Talk:Kennewick Man

message: I remember that the Tri-City Herald (the local newspaper) reported that some drunk guys had found him in the bushes during the hydroplane races, and they ran, thinking it was a murder scene.  Can anyone with the time and energy verify that? Sword 16:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: In terms of facial features, the only pre-Columbian North Americans who generally fit the mongoloid type are Eskimos. Chatters forgot to mention that. The term "pious fraud" comes to mind.
:I removed this from the article, added by the same anonymous user who wrote the above & without citation:
::For what it's worth, modern Indians generally have dolichocranic skulls and narrow, prognathous faces, but apparently the plaintiffs were unaware of this. In fact, many of the "differences" between Kennewick man and modern Indians actually end up with Caucasians between Kennewick man and East Asians, and either modern Indians either between Caucasians and Kennewick man or Kennewick man between modern Indians and Caucasians. Chatters et al. seem to have engaged in a type of pious fraud, particularly in the realm of prognathism; Caucasians are the most orthognathous racial category.
:If someone wants to clean it up and provide citation, I have no objection to its reinsertion.  Binabik80 04:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caucasoids and Mongoloids 

message: It is my opinion (also expressed by others) that one of the mistakes made early in the investigation of Kennewick Man was the use of the term "Caucasoid" to describe certain facial features (implied from skeletal measurement). This terminology is at best confusing to the public, and at worst, outright offensive. Caucasoid as used by Chatters, etc. was never intended as a synonym for Caucasian (or Caucasian a synonym for European), and both of these terms can have multiple definitions, depending on context (geography vs. general appearance vs. facial bone structure vs. ancestry).  
It was the contention very early on that the subject was similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples, following from the presence of specific "Caucasoid" skeletal features as is also found in those groups. It is made very clear in Chatters's book that Kennewick Man was not Caucasian and did not appear to be Caucasian, but rather something entirely different (and indeed rather different from any people on earth today). It was regrettable that the popular media could not distinguish the terminology, and thus regrettable that it was used outside a forensic setting.
As a result this excerpt is not precise enough to describe the issue, and is possibly misleading: 
"Further research, however, has shown that Kennewick Man is possibly not Caucasian at all. Rather, some researchers now suggest he most closely resembles Polynesian or Ainu peoples."
I will give the matter some more thought, but if no changes or discussion occur after a week or so, will probably edit this to read.
" The presence of forensic Caucasoid features inferred from measurements of the skull is not synonymous with a modern Caucasian appearance, nor does is it imply a European ancestry. Rather, researchers have used these measurements to suggest a skeletal similarity to Polynesian or Ainu peoples, both of which have features that are referred to as Caucasoid by forensicists. Further, while the match to these modern groups is strongest, some of Kennewick Man's facial metrics are much more similiar  to those from other Paleoindian (Paleoamerican?) examples than those from any modern human group." ref: Chatters, Ancient Encounters
I thought that the only time that a "Caucasian" origin was considered was from before a detailed examination was made, when the possibility of a 19th centrury settler was still a concern. This was ruled out very quickly.
I have mixed feelings about all this. The Caucasian/Caucasoid mess probably has to be addressed since it had an impact on events following the discovery of Kennewick man. Certainly, it isn't fair to the  first forensic scientists that studied Kennewick Man to suggest that they  thought that Kennewick Man was likely of European origin or appearance. Yet, it is understandable why people would think Caucasian when they hear Caucasoid. The comparison to Patrick Stewart's head did not help calm the controversy at all.  I admit that I am concerned about relying so heavily on Chatters's own account in this, but it is a clear account of what the thought was at the time as the data was coming in.
A link out to the forensic/ facial craniometry entries treatment of "Caucasoid" may be helpful. I am concerned about the extent that any of this can be subverted by some groups with a non-neutral point of view, but since they are already doing so on their own websites, trying to bring in more clinical perspective may help.
In summary, I would like to see it quickly explained that Kennewick man had certain facial metrics similar to specific groups around the Pacific; that these facial features are sometimes termed by forensicists to be Caucasoid, using a very distinct definition from that of the more general word, Caucasian; but overall Kennewick Man appears to be more similar to other Paleoamericans than to any modern humans. This is handled well in the following paragraph, but the sentence I am raising an issue with is not an effective lead-in. (Forgot to sign -- see below)
Edit: I am still mulling it over. The issue might be the use of "now" in that sentence to refer to an opinion reached several years ago, after which there has been more study. Thus it reads as if the more recent findings contradict earlier work that they actually substantiate. 24.58.1.138 02:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading use of Caucasian 

message: The article says that the bones were 'collected'.  Was there an archaeological excavation of the remains?  If not, why not?  Archaeologists have methods and techniques that allow them to gather much contextual information about the body, such as the hugely important question of was he buried or not? Was he interred in a grave or had he died alone of his wounds and gradually been covered by natural deposits?  
If he had been buried, there might have been grave goods, and dating evidence in the grave fill.  If the bones were 'collected' by someone unfamiliar with archaeological techniques, much important evidence may have been lost. 86.138.105.97 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaeological excavation?

message: how is it that the tribe could say that the evidence of a skull older than their tribe's beleife of the dawn of time count as persecution of their beliefs, while if a young earth creationist tried to say that the government accnoleging the age of the univerese to be 14 billion years old to be persecution of their beleifs would be laughed at?
I might be biased seeing as how indiginous australians acnolege that they have lived here for 40000 years, and some of them even have histories of arriving in australia from elsewhere. But the whole thing about pre european remains being automaticaly defined as belonging to a native american tribe just confuses me, as some of these regualtions go beyond recognition and allowence of practice of culture and seem to at least get very close to intergrating religous beleifs as law. Can someone please at least tell me if there exists any literature that will cure me of my confusion, that doesn't require having a preexisting knowelage of american history, and possibly gives comparisons to rights of native peoples in other countries? --124.168.200.78 (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what your asking (sorry, just being honest - maybe you could simplify it a bit?) but I think the controversy/confusion of the NAGPRA law as relates to this case is a result of a short-sighted assumption that any 'ancient' remains (meaning pre-1400s-European 'intrusion', for practical purposes) could naturally be assumed to be Native American ("Indian") ancestry; in other words the law assumes any remains found here that are thousands of years old must be related to some existing tribe. And, by default, a member of the tribe that occupied that land at the point in time of the European arrival...and from what I'm reading in this article and have seen on news media, Kennewick Man has thrown a monkey wrench into the legal works.The intent of NAGPRA was surely to offer some respect to the situation of native Americans being on the losing end of a major event of human migration, and to prevent further exploitation (for lack of a better word) of that unfortunate situation. And to show respect for the dead (remember, desecrating a grave or body is an offense in most cultures)...Of course, all this opens the possibility that groups, tribes, whoever, can play the 'religion card' in uncertain situations.The article states "The Umatilla have argued that their origin beliefs say that their people have been present on their historical territory since the dawn of time, so a government holding that Kennewick Man is not Native American is tantamount to the government's rejection of their beliefs."....Well..1) With respect, the Umatilla's current religious belief (that they have been in that geographic area since the 'dawn of time') flies in the face of the fact that most if not all Native American populations were in varying degrees nomadic - the Indians moved a lot over the centuries. 2) And anyway, "rejection" or "acceptance" of religious beliefs does not bear much on whether Kennewick Man was a member of that tribe....FWIW I think the 9th Circuit ruled correctly in Feb 2004. The Umatilla overstepped their bounds - they have no proof (or anything close to it) that KM was a Umatilla... Engr105th 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin belief 

message: Opening line:
Kennewick Man is the name for the skeletal remains of a prehistoric man found on a bank of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington, USA on July 28, 1996.
Only line in the third paragraph (just above the contents):
In July 2005, a team of scientists from around the United States convened in Seattle for ten days to study the remains, making many detailed measurements, and determined the cause of death.
I'm pretty sure the scientists didn't study it before it was discovered :P Porco-esphino (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which way do you normally conceive of time as flowing?  ClovisPt (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked my calendar, and yes, it does seem that 1996 was before 2005.  --Doradus (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates do not match 

message: I'm sorry this section is very vague and doesn't really say anything, it seems like a citation for the sake of citation.  There is nothing liking this citation to Kennewick Man.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.165.37 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet the paragraph above is about the same general topic and isn't even referenced.  Someone's removed the section, so I've simply added the reference to the paragraph about the debate over origins. It is clearly relevant and I don't understand why people think one bit about origins is relevant and another (the only referenced one) is not.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Research shows a Beringian entry for a single founding population

message: Last May Grundlkc (SPA, this is their only contribution) added a whole bunch of stuff from an article by Prof Glynn Custred. Custred is clearly by Wikipedia standards a reliable source, but he is also clearly a politically active academic with an axe to grind, and by relying on him so much I think this has given the article Custred's POV and he can't be considered a neutral participant in the debate - see for instance . Comments?--Doug Weller (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like Custred's contribution to the Kennewick Man case are arguments against political constraints on archaeological research. If that position intersects with his political opinions, I think that's fine. Certainly, his positions on other issues may be considered agenda-driven, but his contribution to the Kennewick Man discussion seems completely relevant.  Twalls (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custred edits & POV? 

message: The projectile was leaf-shaped, long, broad and had serrated edges, all fitting the definition of a Cascade point. This type of point is a feature of the Cascade phase, occurring in the archaeological record from roughly 5000 to over 8000 years ago.[7] 
What is a "projectile"? What is a "Cascade point"? What is the "Cascade phase"? 
I find the use of terms that your average reader isn't going to understand, within a article such as this, to be unnecessary. Why should a student have to work out what you mean by a "projectile"? If you mean that it is the stone tip or blade of a prehistoric weapon such as a spear or arrow, then say so. 
all fitting the definition of a Cascade point.
On the Cascade point page, it describes the these tools as "simple". Long, broad, worked both sides and with serrated edges is not a "simple" stone tool. This needs fixing.
Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity please

message: The following excerpt includes contradictory statements.  I'm not familiar with the subject so can't clean this up.  Can someone in the know address this?
typically associated with modern Native Americans, has been used as evidence to support these rival hypotheses. Recent (2008) research argues for a single migration. [8]
The recent (2008) research[8] references a mitochondrial DNA study in The American Journal of Human Genetics, which was based on currently living people. James Chatters had mitochondrial DNA studies done on ancient remains in North America and the results support multiple migrations in the Americas. 
--134.187.128.99 (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if we can find reliable sources labelling some as political and others as scientific. Editors can't make that sort of determination themselves. Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory Statements 

message: The first paragraph of this section ought to begin with the scientific significance of Kennewick Man. Instead it begins with basic details, which belong in the article, but fail to explain the significance of the find. Perhaps the details of the discovery could go in the introductory section, or in a section of their own? 24.217.231.76 (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Significance Section 

message: In this edit I reverted an addition of an external link.  The editor who originally added it was not , but rather  (Moxy was just self-reverting to let others weigh in).  Looking at the linked site, it does not appear to be authoritative (is not affiliated with any organizational authority, is not peer-reviewed, etc) and appears to advocate a particular POV very strongly - thus it fails WP:EL.  My guess is that it fails as a reliable source so adding content to the article citing that web page would also be unencyclopedic.  Best to find a reliable source instead.  -- Scray (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to "Kven..." site 

message: An image used in this article, File:Kennewickmanstanford.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Kennewickmanstanford.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, File:Kennewickstanford.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you for your donation of the image.Moxy (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ....Moxy (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Kennewickstanford.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: When I look up any research on the history and origins of the Polynesian peoples most studies point to their origins to the Malay region of South East Asia with a subset of groups colonizing various islands around the South Pacific. More importantly, the time-frame from which Polynesian peoples started to take route hover around the 1,000 - 900 B.C.E, not the time-frame from which Kennewick Man was estimated to exist. Did the researchers of Kennewick Man have another idea of the history of the Polynesian peoples? 71.118.89.60 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not state that Kennewick Man was Polynesian, but rather that he had craniofacial measurements that are shared by both Polynesian and Ainu groups. This does not mean that he was necessarily either, but rather, that he resembled members of those groups, at least in the shape of his head and face. This still leaves alot of variability regarding other phenotypic features, such as skin color, hair texture, eye shape and color, etc. If Kennewick Man could be positively attributed to either (or both) of those groups, it still does not mean he was a Polynesian, or that he came from the Polynesian people. Given the time frames, it would more likely mean that Kennewick Man, the Ainu, and the Polynesians came from another as yet unknown, more ancient group of people. At this stage, and without more on DNA, one could say that Kennewick Man's group, the Polynesians, and the Ainu were/are sibling-groups, with an older and as-yet unknown/undiscovered parent group. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of Polynesian, think Austronesian. Although many of them lived in Sundaland at one point, a prevailing theory is that they began in Taiwan, and before that, they were on the Asian mainland, before the modern Chinese. Kortoso (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polynesian? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:KennewickMan Photo replacement request.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: In the Craiofacial diagram picture  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coollikethisyo (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because the Yamato people, the largest group of Japanese, have evolved with very little admixture with mainland Asia over the last 2,000 years (since the Yayoi period). Therefore they may have developed craniometric traits distinct from other Asian groups. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Japan seperate from Asia 

message: I cannot make sense of the following sentence:
:anthropologist Glynn Custred of California State University East Bay said expert on Asian populations physical anthropologist C. Loring Brace of University of Michigan believed people related to the Jomon came before the modern Indian and that "two varieties of American Indian arose from the former being absorbed by the latter with the Plains Indian resembling the older group
Who is "the former", who "the latter", who "the older group"? AxelBoldt (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, if this is just rephrasing Brace, shouldn't we be sourcing it from Brace? Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we should. And since Brace is already quoted twice in the article, I'll remove this paragraph for now. AxelBoldt (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: Isn't this article pushing the Ainu (who weren't going to exist until many thousands of years after Kennewick Man) too much?Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The Ainu are a remnant population descended from the Jomon, who provided a lot of the genetic heritage of the modern Japanese.  Jomon skeletons have been found to possess Haplotype D1, shared with Native Americans such as 12,000 - 13,000 year old Naia.  Jomonoids are very much in play as a source population for Haplotype D1 in the Americas.50.25.211.177 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is very old, but I was intrigued by this finding and had a look. In fact that reported Jomon D1b was negative for the coding region mutation C2092T which marks the Native American type (D1 proper), and only shared the recurrent control region mutation T16325C, which is probably not coincidentally also found in D4h2, known from both Jomon and modern Ulchi. So there is no evidence for a closer relationship to Native Americans than in other Northeast Asian D4, or in other words this reported D1 has not been demonstrated to really fall within the D1 clade, only within D4. Megalophias (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ainu and [[WP:UNDUE]] 

message: From "Findings", paragraph 5: "Furthermore, Powell said that dental analysis showed the skull to have a 94 percent chance of being a Sundadont group like the Ainu and Polynesians and only a 48 percent chance of being a Sinodont group like that of North Asia." How can the sum of the two probabilities exceed 100%? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was poor wording.  It has been corrected.  The percentages were percentages of consistency between the teeth and the two categories Sundadont and Sinodont.  They are independent of each other, not required to add up to 100%.75.111.54.141 (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dental analysis 

message: Pertinent new articles:
*"The Kennewick Man Finally Freed to Share His Secrets"  by Douglas Preston, Smithsonian Magazine, September 2014
*Scientists: 'Kennewick Man' might have been Asian by Joel Achenbach, Washington Post, August 25, 2014 (via Tri-City Herald)
*New Book on Kennewick Man Details Hard Life in Paleoamerica, NMNH 2014
These are all based on the new book  Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton, edited by Douglas W. Owsley and Richard L. Jantz. Link to publisher page
I've started updating, but more is needed. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs to get the book! Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. I should have mentioned that Preston is a novelist, even if writing for the Smithsonian. We need to use the source or peer reviewed commentary on the source. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article update needed 

message: Should this page mention the theories of Japanese-Valdivia culture contact?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.207.26 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if they've been written about in connection with KM in several academic sources. Sources need to discuss Kennewick Man, and we need multiple to show it's significant enough to pass WP:UNDUE. But I can't think of why you'd find academics suggesting it as the dates are wrong. Betty Meggers was suggesting contact between 3000 and 2000, about 4000 years after KM died. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valdivia 

message: See WP:RSN#Kennewick Man - using an unread book as a source. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of novelist's summary and an unread book now at RSN 

message: From the new journal PaleoAmerica 2015 VOL. 1 NO. 1 "Kennewick Man Two Decades Later" reviewed by Karl L. Hutterer
A generally favorable review, but:
"It is impossible to say how his specific morphological characteristics would stack up within the range of variability of a population. This is particularly important in terms of imputed genetic relationships with other populations for whom the values used in comparisons are usually based on means derived from broader population samples. Kennewick could well have been an outlier within his own group. For the other, the date of Kennewick Man is really rather late. Current consensus puts the likely date of the coastal colonization of the Americas from northeast Asia at about 15,000 cal yr BP. That allows for a good long time for founder effect and genetic drift to be active and to shape what could be small population isolates in the expanding Paleoindian world. In the end, the volume’s painstakingly drawn picture of Kennewick Man amounts to a portrait of a mystery person for whom we have no family information"
"Recently published DNA analyses of human remains from the New World older than Kennewick Man establish clearly that the sampled individuals are ancestral to contemporary Native Americans, strong morphological differences notwithstanding"
Doug Weller 12:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book review 

message: It seems to me that this article sidesteps what was a major factor inciting interest about Kennewick Man:  the declarations that his features were "Caucasoid" and the conclusion drawn by many that the earliest inhabitants of the New World may have been of Caucasian rather than Mongolian appearance.   It is difficult to understand the controversies surrounding Kennewick Man without taking into account racial undertones.  I would propose to add a paragraph or two on this subject and to mention it also in the summary paragraphs. Smallchief (talk  14:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The race factor

message: Hello, 
I am reviewing Wikipedia pages as assigned by my Environmental Science class to get acquainted with writing proper Wikipedia articles. In regards to neutrality, the article in general had a variety of perspectives from multiple sources providing an unbiased view of the facts around this controversial topic. Despite using info from news companies such as Crosscut and BBC the sources were mostly reliable and scientific in nature. Additionally, the page includes critique of some of the studies referenced which includes ,pre perspective and layers to the story. The page however includes questions about the conflict of interest that this conundrum involved but does not include any sources weighing in on the conflict in itself. I believe that including a question inherent in the case without providing personal or cited perspective is an unnecessary addition. Furthermore, at the bottom of the first paragraph the sentence "In June 2015 the team announced their conclusions" references a team that was not previously mentioned or given citation and is therefore confusing to the reader. On a side note there is a typo under the Race Factor section, instead of saying "used Kennewick Man to claim that Caucasians came to American well before Native Americans" I believe it should say used Kennewick Man to claim that Caucasians came to America well before Native Americans. All in all the article was very well wrote and backed with great scientific evidence and multiple perspectives. Thank you for reading. Washman360 (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Review 

message: The introduction says: "In June 2015, scientists at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark determined through DNA from 8,500‑year-old bones that Kennewick Man is, in fact, related to modern Native Americans, including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation from the region in which his bones were found.[9] The international team of scientists communicated that finding to the Army Corps of Engineers in 2013.[9]" If the scientists made the finding in 2015, they couldn't have time-traveled back to 2013 to inform the Army Corps. Either the wording is unclear, or the dates are wrong. What's going on? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked the wording to clarify the sequence.--Auric talk 08:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentance was still weird because it said the researchers had communicated something in 2013 that they only found in 2015. I added "it was made public that" to make it clear that the findings had happened earlier but the public only found out in 2015. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that was completely necessary, as it was perfectly clear (to me) that they "had" communicated the information earlier and only released it later. I'm still not sure why the Army were the first notified. --Auric talk 23:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The investigation concluded in 2013, they had preliminary results, and notified the Corp who had legal jurisdiction over the bones, and who (probably) commissioned the study. Then the lab began writing a peer reviewed paper, and this took two years, when it was published in 2015 in the journal Nature. -- GreenC 06:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with dates in the intro 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by BellaGoose (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ANTR 8 World Prehistory in Archaeological Perspective

message: If DNA tests showed that Kennewick Man showed the greatest genetic affinity with modern-day indigenous peoples of Central America and South America, why is this basic information, which anyone visiting this article could expect to find here, not mentioned in the text of the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reliable source backing up your claims? A09 (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic affinities 

message: Our article states:
:the absence of peer-reviewed articles published prior to Owsley unveiling the bones' "secrets" 
This is from a 2012 source. The Owsley source was published (finally) in 2014. However in 2012 Owsley dropped some preliminary results which is what the 2012 is criticizing. The question is if the Owsley report, in its final form in 2014, is peer reviewed?  Our article, and the sources, are not clear. If not peer reviewed, this is a major criticism. If it was peer reviewed, that 2012 source is outdated and somewhat misleading to the reader. -- GreenC 22:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owlsley peer review? 

message: The picture in the infobox is a plastic skull cast, created by Chatters. Someone has tagged the Commons image as possibly fraudulent, but this is based on no evidence. On the contrary, copies of the skull are available for sale here it is fairly inexpensive. There must be 100s floating around in living rooms, local museums and wherever. And the skulls appear to be exactly the same, compare the damaged hole underneath the right eye. -- GreenC 22:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull cast picture 

message: They never postulated that the man was from Europe. They said he was possibly related to the Ainu who are not white! DNA debunked that Claim and he is entirely or Indigenous Ethnic American DNA and ancestral to modern day Native American people, and the Colville tribe whose dna was sampled.
Kennewick man NOT White or European 2600:8802:571F:2700:8022:3CC4:6F6C:557C (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct thats what the article says. Moxy🍁 03:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Some people did postulate he was European: : "Some other people argued that [Kennewick man] has Caucus traits, so he could be related to Europeans,” said geneticist Eske Willerslev. You can Google "Kennewick Man" and "European" for other sources that "postulated that the man was from Europe". They are of course wrong, as our article unambiguously says, but it was postulated.  -- GreenC 03:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  They never postulated that the man was from Europe