi-regional origin within Africa. More and more evidence from Asia, support a broader area of human evolution, as well as multiregionalism."

The majority of geneticists agree that (despite minor admixture from other hominins outside and in Aftica) the overwhelming majority of modern human ancestry and H. Sapiens as a species originated in Africa (whether in one, a few, or several regions of Africa). Some recent studies have indeed proposed "African multiregionalism" (with AMH forming across more than one region of Africa and its margins), but not global multiregionalism. The position that Sapiens originated in Asia or as much there as Africa is not mainstream. It is generally agreed that Africa is the origin of AMH and the great bulk of modern human ancestry (though, as mentioned, contributions from several/more than one African region have been proposed).

Also, it might be mentioned that regarding the recently-discovered Hualong fossils discussed, a more recent paper by Bergstrom, Stringer et al. (prominent resarchers in the field), cites the paper you wish to include (in note 146), but instead suggests that Hualongdong is Denisovan not Sapiens:

"This is a distinctive morph, which is perhaps mirrored in other Chinese fossil crania such as those from Jinniushan and Hualongdong (146) that also lack characteristic features of H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis and Neanderthals. These could thus represent candidates for early Denisovans, along with the mandibles from Xiahe and Penghu."(page 5)

http://генофонд.рф/wp-content/uploads/Skoglund-41586_2021_3244_OnlinePDF_300.pdf

The authors of that paper (which you quoted above) conclude that it cannot currently be known from exactly what region or regions of Africa Sapiens originated, but, like most research on the topic, nonetheless support the position that Sapiens coalesced from somewhere within Africa (likely deriving from more than one part of Africa instead of just one).

From the abstract:

"We identify three key phases...which will be at the frontiers of future research. The most recent phase comprises the worldwide expansion of modern humans between 40 and 60 thousand years ago (ka) and their last known contacts with archaic groups...The second phase is associated with a broadly construed African origin of modern human diversity between 60 and 300 ka."

The paper does not support the idea of an East Asian origin for Sapiens/AMH, nor that the Chinese specimens are likely AMH. Skllagyook (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

References