Talk:Arlington Springs Man

message: In light of this latest development, I propose creation of an "Arlington Springs Man" article, and turning the "Arlington Springs Woman" article into a redirect page to the newly-created article.
NorCalHistory 02:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: An IP user has recently twice added material to the page that I have removed. The first paragraph:
The discovery of the Arlington Springs Man is significant because there was only one other find in North America which was a child burial that was dated to the same age, and also supports the theory that ancient people first discovered the new world by sailing down the Pacific Coast from Alaska. To date, the Arlington Springs Man is the oldest human to be discovered in North America
... is a duplication of existing content - the "oldest" find is already in paragraph 2 ("making the remains potentially the oldest-known human skeleton in North America") and the coastal migration theory is already in the 3rd para ("and lends credence as well to a "coastal migration" theory for the peopling of the Americas").
The second paragraph:
Also due to new advances with technology, such as laser mapping and ground penetrating radar scientists are now able to get a better understanding of what life was like during that time period. According to the National Park Service, scientists recently collected a series of soil cores that will help provide information about the geological and environmental history of the island.
.. is about possible future geological studies and I can't see how it's relevant here. If and when these studies are published, and if they contain any relevant new findings pertaining to the Arlington Springs Man, then we can add the relevant info at that time.
Tobus (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: The article has this incorrect. There was a single researcher  John R. Johnson who for a period of time thought it was a woman, but he later reversed his position.  John R. Johnson is the basically the leading researcher on ASM and if he currently says it is a man the article needs to assert that. I challenge anyone to find modern sources that say otherwise, and that are more authoritative than John R. Johnson. There is no controversy about this that I am aware of. Also, John R. Johnson says he is a Paleoindian. I can;t imagine anyone contradicting John R. Johnson on this point without a better source, and I struggle to come up with a better source than John R. Johnson.  He had the bones in his office for decades, is the primary researcher and leading authority on this topic. -- GreenC 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The revised assessments call him "probably" male, not definitively so. It's probably best to reflect that language. "Paleoindian" is somewhat jargony and I think the fact they are an Indigenous American should be emphasised. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely and probably doesn't mean 50/50 ambiguity ie. equally "most likely" female, which the source does not say. It deserves assertion throughout the article as male, with a section that discusses it in more detail, which is how it was. The term Paleo-Indian is used throughout sources here and elsewhere. We follow the sources. There is even have an article Paleo-Indians - I'm not sure what you mean by "jargon", this term means something more precise and meaningful than indigenous Americans.   -- GreenC 01:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I see: Special:Diff/1226158579/1226169290 .. that's alright. I still don't follow the "Paleoindian Indigenous American" because simply saying "Paleo-Indian" would presumably capture both meanings in a single term. -- GreenC 01:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender and Paleoindian