Talk:Luzia Woman

message: I'm glad someone finally created an article about Luzia. However, the Solutrean hypothesis does not address African migrations to South America. Twalls (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, it looks fine to me. Thanks! I've gone to a few other articles mentioning Luzia and added the Wikilink to this article. Twalls (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't mention it. There are surely still more to do. We should probably add a redirect/disambiguation page as well. Twalls (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just removed a couple of sentences that looked like unreferenced speculation (original research in other words) in the Solutrean paragraph. (pretty unlikely now if the recent stuff on genetics is correct anyway).--Doug Weller (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Solutrean hypothesis

message: Is that date radiocarbon years, or calibrated?  75.161.129.54 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Why is Luzia called Paleo-Indian if she is not an ancestor to the Amerindians? --Oddeivind (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Begging the question - the article does not say she is not an ancestor to 'the Amerindians'. The article gives sources that say she is paleo-Indian. But I think I've noticed another problem with the article, I'll have to look into it to see if it is a problem. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Indians call themselves Indians, we shouldn't be trying to change how they self-identify. And there's no reason to think she isn't an ancestor to the Indians. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Well, the article has been updated with latest data results of DNA sequencing and they have matched her DNA with other paleo-Indian samples such as Anzick Boy in North America. It also updated the cranial measurement theory that associated her appearance with Malenesians and Australian Aborigines as being a superficial assumption and not rooted in the DNA evidence.--47.154.81.208 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Amerindian 

message: Is this "Luzio" the same as our "Luzia"?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0023962
:That says "Previously, an ancient Paleoamerican female skeleton was found in the Planalto Central region of Lagoa Santa. She was named Luzia, the first American [7]. Because our male skeleton showed morphological similarities with Luzia, he was called Luzio. Indeed, Luzio has morphologic affinities with Luzia based on craniometric analysis". Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Luzio"? 

message: Given that the skull has been known for years, you'd think someone would have at least tried by now. 173.173.20.99 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any DNA evidence? 

message: Hi 188.108.231.111. Can you point to anywhere in MOS:ITAL or MOS:ITALIC where it says that we should italicise people's names? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 188.108.231.111, please stop simply reverting and discuss this. You are italicising the names of researchers, which we don't do, and you are changing Walter Neves's name to Walter Alves Neves. That is his middle name, but from looking at articles linked to from the University of Sao Paolo such as this, this, this, this and this, he is more generally known as Walter Neves, without the middle name. Please stop this disruptive reverting and discuss why you want to make the changes to badly. GirthSummit (blether) 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicisation of researchers' names /inserting Neves's middle name 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: "In November 2018, scientists of the University of São Paulo and Harvard University released a study that contradicts the alleged Australo-Melanesian origin of Luzia. The results showed that Luzia was entirely Amerindian, genetically.[23]" The problem with that conclusion is that it not based on the facts. You cannot prove the dna of 1 mummy over here, by proving the dna of 2 mummies over there. Luzia's dna has not been tested, so it is impossible that "The results showed that Luzia was entirely Amerindian, genetically". Now she may be 'entirely Amerindian, genetically', however that's not what the evidence shows. "Lagoa Santa remains from a site nearby to the Luzia remains carry DNA regarded as Native American." Genetic testing by proxy? 83.84.100.133 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure by what you mean that Luzia's DNA has not been tested. That's what the article in the main page said it was her DNA and that it was sequentially similar to other paleo fossils like Anzick Boy in North America.--47.154.81.208 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic Conclusions