Talk:Atacama skeleton

up to date article ?

There are big difference between this article and his french version. In french version we found : "Following further analysis, Professor Gary Nolan confessed to potentially wrong about the fact that Ata was able to live up to 6 or 8 years. It is planned to make hemoglobin analysis which will determine whether Ata has breathed. Nolan believe now that Ata may be a fetal". Best regards : Michel1961 from french wikipedia88.168.108.31 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes I see that. But the source is the New Observer. I don't how reliable that is, but it seems a little bit odd in that it quotes Nolan to the effect of "I was wrong" and so forth, but it doesn't describe where these new quotes came from -- did Florencia Rovira Torres (who is, after all, just a student) interview him? She doesn't say. If she got the quotes from somewhere else, let's find a reliable source. It could well be true. (I'd also point out that our article does say that Nolan does say it could be a fetus, but with a fast-aging disease; it's not totally clear that Nolan is not referring to that possibility). The article also says "Si Garry Nolan a commis tant d’erreurs, c’est parce qu’il croit très fort aux ovnis et qu’il voudrait que la communauté scientifique « sorte du consensus »" Which is news to me and makes me wonder what's going on here.... Nolan is a Stanford Medical School professor, never saw anything about him being a UFO guy before. I'm a little leery of using this source. Herostratus (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I get same trouble about "rue 89" article... and I looking for more reliable source 88.168.108.31 (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I am just received a phone call from Florencia Rovira Torres and she gived me some information : She is a swedish girl with official journalist licence. She directly interviewed Garly nolan 2 days ago. She will try to find a way to publish the non cut interview. More informations after... Best regards 88.168.108.31 (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Steven M. Greer's report may be found here: http://siriusdisclosure.com/evidence/atacama-humanoid/. It has links to Dr. Garry Nolan's preliminary report: http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Chile-Specimen_GPN-Summary.pdf, as well as Dr. Ralph Lachman's report: http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/signed-Lachman-report.pdf. Wouldn't these sources be more authoritative? At this point in time with the humanoid only having a 91% human DNA match, wouldn't it be more accurate to either say scientists do not yet know for sure, or to call him a humanoid as opposed to human? We don't call chimpanzees "human" and they apparently have a higher percentage human DNA match than the Atacama humanoid. Voxdoc (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Rue89 has just published the whole interview of Garry Nolan. It basically confirms all the previous assumptions : the possible fetal condition of Ata, and Nolan's beliefs in UFO.

Generally speaking, Rue89 is not a fancy media, but a well-established online newspaper in France — quite frequently used as an encyclopedic source on the French Wikipedia. Last september, it has actually won an Online Journalism Awards.

Alexander Doria (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I just read the source of Alexander. It contains information of better quality compared to current sources of the article. This is a Nolan's direct interview and uncut unlike sirius documentary. The analyzes were continued for 3 weeks now. They are made by 10 laboratories. These results are much more reliable, according to Nolan himself, as presented last month .This information is up to date: within 3 days.So I think this source must have a large place in the article90.94.163.200 (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Herostratus (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

By which I mean, someone should do this. I will, when I get to it, if I don't forget. Herostratus (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget please ! new information are available : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/ata-6-inch-alien-sirius_n_3246330.html 88.168.108.31 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

For subject matter that is both controversial and highly scientific, it is important to make use of the direct reports and direct testimony from the scientists involved. The medical reports mentioned by Voxdoc, the video of Dr Nolan's testimony from Sirius and subsequent audio interviews should be preferred over derivative written works of online reporters such as the Huffington Post, who are often not scientifically trained and may draw incorrect conclusions. It appears from my own investigation writing to Science World Report that the editors (at least from this publication) "don't always have the time to put in as much research as [they] like into some of [their] stories because [they] write so many a day". Also, most people do not have sufficient molecular biological training to understand that sequencing software matching 91% of this specimen's genome against human DNA sequence data does not conclude that the DNA is "human", only that that portion matches it closely. Sequencing produces an identification result based on what sequences exist in the international database up to that point in time already, thus it can only produce identification results from known samples, not point to anything new. Considering that this specimen is 9% different to human DNA, it can't be labelled human any more than a chimpanzee can be with a 1.5% difference to humans, and this is made clear by the statements of Dr Nolan in the Sirius documentary: "at a certain point when enough knowns are matched, I can comfortably say this is human", "so what we've got is this very strange conundrum, coz here we've got this 6 inch tall, let's call it human, right, because the DNA says that so far it's human, at least the way that we're looking at it, is that it's human", "so I entered this thinking DNA would be the answer to this question, but there are other levels of control that need to be considered - the non-coding RNA, epigenetics, etc and other things we probably haven't even thought of yet", "so the answer is not finished, and it's not as easy, frankly, as I thought it would be at the beginning". Unfortunately this very fine distinction is not very clear to scientific lay people, but does warrant a clearer explanation of the anomaly than simply concluding it is definitely human. Unfortunately the testimony quoted exists behind a paywall for the film and is thus less convenient for reference, but that is no reason to make use of less authoritative sources like online news. MolBio7 (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Erm, well. Not to sure about the direct reports/direct testimony thing. We're supposed to use secondary sources mainly, per WP:PSTS. Using primary sources has to be done pretty carefully. Science or Nature or Scientific American and so forth would be good. New York Times or Discovery or Time would be OK too. HuffPost not so good, but marginally OK depending. HuffPost is big. There's the regular news sections, which I suppose are kind of reliable, and the blogs which I guess aren't too reliable, and this "Weird News" section which I guess is kind of infotainment and sort of in between. They probably wouldn't outright lie about stuff (although you never know) but I don't know whether or not they might slant stuff a bit to sensationalize. But we have to go with what we've got for now. I'm not too much up on the technical details of DNA sequencing, so I'd rather read stuff I can understand. They guy who did the DNA sequencing said (more or less) "It's not only human, it's a human from this particular Chilean population". I can understand that. Of course he could be wrong, and if so that'll come out eventually I suppose. If he did do the sequencing wrong, or the interpretation wrong, or whatever, and a notable person(s) said so according to a reliable source, we can make note of that within reason, being careful to avoid giving too much WP:WEIGHT to WP:FRINGE viewpoints. Herostratus (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just update french version with two new key points : New analysis from Gary Nolan 3 weeks after sirius documentary, and a new book with a 1933 picture call " the ATTA boy", Can't do the same here because of my english level, Sorry90.94.108.110 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record: Nolan explained in a March 2018 publication that "We previously reported that it was human by DNA analysis with an estimated bone age of about 6–8 yr at the time of demise." He goes on to explain the bone phenotype (appearance) seemed so, but identified genetic mutations made the fetal skeleton look like that: [1]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, this is really unusual!

Wow, this is like nothing I've ever seen before.

Ralph Lachman

A couple of editors have removed the quote box shown here, one with an edit summary of "rm quote: not encyclopedic nor very useful", one with an edit summary of "Removed unnecessary quote, giving a sensationalistic tone to the article, which is not called for".

OK, but the thing is, the Atacama humanoid is kind of interesting and unusual. Right? That is why there is an article. Ralph Lachman is a clinical professor at Stanford University and professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Medicine and co-director of the International Skeletal Dysplasia Registry at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. And he has studied the entity. So it's not just a quote from some random mook. And he did say it. So how can we handle this?

1. "Wow, this is like nothing I've ever seen before" -- Ralph Lachman Two editors have deemed this no OK, so I guess that's out.
2. Ralph Lachman said "Wow, this is like nothing I've ever seen before." This is pretty much the same thing, so I don't see this is helpful.
3. Ralph Lachman said "[T]his is like nothing I've ever seen before." Same, but the word "Wow" has been removed. Does this help?
4. Ralph Lachman said he had never previously encountered anything like the Atacama humanoid.
5. Ralph Lachman expressed the opinion that the entity was, in his experience, unique.
6. Nothing. Ralph Lachman's personal reaction is of insufficient interest.
7. Other, describe.

Well, which of these is it? Judging by the fact that the editors just removed the quote, I infer that it's #6, which is OK if that's what people want. My personal opinion is that reasonably erudite people have found the entity to be quite unusual and that's important to communicate, the quote does that, and that it's pithy and succinct is a feature and not a bug, but whatever. I just want to clarify that consensus is that Lachman's assessment (or reaction, if you will) is not worth reporting, or not. Herostratus (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to wait for the publicity to blow over, then rewrite the entire article per MEDRS/SCIRS (as much as possible) and FRINGE. If the research is truly ongoing, then there will be more and better sources to work from as well. --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article should be rewritten if and when a proper reviewed study appears, or as other info surfaces. In the meantime we need to report on the current state of knowledge, as readers will be coming here looking for info. I'm not familiar with MEDRS/SCIRS, but this seems more a archeological, biological, and cultural thing than purely medical, so I don't know as we'll need any special standard for refs beyond our our normal WP:RS requirements. Yes FRINGE should be avoided, e.g. the idea that the entity came from outer space is clearly not true and should be mentioned only to be dismissed; an editor or two has tried to cloud this fact and we may have to occasionally defend the article against that sort of thing. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't need Ralph Lachman's personal reaction. The uniqueness of this specimen should speak for itself. Sancho 06:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but if the entity is unusual, there's nothing wrong with making this clear and not leaving the reader to have to figure it out. We can't say "this thing is really odd" but we can report notable involved people saying that. For example, for WWII we can report "X million people died" and leave the reader to infer that WWII was pretty gruesome, but if a notable historian said "More people died in WWII than any other war" we can also report that and should, and that sort of thing is helpful to the reader for putting things in context, I think. Herostratus (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite and rename

I think the rewrite and rename are appropriate per the sources, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Personally I would have preferred Ata (anthropology) or something like that, since Ata is the common name, but I couldn't find anything suitable. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This source may be consulted by whoever cares to rewrite: http://paoloviscardi.com/2013/05/04/atacama-alien-mystery/ . The writer, Paolo Viscardi, is a natural history curator at the Horniman Museum in London. He notes that there are skeletal foetus specimens rather similar to Ata in museum collections. He gives perfectly reasonable and unmysterious explanations for the (perceived) peculiarities of Ata. Henryhood (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Human vs humanoid

Per WP:FRINGE, I don't know how "humanoid" can be justified. --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It can't. The skeleton has been positively identified as human by reliable scientific sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between human and humanoid? Human means person. Even chimpanzees are humans. 2620:101:F000:700:2D0E:269A:75BC:A5B6 (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No, a chimpanzee is not a human. A human is a member of the species homo sapiens. A person is a sapient being. There are groups that argue that chimpanzees are people, but you won't find anyone credible arguing that they are human. You might be confused because there are people who argue that chimpanzees are deserving of "human rights". Well, it was just a poorly-considered term, unfortunately. I imagine most people would agree that a sapient non-human being would be equally entitled to "human rights", so they should be called "peoples' rights" or something like that. But since the vast majority of people believe that the set of real-life people is equivalent to the set of real-life humans, the words are often used interchangeably outside of animal rights and sci-fi contexts. A humanoid is something that looks human but is not. C3PO, "greys", mermaids, neanderthals and even chimpanzees could be described as humanoid. It's not a technical term but a descriptive one. The only hard-and-fast rule is that a humanoid is not human, which would rule out the Ata skeleton. --69.172.156.69 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

the final sentence makes no sense

the final sentence is as follows

While ufologists have said they think that Ata is an extraterrestrial, this speculation is inconsistent with the human genetic material that is present in the remains.[1]

This sentence makes no sense because there is very few SNPs that are distinctively found in Homo sapiens and in no other species. One of which is in FOXP2 which gives Homo sapiens the ability to use language. A chimpanzee and a Homo sapiens shares 95% of DNA. The cited article does not specify any human specific SNPs found in Ata.

104.219.201.13 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

We also share most of our evolutionary history, as well as our environment of evolution, with chimpanzees. We would share 0% of our evolutionary history & evolutionary environment with any extraterrestrials. If you read the source article for the sentence, the DNA testing was thorough enough to not just show that the skeleton was human, but also that it was ethnically Chilean (at least through the mother's line). This makes an awful lot of sense given that the skeleton was found in Chile. I've updated the article to make it less confusing. --69.172.156.69 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but then there are something called 'hybrid'. I don't say it's really the case, but still, 91% is much less than a chimps, perhaps a cat shares with us. So the DNA unless is matching human, it's hardly a proof. After all, we managed to extract DNA from H.S.Neanderthalensis, and found the 0,5% difference between they and us. 62.11.0.22 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

More Human than Human?

I can see where Pgbrux (talk · contribs) is coming from. I don't think it is appropriate of wikipedia to presume tell people the Atacama remains are human in the first line, considering the skeleton has 10 ribs, is so tiny and looks ALIEN to anyone's eyes. How many 8 inch humans are there anyway? Is it an aborted fetus? did it really live to 8 years old? Probably there are more questions here than answers. Sure the "answers", theories and science that has been carried out can be communicated, but it seems greatly assumptive to simply default to communicate that this skeleton is human, when it is such an anomaly, and surely it is worth just accepting it as a mystery, worthy of further research as to HOW it came to exist and look the way it does. If this is a mutant human, perhaps it can show us how humans mutated or evolved ala Darwinism?

Probrooks (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It's what the scientists say. We're a mainstream encyclopedia and reflect mainstream science. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. To say it is something other than human would take extraordinary evidence, given what an extraordinary claim it is. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks "ALIEN" because aliens often look as humanlike as this in fictional movies and TV shows. And aliens look as humanlike as this in fictional movies and TV shows because

1. the writers lacked imagination,
2. the aliens are played by humans wearing masks.

Actually, we do not know what real aliens look like. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

But then there are also the '4th level' UFO sightings, a thing that you apparently forget. See Leonardo Zanfretta, as example.

"Both Nolan and Lachman emphasized that their research is not complete, as they proved that the specimen is human but still cannot explain all of its unusual characteristics."

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/05/20/professor-debunks-theories-of-skeletons-alien-origins/

Ok, I've inserted a link to this Stanford article after the word human, as when I first read it struck me as being extremely pre-emptive, and I think that claim needs backing up and explaining to people. I certainly don't think it should rammed in people's throats in the first sentence, as it is clearly stated to be only prelimineray research and only 90% of the DNA is actually considered human.

Probrooks (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE applies here. We reflect science, not conspiracy theories. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You call 'cospiracy theories' and 'science' anything you want, then, and use every wiki-policy that you may think it's adapted to your point (that is a POV even if fiercely negated). When Wikipedia started from a 1911 racist encyclopedia, several things were considered different than how are evalued today. Even P.Harbour attacks, not talk about 9/11, are still fiercely discussed among the historians (but fiercely deledet from wikipedia as well, sending them in the wikipages about some madmen who are labelled as cospiracy theorist). But it's always easy to call 'science' anything the systems like, and 'cospiracy theories' anything else. Ever read something from wikileaks, as example? Or some FOIA document? Or the famous Iraki WMD that started the 2003 war (and there was any of them left in Irak, strange..). If wikipedia is just condamned to repeat what the 'ufficial science' wants, then it's your opinion, but it's not absolutely the only possible wikipedia. Just the stuff that the 'system' wants to be told to us. As example, the 90% DNA 'human alike' is not absolutely proofing about the human identity of this creature. But there are so many wiki-authors, that simply don't like anything else rather than what CISCOP say. So they don't believe to UFO and then they don't like any proof eventually put in wikipedia articles. The most disturbing part is, that while other contributors are atleast sincere in their statements, as they share their POV or atleast, some research that they know is made. While many wikipedians are masking their own agenda and POV applying everywere the wikipedia pillars, stopping anyone to question some disputed facts. That's the simply problem.62.11.0.22 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You are free to start your own "encyclopedia" with no rules, or with any rules you wish to impose. Or contribute to any of the "encyclopedias" that already exist: See Category:Free internet encyclopedias. Complaining about the rules we have here will get you nowhere unless you can give a good reason for changing them. Up till now, you did not give any. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

When Wikipedia started from a 1911 racist encyclopedia... What. The. Ever. Loving. Fuck? Dude, seriously: You've got to tell me this one. For real. Tell me the story of how Wikipedia was started in 1911 as a "racist encyclopedia". I really want to hear this. I promise not to interrupt or anything. I won't even disagree with you, I just really want to hear this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I believe the intended reference is to the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica which, having fallen out of copyright, has been extensively ‘raided’ for free content here, particularly in the project’s early ‘growth phase’. (Note that {{EB1911}} has 12346 transclusions ATM.)—Odysseus1479 01:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: That is awesome. I have literally never heard that one before. I think that's got to be one of my favorite complaints about Wikipedia ever. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Paranormal category?

I can understand the wonder and "paranormal" categorization when the fetus was found and divulged. I question such classification in Wikipedia is still relevant and useful, since the genome analysis has been published and confirmed to be a mutated human fetus. It has been explained at molecular level and the related genes were identified. A natural (scientific) explanation has been offered that has prompted absolutely no challenge nor criticism from any corner of science or the paranormal crowd. Should the paranormal categories and Paranormal Project be deleted? BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per my argument above. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: it’s not as if reality has suddenly shifted, and at any rate proponents of the ET hypothesis are unlikely to be swayed by scientific details—claims of fraud & cover-up are sure to be made. It’ll cease to be “paranormal“ only when it disappears from the paranormally-oriented portions of popular culture.—Odysseus1479 21:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

A quick look does not yield any recent version of this article that contains the word "paranormal". (I only looked at ten versions, the earliest one of those was August 2017.) It seems this categorization has already been removed, if it ever existed. There is the Category:Alleged UFO-related entities, though. BatteryIncluded, were you talking about that one, or if not, can you please give a link to a version categorized as paranormal? Just in order to know what we are talking about here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: you're looking in the wrong place, look down at the bottom of this page. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. At the bottom of this page you see "paranormal articles". BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! This is about the categorization of the Talk page, not of the article.

By the way, I have set the Appearance to Cologne Blue, so the categories are at the top. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ethical concerns

See this. We should mention the concerns. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm reading the article now (see if you can spot the eye-popping mistake made by the author, btw). I plan on writing a bit about the ethics, tacking it on to where the criticisms of the study are already mentioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: nope, don't see it but I admit I didn't scrutinise it carefully. Thanks for your edit. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have missed it too, except I had just made a similar mistake myself (though I caught it).

"The paper concluded that Ata was a female of Chilean descent and was a developing fetus at the time of her death—which could have occurred before or immediately after pregnancy."

So Ata might have died before being the pregnancy? The pregnancy that occurs after conception? :0 I think the author might have meant "miscarriage" instead of pregnancy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Lede

I'm not real comfortable with the second paragraph of the lede, stating "Research in 2018 found that the skeleton showed normal fetal development." Right now, this is contested between the two 2018 papers. The second study is not much more definitive than the first, which found evidence of (well-known, it must be emphasized to distinguish this from any of the "alien hybrid" conspiracy theories) genetic abnormalities. I think we should say something about it being definitively human, contrary to the conspiracy theories, and then say that the most recent research indicates that it displays signs of normal fetal development, but that previous studies suggested it may have suffered from some dysplasia-related genetic conditions. I'm not opposed to a phrasing that lends more weight to the more recent study, I just think that the lede simply taking the results of the most recent study at face value might be too much weight. thoughts? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to summarize a little more of the body in the lead, please audit/amend as necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 00:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better. Glad to see I'm not the only one (because if I'm the only one taking issue with one of Doug's edits, I'm almost certainly way off base). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've no idea how I missed the fact that the earlier research was also this year. Doug Weller talk 09:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It's no big deal. I thought it would be (hence me posting here instead of editing it myself), but Paleo came along with balls of steel and just fixed it, and nobody threw a fit. Wikipedia in action, folks! This is how it's supposed to work. I didn't expect you tyo throw a fit, just figured it was likely some random skeptic would see me (who occasionally backs the woo crowd on some minor point) changing something you (a well-known skeptical admin) wrote and knee-jerk revert it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we're all "wikifriends" here and I too expect anyone to fix the lead if I messed it up. It's a pleasure to work with you all, —PaleoNeonate – 21:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I've spent too long in American Politics, it seems. I'm still having flashbacks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Currently working an expansion and update

Currently working this to do an expansion and update of the page. The beginning of the process was interupted by @User:MPants at work when they correctly reverted my initial edit. Yeah, it was unclear that I was starting something more than just separating out part of the lead into an About section. Should've noted here first but I spaced on that this time because I at first didn't intend on doing too much. However there is some 2018 stuff on this that's not included and I think will add to the quality.

Gonna try it again in a bigger chunk. That and this talk section ought to make my intention clearer. But hey, it's nice to see that people are paying attention to little Ata and the quality of the page. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to expand the "about" section to at least a good paragraph or two, I'm not going to object. Hell, I'll be happy to see it. :D But I do think we should leave the summarized description of what it is, and what it's notable for in the lede. It's okay to duplicate it lower down.

P.S. I would name the section "Overview", not "About". It's a little more encyclopedic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Just have some patience as I'll be working this today and tomorrow and if there is enough material out there possibly into next week. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. Take your time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

image

An editor removed the image of the skull (I restored it, for now) on the basis the source was sketchy... Not sure about that, was the image a photoshop or something like that? Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It's from a documentary film about the skeleton, showing foreshortening. See the photo from the New York Times for comparison, taken from a different angle.--Auric talk 13:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Atacama skeleton description wrong

The description of the atacama skeleton is all false information. Dr. Steven Greer had the skeleton analyzed and it turns out it had no forms of dwarfism found. This skeleton is not suffering from mutations as we think of them. Check your research it’s totally not correct information. Shouldn’t be spreading false truth Oregonbeauty (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Oregonbeauty How can truth be false? Anyway, Greer didn't get a DNA analysis and the science is clear, this is not an alien. Read the article. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, yes Steven Greer did have the DNA testing done as well as many other tests. It did not have dwarfism. You are spreading lies. Oregonbeauty (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Oregonbeauty Where can I read the peer reviewed report? Because the ones I see don’t agree with him. Doug Weller talk 21:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

complete 180

I just watched a video about this skeleton. In the video, it said that the skeleton could only be confirmed to be 91% human. The other 9% couldn't be accounted for. Also, it was the mitochondrial DNA tested that showed the mother was an indigenous Chilean woman. We don't know about the father. The scientists who did the examination and tests ruled out any deformities known to be in humans. So how do we suddenly have it proclaimed that the skeleton had scoliosis and dwarfism? Sounds like the scientists were pressured to change their conclusion or another scientist said what mainstream science wanted him to say instead of what the skeleton actually shows. This whole article's claims are a complete 180 from the original results and conclusions. It was determined that this is NOT a fetus, does NOT have any known deformities, and is likely to only be 91% human! Also, I saw no mention of the tooth that the skeleton had. How do you explain that in a fetus? Something smells fishy in Denmark. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:B0FA:8B8E:C9DB:82A3 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not base content on vague descriptions of unnamed videos from undefined sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And it would be an odd foetus if it didn’t develop teeth. Doug Weller talk 21:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Location of Ata

According to the CNN article cited in the page, Ata was located in a small nitrate mining town within the Tarapacá Region known as La Noria. There isn't an English Wikipedia page about La Noria, since other than this it doesn't have much significance. However this is an important fact to include within the article, because the circumstances of Ata are hypothesized to be due in part to prenatal nitrate exposure from the exploitation town. What would be the best way to go about adding this information? Pauliesnug (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)